The history & vindication of the loyal formulary, or Irish remonstrance ... received by His Majesty anno 1661 ... in several treatises : with a true account and full discussion of the delusory Irish remonstrance and other papers framed and insisted on by the National Congregation at Dublin, anno 1666, and presented to ... the Duke of Ormond, but rejected by His Grace : to which are added three appendixes, whereof the last contains the Marquess of Ormond ... letter of the second of December, 1650 : in answer to both the declaration and excommunication of the bishops, &c. at Jamestown / the author, Father Peter Walsh ...

THE First Treatise. OR THE NARRATIVE Of Matter of FACT, relating to, and in the Dublin Assembly, or General Congregation of the Roman-Catholick Clergy of the Kingdom of Ireland, Convened in the said City the 11^th of June, and Dissol∣ved the 24^th, 1666. (Book 1)

The INTRODƲCTION.

ALthough it be no wonder in History, nor a thing strange, new, or unaccustomed, to see Congregations of Clergy-men, and even very formal, very great and holy Councils of Bishops, Archbishops, Primats, Patriarchs, nay, and of Popes too, pre∣siding personally in many of them, licensed by Princes of a dif∣ferent Religion and Communion, to convene, debate, and con∣clude freely, even their own Ecclesiastical Affairs only, and as well in point of Religion,* 1.1 as Discipline (where∣of those in the Margent are sufficient instan∣ces; that I may pass over several others, and particularly all those held under Constantius the Arrian Emperour; and even that of Ari∣minum, which was a very General Council of both Greeks and Latins, and, for number of Bishops, well nigh as great as any ever yet assembled in the Church:) and although con∣sequently we must not wonder to see the Ro∣mish Clergy of this Kingdom, permitted by His MAJESTY, and by His Grace the LORD LIEUTENANT, to meet to∣gether in Dublin at this time, for an end so nearly and highly concerning the Publick Peace and Safety, as a Declaration to be Subscribed by the said Clergy, of their indis∣pensable, faithful, real, true and sincere Allegiance to His MAJESTY in all Temporal matters; (and in all cases of contingencies whatsoever, against all For∣reign, or Domestick pretensions, or designs) should amount unto; yet I am per∣suaded, no prudent man (not even of the Roman Religion) either of this, or any after Ages, when throughly acquainted with the strange carriage of the late Nati∣onal Congregation of the Irish Clergy at Dublin, will scruple much to ascribe it to those fatal Influences of 1666.

However, I have thought it worth my Labour, whil'st my remembrance is fresh of those Transactions wherein I have my self been all along not an Observer onely, but an Actor, to give all the material particulars to Posterity, as they hapned, without adding or diminshing, excusing or condemning, in this Relation or Nar∣rative any thing or person. For that of my own Judgment, at least for what con∣cerns the Congregation it self, I reserve for a more proper place, the following Treatises: wherein as acting of purpose the part of a Divine, I must declare that which I intend not in this first Treatise, where I assume only, or principally the parts of an Historian: I mean still for what concerns that Congregation.

But to give the Reader a full and clear prospect into all, I find it necessary to begin where the first occasion of that meeting began. And further, and because that occasion brought forth a great variety of disputes, and some troubles too amongst that Clergy those few years past, the knowledge of which may be useful, not only to understand the intrigues happened in the foresaid General Congregation, and the causes of such intrigues, but also to other just and lawful ends: and because al∣so a satisfactory Narration of these disputes and troubles, must needs take up near a hundred sheets, if not more: I have moreover thought it not amiss, but much to the Readers greater facility of readily finding out, or turning to that what ever he would be at, to divide this first Treatise into two Parts. Whereof the first part followeth.

The First Part OF THE FIRST TREATISE

The ARGUMENT.

THe Procuratorium sent to Father Peter Walsh. The persons that sent and sign'd it. The causes of their sending or signing, and first use made by him thereof. The Remonstrance of 61. and occasion of it. The sign∣ing at London of this Remonstrance. The first Exceptions against it, of its un∣expediency, occasioned The more ample Account. The next of uncatholickness, Loyalty asserted. How the Bishops stood affected. Bishop of Ardaghs Letter approving it. Archbishop of Tuams answer to Dromore. Letters of Cardinal Francis Barbarin, and of the Internuncio of Bruxels condemning it. The Procura∣tour come to Ireland, finds out all the intrigues and general conspiracy against it. What Peter Aylmer did. Use made of the Queens Chaplains not having signed. Sixteen several pretences for not signing. As many heads of answers which the Procurator made to their excusatory pretences. No uncatholickness pretended amongst the objections. The Procurators charging them continually with unconscientious∣ness. He perswades some to sign: To the rest he writes. The names of the Sub∣scribers in Ireland. A General Congregation desired by the Bishop of Meath and others. The Dominican Chapters Letter and Remonstrance, and other mat∣ters relating to them, especially to their Provincial. Augustinians. English Chap•••••• Letter from London approving the Remonstrance of 61. William Bur∣gat Vicar General of Imly. Iohn Burk Archbishop of Tuam landed at Dublin, preached unto by the Procurator. The Jesuits. The Queries mad by them, and Resolves of the Procurator. Their several Remonstrances. They, as all the rest, decline alwayes the question of right. The Procutator meets the Franciscans at Multifernan. Their resolution there. Their Provincials concurrence to, and appro∣bation of the Remonstrance of 61. His latter to the Duke. The Dukes Letter to Mr. Walsh The Nobility and Gentry subscribing at Dublin. Their Letter to the Co••••ityes. Its ••••op Wexfordians signing the Remonstrance Cen••••e of Lo∣vaine sollici••ed by Father, John Brady, and procured by the Intern••••••tio. The first considerable effect of this Censure, or the Franciscan Subscribers s••••••••••d. Their answers to the summons. Four grounds of the said Censure: and answers to the•• More Remonstrances. Proclamation issued against some Regular▪ The Procurator being return'd to England, the Bruxels Internuncius, arrived a•••• at London ••••cognite, discourses with him, and Father Chron for three ••••••tre? and offers ••••de them by him. His desires after from Bruxels by worn of ••••••th, and by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 The Procurators Answers to him in two several Papers. The Fran∣ciscans Remonstrance from Killihy.

I.

THe first winter following the Kings most happy Restaurati∣on, in the year 1660. the chief Persons and Prelates of the Catholick Clergy of Ireland, then at home in that Countrey, being from London, and by Letters from F.P.W. put in mind of their duty, and of the many causes the generality of that Irish Clergy had above all other Subjects of their Church, in any of the three King∣doms, to make their timely, and both gratulatory and supplicatory addresses to His Majesty; least otherwise their former carriage in the late unfortunate Rebellion of that Kingdom in 41. and both in the re∣jection of the Peace of 46. and transgression (by many of them also) of that other of 48. might argue their silence and non-addresses did not so much proceed from want of civility and humanity (or even of confidence either in themselves to make such addresses, or in the most accessible, exo∣rable, and merciful of Princes, for what concern'd his taking such in good part) as from that would be suspected by others infallibly, their want of true joy for his Majesties return, or of good wishes for his establishment: Edmond Relly, Archbishop of Ardmagh, or the Primate of that Church in Ireland, made by Innocent the 10th. (some nine years since) and Anthony Ma∣geoghegan Bishop of Meath, being the only Bishops of their Religion then in Ireland (excepting only one more, that was many years before, and is still, bed-rid, and was not then accessible by reason of the times, and place wherein he was, D. Owen Swiny Bishop of Killmore) together with Iames Dempsy, Vicar Apostolick of Dublin, and Capitulary of Kildare, Oliver Dese, Vicar General of Meath, Cornelius Gaffney, Vicar General of Ardagh, Barnaby Barnwal Superiour of the Capucins, Father Browne Superi∣our of the Carmelits, and Father Iohn Scurlog, Prior of the Dominicans at Dublin, signed an Instrument of Procuration, and sealed it with the Seals of their respective Dignities and Offices, whereby they constituted the said Fa∣ther Walsh their Agent and Procurator to His Majesty, and great Ministers, to kiss His Majesties hands in their behalf and name, &c. Giving him more∣over all the power, authority and jurisdiction they could to act for them, and the rest of the Clergy and Catholicks of Ireland, and to do all things he should find expedient, in order to obtain what favours His Majesty should think fit by connivence or otherwise, for the exercise of their Religion, and to save them from persecution on that account. To which Instrument of Procura∣tion many others afterwards did subscribe, and put their Seals, as soon as they saw it; in particular, the Bishop of Dromore, and the Bishop of Ar∣dagh, with their own hands, and the Bishop of Ferns, by his proxy, and special Commission from Spain to that end. That the rest of the chief Superi∣ours of the Clergy in other parts of Ireland did not, the reason was given, that the times then, when it was done, and sent to London, were such, as no Messenger would undertake to go about with the Instrument; and to meet together it was impossible; and all thought it sufficient for all, that the Pri∣mate, and those other Bishops, and Vicars General had already done it; especially whereas it was known that the Primate himself drew that Instru∣ment. Which I thought fit to insert here word by word as it is in the ori∣ginal writing. To the end some persons, who are yet unsatisfied in this mat∣ter, may see what warrant the said Procurator had from the Clergy them∣selves to act for them, and urge them far more yet then he hath, to do themselves right.

In Dei nomine Amen.

Sciant vniversi per praesentes quod nos qui huic instrumento Procuratorio sub∣scripfimus eligendum duximus, sicut per praesentes eligimus, nominamus, facimus et constituimus Reverendum admodum et venerabilem virum Fratrem Patrem Pe∣trum Valesium, Ordinis Sti Francisci Re∣collectum, S. Theologiae Lectorem &c. no∣strum Procuratorem, Agentem, et negotio∣rum Actorem et Gestorem: ut nostro omni∣um nomine, et vice osculetur Sacras ma∣nus Serenissimi Domini Regis nostri Caroli II. congratuletur{que} ejus felici et faustae in∣augurationi, et ingressui in sua Regna, Monarchiam et Imperium: Eidem{que} Sere∣nissimo Domino Regi vota et preces nostras humiliter offerat, et praesentet: et coram sua Sacra Majestate, Judicibus, Commissio∣nariis, Delegatis, et Ministris quibus∣cum{que} ab eodem Serenissimo nostro Rege, ad id deputatis aut deputandis, proponat, a∣gat, sollicitet, et promoveat causam Catho∣licorum et libertatis sive tollerantiae exerci∣tii Religionis Catholicae, in hoc regno Hi∣berniae. Ʋt saltem procuret nobis eas conditiones, favores et gratias, quae in Ar∣ticulis Pacis et Reconciliationis an. 1648. compositae, ratae, et confirmatae inter Excel∣lentissimum Dominum Marchionem Ormo∣niae et Confederatos Catholicos, pactae et promissae nobis fuerunt: omnia{que} alia proponat, agat et concludat nostro omnium nomine, quae in ordine ad dictam sollicita∣tionem et Agentiam necessaria aut condu∣cibilia fuerint. Proinde damus eidem venerabili et Rdo. admodum Patri omnem potestatem, Authoritatem, et Iurisdictio∣nem, in quantum possumus aut debemus, ut ad debitum effectum perducat pacem, tranquillitatem et quietem Religionis Ca∣tholicae in hoc Regno: Rogantes ut eidem credentia et fides abundé in omnibus ha∣beâtur. In quorum fidem has signaturis et sigillis nostris muniri fecimus, Primo Jan. 1660.

In the name of God Amen.

Be it known to all men by these pre∣sents, that we who have subscribed this Procuratory Instrument, have thought fit to elect, as we do by these presents elect, name, make, and consti∣tute the very Reverend man Father Peter Walsh, Recollect of the Order of St. Francis, and Reader of holy The∣ology, &c. our Procurator, Agent, Actor and Doer of our affairs: that in all our names and place he may kiss the Sacred hands of our most Serene Lord and King, Charles the Second, and congratulate his happy and fortunate inauguration, and ingress into his King∣doms, Monarchy and Empire: and that he may humbly offer and present unto the same most Serene Lord and King our vows and prayers: and that before his Sacred Majesty, Judges, Commissioners, and Delegats, and o∣ther Ministers soever, deputed already, or hereafter to be deputed by the same our most Serene King, he may propound act, sollicit, and promote the cause of Catholicks, and of the liberty or tole∣rancy of exercise of Catholick Religi∣on in this Kingdom of Ireland. That at least he may procure to us those con∣ditions, favours, and graces, which in the Articles of Peace and Reconciliation, in the year 1648. compounded, ratified, and confirmed betwixt the most excel∣lent Lord Marquess of Ormond and the Catholick Confederats, were conditio∣ned for and promised to us. And that he may propound, act, and conclude in all our names all other things, which in order to the said sollicitation and Agency shall be necessary or conducing.

Therefore we give the same venera∣ble and very Reverend Father all pow∣er, authority, and jurisdiction as much as we can, or ought, that he may bring to a good issue the peace, tranquillity, and quiet of Catholick Religion in this Kingdom: praying that credence and beleef may be given him abun∣dantly in all things. In witness where∣of we have strengthned these with our subscriptions and Seals 1. of Ian. 1660.

Edmundus Archiepiscopus Ardmachanus totius Hiberniae Primas. Fra. Anto∣nius Episcopus Medensis: Fra. Oliverus Episcopus Dromorensis. Patricius Epis∣copus

Ardaghadensis 1665. Cornelius Gaffneus Vic. Gen. Ardachaden. Oliverus Dese Vic. Gen. Medensis. Ego Jacobus Cusacus S. Theologiae D. fretus authoritate et commissione speciali Rmi D. Nicholai Episcopi Fernensis, huic instrumento Procura∣torio, ejusdem Illmi. ac Rmi D. Episcopi nomine subscribo, die 8. Sep. 1662. Iacobus Dempsy Vic. Apostolicus Dublinensis &c. Fra: Ioannes Scurlog Ord. Praedicatorum. Fra. Barnabas Barnewallus Ord. Capucinerum. Fra: Paulus Brownus Carmelita Discalocatus.

When the said Peter Walsh had in the same month of Ian. 1660. according to the English stile (for it was 61. according to the Roman) received this Instrument at London by the hands of the Reverend Father Antony Gearnon, of St. Francis's Order, and shewed it immediately to my Lord Lieutenant, although as he expected, he was soundly checked by His Grace, for daring to receive such an Instrument from such men, that is men, as to the generality and chief of them, formerly and lately too so charactered as they were, for being in their inclinations and carriage very much disaffected to His Majesties inte∣rests, and very obnoxious to the laws; yet he ceased not ever after upon all good opportunities to act for them, and all the rest of the Irish Clergie of their communion, indifferently and without any distinction, and endeavour to worke their peace as well with His Grace as with His Majestie, and His Ma∣jesties other great Ministers; and, for the rest of the Catholick people of Ireland, that ease and connivence he could, for what concerned the exercise of their Religion. Nor onely that, but as occasion offered, by writing and print∣ing, and exhibiting to His Majestie, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Lord Chan∣cellour of England, and other great Ministers of State several papers and books in Print and otherwise, of his own labours to move the performance of the Peace of 48. to the Catholicks of Ireland, and to mind His Majestie of his justice to Innocents, and of His mercy to Nocents.

But in the first place laboured opportunely and importunely till he prevai∣led at last to get all the great number of Priests released, which had been in several places and Provinces of Ireland in restraint, about six-score of them, and a great many for several years before His Majesties happy Restauration. Wherein he was so impartial to all, that although he was offered several times the release of such of those Priests as he would pass his word for, that they had been honest all along in the Royal cause during the late difference betwixt the Confederats of Ireland; yet he modestly and patiently declined that sa∣vour, and let those his own special friends suffer with the rest, until His Ma∣jesties Gracious condescension, and my Lord Lieutenants goodness looked in∣differently upon them all with an eye of compassion and mercy: upon hopes given His Majesty that they would all prove faithful Subjects evermore.

II.

The year 60. and 61. being passed over till the winter came, and the hopes of Roman Catholicks for what was moved in their behalf in the House of Lords at Westminster (concerning the repeal of laws against them, at least (and in the first place) of those are called Sanguinary) being blasted in the bud: and the example of the late Irish Rebellion, and breach of both peaces in 46. and 48. by some or many of those of that Religion and Nation, ha∣ving (besides other arguments and intrigues) being made use of against such as moved for such repeal: and the Parliament of England being adjourned or prorogued, and that of Ireland then under the Lords Justices, the Chan∣cellour, the Earls of Orrery and Montrath sitting, and a great plott amongst the Irish Catholicks so falsly imposed upon them, grounded on the no less false and vain pretence of a letter sent by one Priest to an other, but contrived onely by a perfidious fanatick impostour, as appeared soon after: and that Parliament of Ireland however, and Lords Justices upon this ground proceeding with strange and new severity against both Clergie and Layety of that Religion:

and some few of the Catholick Gentry and Clergie consulting together at Dublin of a remedy, Sir Richard Barnewal, Richard Beling Esq Thomas Tyr∣rel Esq Oliver Dese Vicar general of Meath, Father James Fitz Simons Guar∣dian of the Franciscans at Dublin, and others: it was resolved upon at last to Remonstrate their condition to His Majestie, and Petition his just and merci∣ful regard of them that suffered so unjustly. Which accordingly the said Mr. Beling drew in the name of the Catholick Clergie of Ireland. Because the de∣sign was chiefly imposed on them, and upon their account the Layety suffered.

But forasmuch as he considered that a bare Remonstrance of their suffe∣rings or a bare Petition of redress could not much avail a people that lately had acted as they had done in obedience to the Nuncio, both he and the rest of those gentlemen with whom he consulted, found it necessary by a Solemn Declaration of their principles in point of obedience in temporal things, to obstruct the grand objection of The inconsistency of Catholick Religion, and of a tolleration of it with the safety of a Protestant Prince or State. Which was the reason that one of those Gentlemen remembring they had lately seen a printed Declaration of the Catholicks of England, in their name exhibited in a long Petition to the Parliament at Westminster a little before, or in the be∣ginning of the commotions of those Kingdoms, about the year 1640. and lighting on the book after diligent search, wherein they had read it; which is that of Father Cressy an English man and a Benedictine Monke, sometime before Protestant Dean of Leighlin in Ireland, entituled his Exomologesis, or the motives of his conversion to the Catholick Church: and having brought it to Mr. Beling, he judging it very proper for the present matter and purpose of the Catholicks and Clergy of Ireland, and much pleased to have such a precedent as that of men so learned and wary as the Catholicks of England, for a business or Declaration of that kind, extracted it word by word out of the said book pag 76. 77. and 78. Paris impression, without any other change but of the Application to the King instead of the Parliament, and of Ireland instead of England, and inserted it in that Remonstrance which he then drew for his own Countrymen. Which although it hath been often already, and in several pieces of mine published in Print; yet forasmuch as it was that which occasioned this general Congregation at Dublin of the said Irish Clergie in 66. five years after it was in their names exhibited to His Majestie at Lon∣don: and because peradventure many would consider the tenour of it, when they come to read this present Treatise and other Treatises following: to free them of a trouble to looke after those other pieces wherein it is, I have thought fit to give them it here again to their hand.

To the KINGS most Excellent Majesty, The humble Remonstrance, Acknowledgement, Protestation, and Petition of the Roman Catholick Clergy of Ireland.

YOur Majesties faithful Subjects, the Roman Catholick Clergy of your Majesties Kingdom of Ireland, do most humbly Represent this their present state and deplorable Condition.

That being intrusted by the undispensable Commission of the King of Kings with the cure of Souls, and the care of their Flocks, in order to the Administration of Sacraments, and Teaching the People that perfect obedi∣ence which for Conscience sake they are bound to pay to your Majesties Commands, they are loaden with Calumnies, and persecuted with Severity.

That being obliged by the Allegiance they owe, and ought to swear unto your Majesty, To reveal all conspiracies, and practices against your Person and Royal Authority that come to their knowledge, they are themselves clamour'd against as Conspirators, plotting the destruction of the English among them, without any ground that may give the least colour to so foul a crime to pass for probable, in the judgment of any indifferent person.

That their Crimes are as numerous and divers as are the Inventions of their Adversaries: and because they cannot with freedom appear to justifie their Innocency, all the fictions and allegations against them are received as un∣doubted verities: and, which is yet more mischievous, the Laity, upon whose Consciences the character of Priesthood gives them an influence, suffer under all the crimes thus falsly imputed to them: it being their Adversaries principal design, That the Irish, whose Estates they enjoy, should be re∣puted persons unfit, and no way worthy any Title to your Majesties mercy.

That no wood comes amiss to make Arrows for their Destruction; for as if the Roman Catholick Clergie, whom they esteem most criminal, were, or ought to be a society so perfect, as no evil, no indiscreet person should be found amongst them, they are all of them generally cryed down for any crime, whether true or feigned, which is imputed to one of them; and as if no words could be spoken, no Letter written, but with the common con∣sent of all of them, the whole Clergie must suffer for that which is laid to the charge of any particular person amongst them.

We know what Odium all the Catholick Clergie lies under, by reason of the Calumnies with which our Tenents in Religion, and our Dependence up∣on the Popes Authority, are aspersed; And we humbly beg your Majesties pardon to vindicate both, by the ensueing Protestation, which we make in the sight of Heaven, and in the presence of your Majesty, sincerely and tru∣ly, without equivocation or mental reservation.

We do acknowledge and confess your Majesty to be our true and lawful King, Supream Lord, and rightfull Soveraign of this Realm of Ireland, and of all other your Majesties Dominions. And therefore we acknowledge and confess our selves, to be obliged under pain of Sin to obey your Majesty in all civil and temporal affairs, as much as any other of your Majesties Subjects, and as the Laws and Rules of Government in this Kingdom do require at our hands. And that notwithstanding any power or pretension of the Pope or Sea of Rome, or any sentence or declaration of what kind or quality so∣ever, given, or to be given, by the Pope, His Predecessors, or Successors, or by any Authority Spiritual or Temporal proceeding or derived from Him, or his Sea, against your Majesty or Royal Authority, We will still acknow∣ledge and perform to the uttermost of our abilities our faithful Loyalty and true Allegiance to your Majesty. And we openly disclaim and renounce all forreign Power, be it either Papal or Princely, Spiritual or Temporal, in as much as it may seem able, or shall pretend to free, discharge or absolve us from this Obligation, or shall any way give us leave, or license, to raise tumults, bear arms, or offer any violence to your Majesties Person, Roy∣al Authority, or to the State or Government. Being all of us ready not only to discover, and make known, to your Majesty and to your Ministers, all the Treasons made against your Majesty or Them, which shall come to our hearing; but also to lose our Lives in the defence of your Majesties Per∣son and Royal Authority, and to resist with our best endeavours all conspira∣cies and attempts against your Majesty, be they framed or sent under what pretence, or patronized by what forreign power or authority soever. And further, we profess that all absolute Princes and Supream Governours, of what Religion soever they be, are Gods Lieutenants on Earth, and that obedience is due to them according to the laws of each Commonwealth re∣spectively in all Civil and Temporal affairs. And therefore we do here pro∣test against all Doctrine, and Authority to the contrary. And we do hold it impious, and against the word of God, to maintain that any private Sub∣ject may kill or murther the Anointed of God, his Prince, though of a different belief and Religion from his. And we abhor, and detest the practice thereof as damnable and wicked.

These being the Tenents of our Religion in point of loyalty and submissi∣on to your Majesties Commands, and our Dependence of the Sea of Rome,

no way intrenching upon that perfect Obedience which by our Birth, by all laws divine and humane, we are bound to pay to your Majesty our natural and lawful Soveraign, We humbly beg, prostrate at your Majesties feet, That you would be pleased to protect us from the severe persecution we suf∣fer meerly for our profession in Religion: leaving those that are, or here∣after shall be guilty of other Crimes (and there have been such in all times as well by their Pens as by their Actions) to the punishment prescribed by the Law.

Fr. Oliver D••arcy, Bishop of Dromore.

• Fr. George Dillon of S. Fran. Ord. Guardian of the Irish Franciscans at Paris.
• Fr. Philip Roch of S. Fran. Ord. Reader Gen. of Divinity.
• Fr. Anthony Gearnon of S. Fran. Ord. one of Her Majesties the Queen Mo∣thers Chapl.
• Fr. Iohn Everard of S. Fran. Ord. Conf. and Preac.
• Fr. Anthony Nash of S. Fran. Ord. Conf. and Preac.
• Fr. William Lynch of S. Fran. Ord. Conf.
• Fr. Nicholas Sall of S. Fran. Ord. Conf. and Preac.
• Iames Cusack Doctor of Divinity.
• Cornelius Fogorty Protonot. Apost. and Doctor of the Civil and Canon Law.
• Daniel Dougan Divine.
• Fr. Henry Gibbon of S. Aug. Ord. Conf. and Preac.
• Fr. Redmund More of S. Dom. Ord. Conf. and Preac.
• ...Bartholomew Bellew.
• ...Dennis Fitz Ranna.
• ...Bartholomew Flemming.
• Fr. Redmund Caron of S. Fran. Ord. Reader jubilate of Divinity.
• Fr. Simon Wafre of the same Order, Reader of Divinity.
• Fr. Iames Caverley of S. Fran. Ord. Conf. and Preac.
• Fr. Iohn fitz Gerrald of S. Fran. Ord. Conf. and Preac.
• Fr. Theobald Burk of S. Fran. Ord. Conf. and Preac.
• Fr. Matthew Duff of S. Fran. Ord. Conf. and Preac.
• Fr. Peter Geoghegan of S. Fran. Ord. Conf. and Preac.
• Fr. Peter Walsh of S. Fran. Ord. Reader of Div. and Procurator of the Roman Catholick Clergy, both Secular and Regular of Ireland.

This paper without any hands to it (for the gentlemen that consulted of and drew it in this form, did not then reflect on the necessariness of any sub∣scription to it: and if they had, they saw the storm so great and furious, rai∣sed suddenly, against those men chiefly who should have subscribed it, that it was impossible for them to meet, even for any such or other end soever (and yet the making of such address to His Majestie could not be delayed so as to send about to search for them where they could not be met with singly one by one but after too much time) therefore I say this paper without any hands to it was delivered immediately to Father James Fitz Simons (residing and hiding himself the best he could at Dublin) to be sent (together with the Proclamation of the Lords Justices and ordinances of Parliament, and the forged letter of Mac Dermot the Priest, and their own discoveries of the im∣posture) to the above Father P. W. then at London, as Procuratour of the Clergie, to be presented by him to His Majestie and Lord Lieutenant: and was accordingly sent and delivered him by the Earl of Fingale, who had then some occasions of his own to goe for England. Which the Procurator had no soo∣ner received, then, after communicating all to some others of the Irish Clergy and Gentry then at London, and press'd by them all to do what he was directed from Ireland, he delivered the several papers to my Lord Lieutenant, and both

humbly and earnestly beseeched His Grace to consider of them and present the case to His Majestie, and particularly that Remonstrance, acknowledgement, protestation and petition of the Clergie. Then which scarce could any thing more be expected from them for the future: whatever they or any of them had been formerly.

But his Grace, two days after returned this answer, That the Remonstrance, or Declaration, or Protestation therein inserted, although it might well in some things be made more full and more satisfactory, yet however it might be useful were it not onely a bare paper, without any subscription, or hand to own it. Whereunto the Procuratour had no more to say, but that likely they in whose behalf it was, thought it enough himself should own it in their name: and that the times were such in Ireland, as they could not scarce three of them meet together, and most of their Bishops were abroad in other Coun∣tries in exile, whom to consult particularly either at home or abroad would require a longer time then the present sufferings of the generallity at home, without some speedy commiseration of them, could bear. That in the mean time until the rest might be acquainted with the exception against it for not being signed, those few of that Clergie then at London, come from several parts thither, which were about 30 in all, and one of their Bishops amongst them, would (he doubted not) own and signe it for themselves: whereby His Ma∣jestie and Grace might see it was no forgery or imposture. That he hoped the rest would when they had an opportunity to meet, do the same generally. And yet, that although himself had, as His Grace knew, a general power from them under their hands and Seals to act for them all; nevertheless forasmuch as this was a very special business, and that he had no special Commission from them to sign this Instrument or such a special Declaration of their doctrine and conscience, and because he had formerly so much experience of the di∣versity of their affections, inclinations and interest's in a point of this nature, and of the awe they or many of them stood in or would stand in of the Court of Rome, and of their dependencies thence, which their titular pretensions there continued evermore: he dared not venture upon owning or subscrib∣ing it in all their names, though he was ready to do it in his own, even as their Procuratour; but still not owning a special Commission herein from them. And yet hoped with all that so much affliction at home, and their exile abroad for so many years under the late Usurpers had made them all wiser by this time then to scruple at the signing of a Declaration so Catholick in it self, so just and necessary from them, and a Declaration moreover which tyed them to no more then they were bound unto before by all the laws of God and man, without any such Declaration or subscription whatsoever, if perhaps we ex∣cept not under the notion of such laws, those Papal Canons onely, however rejected by all Christians that are not subject to the Pope in his temporal prin∣cipality, and as well by right reason and Christian Religion condemned, as in∣deed such declaration and subscription was chiefly intended against such.

III.

In pursuance of this discourse, and to clear as well as might be then and there at London that rational exception of His Grace, a meer Paper not signed by any, the Procuratour having acquainted the Catholick Bishop of Dromore then at London, and such others of the Irish Clergie there, with it, and with the whole business and storm lately raised in Ireland against all the Catholicks on pretence of that forged letter: they met together two several days at the said Procuratours chamber, about 30 of them, and with the Bishop four and twen∣ty more signed the said humble Remonstrance; the other 4 or 5 excusing themselves onely on pretence of inconveniency or unexpediency and such like; not at all of any unlawfulness or uncatholickness in the Declaration or any thing els in the whole Paper, as they declared there publickly.

The Nobility, and Gentry also of Ireland, in great number at London at that time, found themselves no less concerned in this matter. And therefore after having for eight weeks consequently together in several meetings pub∣lickly debated it, and consulted also some eminent persons of the English Ca∣tholick Nobility, and that also in a publick meeting, where the same English Noblemen declared their approbation of it; and having fitted for themselves an other preamble and Petition, subscribed the same Declaration word by word as those of their Clergie had, and presented it to His Majestie by a spe∣cial Committee sent from themselves, and by the hands of the Earl of Tirco∣nel. The original of which, signed by 97. hands, the said Earl keeps, as he was entrusted with it by His Majestie, who most graciously received it, and kept a clean copy with himself, as he had that formerly of their Clergie∣men.

Soon after, both were published in Print, in distinct sheets, with an advertise∣ment to the Reader from the Procuratour under that of the Clergie, which was perclosed with an invitation not onely to the rest of the Irish Clergie wheresoever, but to all those of both English, Scots and Welch of that functi∣on and Religion, to concurre in the same or like, to wipe off their holy faith and communion the scandal of such unholy principles in point of government and obedience, which had so much prejudiced them and their predecessours for a whole age, and reduced them to those miseries under which they groaned so long.

But in regard those 4. or 5. dissentors (with such others English or Irish Clergie men either at London or other places as approved their unreasonable opposition) made use of their exceptions and several arguments whereon they grounded their allegations of unexpediency or inconveniency, the Procura∣tour found it necessary to give in P••int (and in a little book which he called The More Ample Account &c.) not onely the occasion of transmitting from Ireland that Remonstrance, but the grounds at large which concluded both the expediency and necessity incumbent on the Clergie of Ireland in particular, and above all others, to subscribe it: with answers to all the exceptions made till that time by the dissentors. And by occasion of the last of them, enlarged himself on those arguments which evidently shew by reason, Scripture, Fa∣thers, practise of primitive Christians, and by answers to all the grand obje∣ctions to the contrary, that it is in no kind of contingency lawful, or just in Subjects to take arms on any pretext whatsoever against the Prince or Laws, or in any kind of case wherein the municipal laws of the land do not warrant them. Which being addressed, and by an Epistle prefixed, to all the several Arch-bishops, Bishops, Vicars General, Provincials of Regular Orders, Ab∣bots, Priors, Guardians, Rectors, and all the rest in general of the inferior Clergie of Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales, wherever, at home or abroad in other Countries, he sent copies immediately to the chief of the Irish Cler∣gie: with other particular written letters, from himself also some, and some from the said Bishop of Dromore, to invite them to a concurrence and shew them the necessity of it in that conjuncture. Particularly to Iohn Burke, Arch-bishop of Tuam, Robert Barry Bishop of Cork, Patrick Pluncket Bishop of Ardagh, Andrew Linch Bishop of Kilfinuran, at that time all in France, and to Nicholas French Bishop of Ferns, living then in Spain. Onely the Arch-bishop of Ardmagh Primate Reilly, then at Rome, he thought not fit to write unto at that time; because more then any of the rest lying under too too great and special prejudices in Ireland, and with His Majestie and Lord Lieutenant: and therefore since the Kings Restauration withdrawn, and even from Rome com∣manded to with-draw: and that wholly depending of that Court for a poor subsistence, the Procuratour thought not fit to bring new jealousies on him there also; which he feared his correspondence in such a matter would. For although he was very certain His present Holyness would not (or that Court under so wise and moderate a Governour) declare any thing publickly a∣gainst

the said Remonstrance or subscribers, forasmuch as he knew most evi∣dently there was nothing in it which was not the sense of the Catholick world abroad; yet he was perswaded withal it could nevertheless but be somewhat unwelcome and displeasing to the flatterers of his Holyness, and that there would not be wanting many both English and Irish Clergiemen to incense that Court against the subscribers; as will be seen hereafter it happened.

IV.

However they contained themselves at first against the expediency alone of such a Remonstrance; yet when The more ample Account was published, see∣ing those kind of exceptions would do no good, some of the Irish from Lovain and others from other places began to mutter, and write letters also, which were privately carried from hand to hand, that the said Remonstrance or De∣claration, and Protestation of Allegiance to His Majestie, therein contained, though in temporal things only, was against Catholick Religion: because a di∣minution of the authority of the great Pontiff. Whereupon Father Red∣mond Caron of St. Francis's Order, who at the time of the signing of the said Remonstrance at London, had been in Wales with my Lord Powis, and was now come to London, and signed it after the rest, tooke the pains to write and print an other smal Treatise, in English too, against that scandalous errour: dedicating it to His Majestie, and giving it the title of Loyalty asserted. Wherein to convince that errour he amassed together a huge number of Ca∣tholick Authors, Scriptures, Canons, Fathers, Popes, &c. quoting only the places briefly, not the words: but adding withal a great many Theological reasons, though briefly: and in the end of it answering Cardinal Peron's Orati∣on, and all the arguments of that indeed elegant but not well grounded speech to the third estate of France. Which the said Father thought fit to do at that time, because much use was made also of that piece of eloquence, amongst those that were not versed in the matter, nor had ever seen those learned sa∣tisfactory answers thereunto returned some fifty years since as well by Catho∣licks as Protestants.

V.

By this time the Antagonist's of that Remonstrance were working their intrigues, being much netled and bafled. And yet I saw no great encourage∣ment they had then from the Bishops of their Country living abroad. For Andrew Linch Bishop of Kilfinuran (who had at home in the troubles of Ire∣land, although promoted by the Nuncio to his little Bishoprick, adhered ne∣vertheless to the supream Councel for the peace of 48. against the Nuntio, and was not at Iames-town, nor countenanced (or engaged in) the troubles of the other Bishops there against the said peace) as soon as he received at St. Malos the book and letters sent from London, called together those Irish Priests there at that time, and got their subscriptions to the same Remonstrance. Although within a while after, the brute coming of endeavours at Rome against it by some there, and of discountenance in that Court (for it was no more yet) and those very Priests at St. Malos, who had sometime before subscribed, fearing though unreasonably they might therefore, and upon account of their subscription, suffer in their livelyhood where they were, or in their present or future pretensions where they were not, in the Roman Court, came to the said Bishop, and importun'd from him the paper of their subscriptions. And the Bishop of Ardagh Patrick Plunket, residing then in an other part of France (who likewise, and though promoted also by the Nuntius, adhered constant∣ly to the same peace and to the former cessation, notwithstanding the Nuntio's censures against it, and absented himself from the Council at Iames-town, as being assembled in his Diocess without his consent as much as demanded of

him, and never approved of the Acts of that meeting) was supposed by all that knew him to approve of the Remonstrance and protestation of loyalty therein. Whereof in the year 1662. 2. of October, by this following letter sent to his Brother Sir Nicholas Plunket he gave ample testimony, however his carriage proved after in our Dublin Congregation in 1666.

For his Honoured Brother Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight these at Dublin.

WOrthy dear Brother, the Oath taken by the Nobility and your self I seriously considered, and consulted with others. Both they and I find the same most just, lawful and conformable to St. Pauls doctrine. For there are two sorts of obe∣dience: the one necessary, the other voluntary. By the necessary, thou oughtest humb∣ly to obey thy Ecclesiastical Superiours, and such as are authorized by them. Also it is necessary to obey thy Civil Superiours, as your King, and the Magistrates which he hath established over thy Country. Finally thou must obey thy domestical Superiours, as thy Father and Mother, Master and Mistris. This obedience is called necessary, because no man can exempt himself from the duty of obeying these Superiours: God having placed them in authority to command and govern each one according to the charge which they have over us: and to obey their command is of necessity. Volun∣tary obedience is that whereunto we oblige our selves by our own election, and which is not imposed upon us by an other, and of which we make no solemn vow. As a conclusion I boldly and with an assured confidence say our Gracious King is better incomparably then such Kings as were in St. Pauls times, being infidels, yet would have them obeyed. Not els but

Yours as his own Ardagh.

At Seez the 2d. of December. 1662.

V

As for the Bishop of Corke, Robert Barry, then living also at St. Malos, al∣though his earnestness all along for the Nuncio's quarrel, without any regard of his own extraction, family, or interest thereof in Ireland, was too well known: and how he had been one of the Delegats, made by or in pursuance of that subreptitious Bull procured from Alexander the VII. for absolving from the Nuntio's censures: as if Innocent the X. had determined the controversy and appeal against the Appellants, adherers to the Cessation made with the Baron of Inchiquin (which yet never appeared to have been so determined by Innocent: and therefore consequently, and for many other notorious false in∣formations, it is very certain that, according to the Canons this Bull of Alex∣ander the VII. must be void in it self:) yet even this very Bishop sent to the said Sir Nicholas Plunket, that he for his part approved of the Protestation. And for Cluanfert (albeit the most earnest of all, when at home in Ireland, for the Nuncio) he was as farr off as Hungary, if then alive, and nothing could be heard from him. No more did any thing in a pretty while after from Ni∣cholas French the Bishop of Ferns, officiating at St. Diego in Gallicia for the Arch-bishop of that See; but what he writ to the Procuratour himself: with whom ever since the Kings Restauration he kept frequent correspondence, and gave him evident arguments of his falling off from the Nuncio's party, ever since he had a sight (some two years before His Majesty was re∣stored) of that wicked feditious book delivered in hand-writing by Richard Ferral the Cappucin to the Congregation of Cardinals De Propaganda Fide at Rome. The contents of which booke, and particularly because the Authors of it fell fouly and generally therein upon all the Catholicks of Brittish extra∣ction

in Ireland, and would have none such ever preferred by the Pope to any ec∣clesiastical dignity in Ireland, and yet very particularly taxed the said Bishop of Ferns himself, notwithstanding all his former zeal, and Sir Nicholas Plunket also with him (though joynt Embassadours to Rome) of having betrayed the cause of the Nuncio and holy See to their Adversaries: these contents, I say, and the Proceedings consequent thereunto of that Congregation de propaganda, did so estrange Ferns, that he sent to London several papers, and books of his own study written against that Book, though not yet come to publick view from the print. As Father Iohn Lynch, a priest of Galway at St. Mal••s, hath alrea∣dy published in print his Alithinologia, dedicated to the same Congregation de propaganda against it. From Ferns therefore they had nothing at all to countenance them at that time, if his many and frequent letters, under his own hand to the Procurator, can be testimonies of his judgment: as I am sure they are, for he is candid man. In which letters he signified at first his own approbation of it so far, that he maintained in Spain privately (against such Irish as he heard speak against it to himself) the lawfulness of it; though withal confessing he was not provided of such books as could enable him sufficiently, having not before then studied that question, but gone along heretofore in practice and theory with that common opinion which was taught in the Schools where he had been conversant formerly. Only, that after this Remonstrance came forth, he lighted by chance on a little book, called Strena Catholica, written by an English Catholick Divine some fifty years since, for the catholickness and lawfulnes of the English Oath of Al∣legiance, in the Statute of King Iames, enacted by occasion of the Powder-plot Treason. And that out of this little book he reason'd for the Remon∣strance against those Irish that opposed it in Spain. Where, yet (he added) it was not fit for him to declare himself more at that time (and this was when the Queen was come from Portugal) when, for many reasons it was feared, there would not be, twixt that Country where he was exiled, and England, such fair correspondence kept. And on the other side, he was not sure of protection at home in Ireland. Yet withal he advised the Procurator to write an Apology for himself, and the cause in hand, to his Holiness; being he had so many opposers of his country-men at Rome. And this was all that Ferns declared of his own judgment or inclinations in that matter, until the Congregation of 66. was passed. For the Archbishop of Ardmagh, Primate Reilly, he was indeed recalled to Rome, and was there soon after the said Remonstrance was published, and for three whole years after; but wary enough not to appear in any thing against it, but by such Letters to the Pro∣curator as told him, that his Holiness, however displeased, yet would not meddle in any censures against it: & that his little book, entituled, The more ample Account, published in English on that Remonstrance, being translated at Rome into Italian and Latine, in order to be censured, if they could pick out of it any colourable pretence, lay dormant at last in the Colledge de propaganda, without any censure at all, and was like to continue so for ever, notwithstanding all the endeavours used to get it burned, or censured at least. The good old sickly Archbishop of Tuam remains of all those Irish Bishops were abroad then. Nor did he as yet then contribute to any more opposition, although wholy in the hands and power of some Fathers of the So∣ciety, but what you have to this letter, which he gave in answer to the Bi∣shop of Dromores to him from London.

To the most Reverend my Lord Bishop of Dromore &c. London.

My Lord,

YOur Letter of the 9th. of January, and received on Monday last, could have no speedier answer, by reason of my distance from the Post. This only to

let your Lordship know it is come to hand, and that I am making ready copies of the paragraph thereof that concerns your inclosed paper, and of the paper it self, to send to the respective places where any of our brethren reside in France, that being in my opinion a better course to comply with your Lordships desire of the speedy return there∣of, then to send one about which would require more time. I do not think but the subscription of the said paper may have some difficulty, not through any dis-affection to our Soveraigns service, but through the mis-constructions, its stile resembling somewhat the Oath of Allegiance, is subject unto: and the occasion some unsettled spirits will take to gloss upon it, and wrest out of our good intentions venome to spue in our faces, as your Lordship knows they do with less grounds. The proof that was made of loyalty to our Soveraign, by what we have suffered at home, and even yet suffer abroad, rather then we should flinch from our duty to his Majesty when we had some power, might be very sufficient satisfaction to any indifferent man, that we forget not, nor can forget our obligations to our natural Prince. We rather daily pray for his Majesties prosperity, and cause those that depend upon us so to do; then think of any other forrein power or Prince, for to deprive our own of that which we do, and ever acknowledged to be his birth-right.

God give those poore wretches, under oppression in Ireland, true patience to be a•• out their misery with a constant memory of their duty to his Divine Majesty that per∣mits their affliction, and their King, that haply cannot yet binder it conveniently. As soon as I have answer from the rest of the Prelates to your request, I will write to your Lordship of our resolution. In the mean time I assure your Lordship that the Letter I answer now, is the only I received from you since you departed France, but that all notwithstanding, I am

My Lord,

Your Lordships affectionate and humble Servant. Johannes Archiepiscopus Tuamensis.

Dinan, 30. Ian. 1662.

VII.

The opposers of the Remonstrance therefore relyed wholy on their endea∣vours with the two Bishops that lived at home in Ireland, Anthony Ma. Geo∣ghegan Bishop of Meath, since that time dead, and Doctor Owen Swiny Bi∣shop of Killmore, alive still: and besides these, upon the Generality of the Vicars-General of Ireland, whom they had known formerly to have been for the Nuntio: and for the same reason upon the Provincials of the three more numerous Regular Orders, the Franciscans, Dominicans and Augustinians: and for the lesser and latter Orders, they made sure account of them in the crowd, and on other accounts, which shall hereafter be given. Upon all these men, and upon the endeavours of those of their affection, and Coun∣trey at Lovaine, to work against that Remonstrance with the then Internuncius of Bruxels, Hieronimus de Veechiis (who had from the Pope a kind of super∣intendency over Irish affairs) and by his means at Rome, the grand opposers of the said Remonstrance built all their hopes to thwart it, and render it un∣effectual and unsignificant, though to their own ruine; not upon any reason or arguments against either the catholickness or usefulness of it. Nor were they deceived in their hopes, or mistaken in their measures, though withal fortunate in misfortune. For in Iuly, 1662. this Internuncio writ two several Letters against it and the Subscribers: one to the Bishop of Dromore, and ano∣ther to Father Francis Lyons, alias, Matthew Duff of St. Francis's Order; which two Letters came accidentally unsealed to my Lord Chancellour of Englands hands. And several others to others in Ireland: of some of which I have the copies, and of some too the very originals. In all which he signi∣fieth, by direction (as he sayes) from his Holiness, and from the Congregati∣on de propaganda, the said Remonstrance to contain propositions co-incident with those condemned by Paul the V. long since, and lately by Innocent the

Tenth. And therefore needs no new censure against it. As in one (I have my self the original) directed to one Father Bonaventure Brodin of St. Fran∣cis Order, 7th. October 63. he sayes That Valesian Instrument or Formula (as he calls it) of Allegiance can do more hurt to the Church of God than all former persecutions of Hereticks. Quam quaevis anteacta Heretica∣rum persecutio. But for the Readers more ample satisfaction, I give here word by word the letter of the said Internuncio, whereof at first copies were dispersed with so much diligence and conveyed privately from hand to hand throughout all the parts and corners of this Kingdome.

Reverende in Christo Pater,

Petiit a me Paternitas tua quid resolu∣tum fuerit Romae circa Declarationem seu Protestationem incipientem Your Ma∣jesties faithful Subjects, et desinentem prescribed by the law, Serenissimo Angliae Regi oblatam ac ab aliquot Ecclesiasticis Hibernis subscriptam. Quocirca deside∣rio vestro optime satisfactum censui, si quae eâ de re nuper ex mandato Sanctissimi Do∣mini Nostri ad me scripta sunt, vobis om∣municem: nempe post diligentem discussio∣nem in variis Eminentissimorum Cardi∣nalium et Theologorum congressibus fa∣ctam, deprehensam esse protestationem il∣lam instar repullulantis hydrae continere propositiones convenientes cum aliis a fede apostoliea olim reprobatis, fignanter a fae∣licis mem riae Paulo V. per constitutionem in forma Brevis, et nuper anno 1648. in Congregatione specialiter commissa ab In∣nocentio X. Proinde Sanctissimus Domi∣nus censuit opus modo non esse nisi ut id ipsum declaretur. Nobis{que} mandavit bane ejus mentem omnibus testatam facere, ut publice pateat eandem protestationem ac subscriptiones appositas a Sanctitate sua, non solum non approbatas fuisse, sed ne{que} permissas, aut per conniventiam toleratas: imo graviter indoluisse quod per exemplum Ecclesiasticorum tracti sint in eundem er∣rorem Nobiles seculares ejusdem regni Hi∣berniae, quorum protestationem ac subscrip∣tiones pariter reprobat juxta praemissam fer••nam, id{que} ad eximendas Catholicorum conscientias a dolo et errore, quo circum∣veniuntur.

Non intendit tamen per hoc ullo modo Sanctissimus Dominus Catholicos aver∣tere a praestanda serenissimo Regi suo sincerè et ex animo fidelitate illa, quae religionem supremo Regum Regi debitam c••mitatur et condecerat, imo potius monet et hortatur, ut ea fidelitate reliquis subdi∣tis examplo praeluceant, tanquam illi qui inter tenebras ambulent in luce.

Haec quidem sunt quae ad me de toto hoc negotio scribi jussit Sanctissimus Domi∣nus. Eadem poterit Paternitas Tua com∣municare omnibus suis, ut de rei veritate at{que} indubitata Sanctitatis suae meni•• reddantur certiores.

Tuis demum sacra∣ficiis me ex aninto commendo Bruxellis, 21. July, 1662. Studiosissimus in Domino Hieronimus Abbas Montis Regalis.

Reverend Father in Christ,

Your Paternity hath desired from me what hath been resolved at Rome, concerning the Declaration or Pro∣testation beginning your Majesties faith∣ful Subjects and ending prescribed by the law, presented to the most Serene King of England, and subscribed by some Irish Ecclesiasticks. Wherefore I thought I shall very well satisfie your desires if I communicate to you what hath been written thereupon by com∣mand of our most holy Lord. To witt, that after diligent discussion in several meetings of the most eminent Cardinals and Divines, that Protestati∣on hath been found like the returning Hydra to contain propositions agree∣ing with others heretofore condemned by the Sea Apostolick, particularly by Paul the fift, of happy memory, by a constitution in form of Brief, and late∣ly in the year 1648. in a Congregation purposely held to that end by Innocent the X. And hence it is, that the most holy Lord hath thought no more ne∣cessary now but that this very thing should be declared. And commanded us to testifie unto all, this his mind to the end it may appear publickly that the said Protestation & subscriptions added have not only not been approv∣ed by His Holiness, but not as much as permitted, or even by connivence tollerated; yea that he hath grievously ressented that by the example of Ec∣clesiasticks the secular Nobles of the foresaid Kingdom of Ireland have been drawn into the same errour: whose protestation and subscriptions he doth in like manner condemn, ac∣cording to the above form; and this, to deliver the consciences of Catho∣licks from the fraud and errour where∣with they are circumvented.

Yet The Most Holy Lord by no means intends hereby to avert the Ca∣tholicks from observing that fidelity to their most Serene King (sincerely and from their Soules) which may ac∣company and adorn the Religion due to the supream King of Kings; nay He doth rather admonish and exhort, that in that fidelity they enlighten o∣ther Subjects by their example, as people that walk in light amidst dark∣ness.

And these truly are what The Most Holy Lord commanded to be written to me of this whole business. The same your Reverence may communi∣cate to all your own, that they may be rendered certain of the truth of this matter and undoubted mind of His Holyness.

In fine to your Sacrifices I commend my self, from Bruxels 21. Ju∣ly, 1662. most studious in the Lord, Hierom Abbot of Mount Royal.

The Reader may take notice here, that in such copies of this letter, as came authenticated by Claudius A∣gretti, Secretary to the above Inter∣nuncius, there was a title prefixed, and that title was this: Censura ••mi. Domini Nostri, Alexandri VII. nec non et Eminentissimorum Cardinalium et Theologorum congregatorum circa Pro∣testationem R. P. Fratris Petri Valesii.

After this or together with it comes an other letter of the 8. of the same month and year, to the Nobility and Gentry of Ireland from Rome, and from a person of farre greater authority, and no less eminency then Cardinal Fran∣cis Barberin: which he writes in the name of the whole Congregation de propa∣ganda, or as President thereof, against the same Remonstrance and subscription of it. Whereof albeit I could never see the original; yet certain I am the copy, which I give here, is a true one, and that letter not forged at all: be∣cause the Cardinal himself owned it to the Provincial of the Franciscans of England Father la Croix, being in the general Chapter of the said Order at Rome 1664. Although his Eminency (who was there and then President of the said Chapter, as Protectour of that Order, and by special Commission from his Holyness) would not have the Irish Franciscans who subscribed the Remon∣strance proceeded against therefore (as the same Father la Croix told my self) nor would at all have that matter debated against them, or spoke of there. That letter endorsed thus, To the Noble-men of Ireland, you have here.

Ad Praestantes Viros Hiberniae.

Praestantes Viri,

Si ullo unquam tempore is qui vos vnicè diligit, Sanctissimus omnium Fide∣lium Parens, aerumnosum rerum vestra∣rum statum doluit, hoc potissimum dolet, quo vobis non modò ab exteris timendum esse cernit, verùm etiam a domesticis, nec non ab ipsis Fratribus cavendum. Pan∣ditur siquidem malum non ab Aquilone tantùm, verùm etiam unde spirare debue∣rat aura spiritus Sancti, ventus nunc per∣flat vrens. Erroris Magistri fiunt, qui se

veritatis discipulos asserunt, ut{que} fideli∣tatem Regi ostentent, fidem corrumpunt. Illud vero praecipue mirum accidit, eos edi∣disse Protestationem iis conceptam verbis quibus solùm fidem Catholicam violarent, nec quicquam in terris assequerentur, quod ipsa integra fidelitate obtinere non possent. Quis enim audeat inficias ire a Catholi∣ca Fide debitam non foveri in Principes obedientiam, cùm ex Evangelico Praecepto quae Caesaris Caesar••, et quae Dei sunt Deo, per-aequè reddere teneantur? Cùm ergo fidem profitentur, consona non lo∣quuntur. Sed quam excusationem prae∣texere possunt illi, qui cum sic subscripse∣runt, non nullis propositionibus Principi fidelitatem testantibus olim a sede Aposto∣lica Damnatis, bonam fidem aut inculpa∣tam ignorantiam causari non possunt? Quis pudor Ecclesiastici ordinis eos cer∣nere erroris Antesignanos per quos caeteri erant erudiendi? Sanctissimi Pontificis anxit animum sal infatuatum effudisse fa∣tuitatem, at{que} eos qui praelucere debuerant, tenebras induxisse. Qui ergo a subscrip∣tionum ejusmodi contagione se immunes servarunt, caveant omninò ne in foveom a caecis ductoribus trohantur, sanem{que} doctrinam sustineant. Qui stat, videat ne cadat.

Qui verò infaliciter prolapsi sunt, im∣pigre emergere satagant, et iidem nosse sciant ac tenere, quod Pater aequè Sanctis∣simus ac amantissimus monendo porrigit dexteram. Conjuncti deni{que} omnes in pa∣cis vinculo eum Regi morem gerant, quem ingenua fides docet. Ego interim totius Congregationis negotiis vestris Prapositae nomine cuncto vobis prospera adprecor, simul{que} hortor, ut quam in fidei candore tuendo exhibuistis fortissimi pectoris con∣stantiam, eandem teneatis, sciatis{que} Ca∣tholicos omnes Hibernos a Sanctissimo Domino nostro in Visceribus Jesu Christi amari, eundem{que} summo vestrum omnium salutis ac tranquilliatis desiderio teneri extoto eorde et charitate in Domino.

Da∣tum Rome, die 8. Julii, 1662.

Addictissimus Franciscus Barberinus.

Noble Sirs,

If ever at any time He, who most intirely loves you, The Most Holy Fa∣ther of all the faithful, hath grieved for the afflicted condition of your af∣fairs, now is the time, that most of all he is grieved, wherein he sees you are not only to fear from those abroad, but even be on your guard from your very Domesticks, nay from your very Brethren. For the evil is approach∣ing not from the North only, but even even thence a burning winde blowes whence the gentle breathings of the holy Ghost should have come. They are made Masters of errour who give themselves for disciples of truth, and to shew their fidelity to the King they destroy Faith. In which procedure of theirs that is chiefly to be admired, that they published a Protestation in such terms, whereby they may be said to have only violated the Catholick Faith, and gained nothing on earth which they might not have obtained, that very Faith remaining entire. For who dares deny that by the Catholick Faith due obedience unto Princes is cherished, whereas by Evangelical precept every man is bound to yeeld to Caesar what is Caesars, and to God what is Gods? when therefore they study to render themselves faithful to the King, they prevail herein least of all when they speake nothing agreea∣ble to that Faith they profess. But what excuse can they pretend, who, when to testifie their Allegiance to the Prince they have subscribed their names to some propositions condemn∣ed heretofore by the Apostolick Sea, cannot alleadge for themselves either a good conscience or inculpable ig∣norance in doing so? What shame is it to the Ecclesiastical Order to behold them the Leaders into Errour by whom others should have been instru∣cted. Verily it hath vexed the Soul of the most Holy Pontiff to consider the unsavoury salt to have powred forth unsavouriness, and those who should have enlightned others, to have brought darkness on them. Where∣fore such as have kept themselves free from subscriptions or from this kind of infectious disease, let them by all means beware they be not drawn into the pitt by their blind leaders: and let them uphold the doctrine that is sound. Who stands let him take heed he fall not.

But for such as are unhappily fallen, let them rise without delaye. And let them know so much as to acknowledg and take hold of that Right hand, which their as well most Holy as most loving Father stretches forth in admo∣nishing them. Finally let all of you joyned together in the bond of peace

yield those respects to the King which true Faith teaches. In the mean time I, in the name of the whole Congregation appointed overseers of your affairs, do wish all things may be prosperous no you: and withal exhort you to retain the same constancy of most valorous Resolutions which you have manifest∣ed in defending the purity of Religi∣on. That you beleive also that all I∣rish Catholicks are beloved in the bowels of Christ by our most Holy Lord: and that his Holyness is even from his whole heart, and out of that charity which is from God, possessed with the greatest desires of the health and tranquillity of you all.

Given at Rome, the 8. of July, 1662.

Your most addicted Francis Barbarine.

VIII.

Soon after the date of these Letters of Cardinal Francis Barbarine and of the Bruxels Internuntio, Hieronimus de Veccbiis, the Lord Lieutenant being come for Ireland, and the Procurators duty bringing him thither, after he had an∣swered the man in the dark, in the behalf of the Irish in general, and in relati∣on to their temporal Estates, and had also in the Clergies name made his gratulatory address, first to both their Majesties, the King and Queen, and next to the Lord Lieutenant also, when His Grace had the second time that great charge of the Lieutenancy of Ireland put upon him: and being arrived at Dublin, and being commanded by His Grace to endeavour presently the subscriptions of those at home in the Countrey: the first opposition he found was that of fine words and offers of money for his pains taken hitherto for them, and three hundred pounds therefore if he would prevail with His Grace to accept of their subscriptions to another form, such as themselves would frame: because that signed at London was odious in the Court of Rome, as lessening the authority of the most holy Father.

But when they found him unalterable, and that he told them positively it was unworthy of them to move any such thing, and of him to listen to it: be∣sides, that they were much deceived in their judgment of His Grace, or of the matter in it self, as if it depended of the Procurator to perswade or disswade His Grace therein, or as if His Grace did not sufficiently understand the con∣sequence of any the least material change, or the sense of English words, and what imported or not the King or States security, as from them: presently he understands of a late and general resolution taken by all the Heads of the Clergy not to sign at all that Remonstrance, nor suffer any under their re∣spective charges to sign it. And further understands, that besides the three Provincials of the Franciscans, Dominicans, and Augustinians, a little before his landing, met at Dublin, and entred into a confederacy together against it; Anthony Mageoghegan Bishop of Meath, and the Provincial of the Franciscans, by name Anthony Docharty, and besides him Thomas ma Kiernan, Francis Fer∣ral, and others of the same Order, with some Vicars General of the North, had signed an Instrument, and sent an express messenger, one Father John Brady, with it over Seas, to procure Letters and Censures against the Remon∣strance

& Subscribers. That moreover Father Peter Aylmer, a little before made Curat of St. Owens at Dublin, & aspiring further to be made Bishop, or at least Vicar Apostolick, for having lately been so eminent an opposer of the Remon∣strances at London, abusing the people with telling them, though most falsely, the Sorbonists were against it, grounding himself only for this vain report upon simple letters from another Irish Priest at Paris; a man as ignorant as him∣self, and who seemed to know as little what the Parisians taught, or taught not, as himself: that, I say, this Father Aylmer made himself very instrumen∣tal for such ambitious ends, to encourage (which he needed not) the said Bi∣shop of Meath, and the said Father Dempsy, Vicar General of Dublin, and all others of both Secular and Regular Clergy, to resolve absolutely against it. Wherein he had the more credit, that they were told he had lately been my Lord Aubignyes Confessor at Whitehall: and surely therefore knew the King did not expect any such paper or subscription from them; nor the Duke ei∣ther; but that, as he and they gave out, all was the Procurators own contri∣vance and importunity, to further that wherein himself had once engaged. That further they saw such as were even at Court, and in the daily sight of His Majesty, and greatest Ministers of State, the Queens own Chaplins, those that were natives of England and Ireland, were not as much as once called to for their subscription. And yet none other of that Clergy in such favour as they. Nay, that both the grand Almoners of both Queens, the Lord Aubig∣ny and Abbot Montague, both of them so great and so considerable, and the first so near in blood to His Majesty, and both looked upon, at least the for∣mer, in a fair way to the greatest dignities in the Catholick Church, next the Papacy; that both those (said they) were known to be averse from it.

But I must advertise the Reader, that although use was made of such argu∣ments, suggested by the said Father Aylmer, & some others whom I know very well, yet the same Gentlemen could not but know as well then, and all others have been long since, or at least are now at last throughly convinced of this truth, That it was both His Majesties, & my Lord Lieutenants earnest desires by His Majesties express & positive directions to him, The Irish Clergie should sign that Remonstrance, as an argument of their purpose and firm resolution to be more faithful to Him hereafter than the generality of them had proved to his Father & the same Lord Lieutenant heretofore in the late Warrs of that Country. That Father Welsh their own Procuratour, though zealous enough for the lawfulness, Catholickness, expediency and necessity also of such sig∣nature by them, yet had never urged any, when once he perceived their gene∣ral opposition, had not His Grace told him of His Majesties pleasure in the case, and not seen withall the consequents of their refusal or delay would prove in time very prejudicial both to themselves and the Lay People instru∣cted by them: and that such their subscription must have been the only me∣dium to procure them that liberty or that ease from the penal laws, which they so vehemently desired might be so sollicited and obtained by him. That my Lord Aubigny himself, though expecting the Cardinal Dignity, was so farre from disapproveing that Remonstrance, or their concurrence to it, when first it came forth in Print, That he sayed plainly and often to the Procuratour (when complaining to him of his said Confessour, Father Peter Aylmer, at that time with his Lordship at London) If the King would be advised by him, there should not be a Priest in any of the three Kingdoms but such as would freely sign it. That although a while after, when he hearkned to the Jesuits, he relented somewhat on consideration of their furtherance of his pretensi∣ons at Rome, or of removeing the obstacles they might perhaps otherwise put in his waye; yet, on better consideration, again return'd to his former and fix'd principles: and therefore advised the said Father Aylmer either to sign or withdraw himself out of England. Which was the immediate cause of Mr. Aylmers comming then for Ireland; though with design also to do all the mis∣chief he could to cross that business: as truly he did by manifest untruths;

although he protested so lately before and so publickly in the presence of 30. Catholicks Priests and Catholick Bishops too at London when the rest signed it, that he singled not himself for point of conscience, and that he would with his blood sign the lawfulness and Catholickness of it; yet pretending af∣ter that he had not sufficiently studied nor understood the point; as indeed he never seemed to have before or after. That for the rest of the Queens Chaplains, ordinary or extraordinary, I mean the English & Irish who were con∣cern'd, and to whom it was proper, I must confess the grand mistake was in not offering it them by authority at first when it came forth; as to my knowledge it was intended to be offered at Hampton-Court, and at Council upon a certain Sunday; but none of the copies being at hand that day, and other things in∣tervening after, they were neglected. Which gave so much encouragement to all other dissentors ever since; albeit the case of those Chaplains and that of the rest of the Irish Clergie be very different, and that none of the rest, who have been so expresly particularly and positively desired their own concur∣rence, should on that pretence denye or excuse it. That finally for what con∣cerns my Lord Abbot Montague, what ever his own peculiar interest was or is in relation to that Remonstrance, or to an approbation of it, if demanded, I am sure that being as well as my Lord Aubigny acquainted with the Divinity of France, having his title and so great a benefice there, and being so conversant in that Court and Church, his judgement must have been for the Catholick∣ness and lawfulness of it. And a person of so great both reason and experi∣ance in the affairs of these Nations could not but conceive it was both expedi∣ent and necessary for such of the Romish Clergie natives as would live at home in any of them to sign it: and for such as were abroad, or would be, not to hinder those at home (by disswasion) from the good they might expect thereby. And could not but conceive it was both expedient and necessary even for His Majesties greater assurance of them that they should do so. That besides, nothing more in particular being known of my Lord Abbot Mounta∣gue's affection or disaffection to that matter, nay were even his positive per∣swasion to the contrary known of certain, as it was never, for any thing I could here, and I have listened after it sufficiently & carefully enough; yet his Lord∣ships even such demeanour could be no rational pretence for them; his for∣raign dependency, & his special priviledge by serving the Queen Mother in so great a capacity as he is known to serve Her, exempting him from a rule con∣cerning others that had no such arguments to excuse them. To say nothing here of his being an English man and Priest of that Clergie, who were not so neerly concern'd not to be backward as the Irish Clergie were; and who ne∣vertheless did then, for the generality of them, most heartily desire, as they do at this present, His Majestie were pleased to favour them so much, (albeit not lying under those great suspicions the Irish Clergie do, at least not having in our dayes given such cause) as to demand their subscriptions to such an Instrument, and be content therewith, in lieu of those other demonstrations the laws they lye under expect from them.

IX.

However, such as made it their interest to oppose any further subscription, made use of these and many other such pittiful and too too weak pretences to excuse their nonconcurrence, when they saw no further probability in those no less weak pretences of Theological arguments borrowed from Suarez, Bellarmine, and others of their way that writ on the Subject of the Popes ill-grounded pretences to and over the Scepters and Royal Diadems or tempo∣ral authority of Kings, and in particular of the Kings of England.

But indeed the true causes of their backwardness and reluctancy, and which even themselves almost all generally upon occasion acknowledg'd were.

1. That most of their leading men, and such as not onely were in office over others, but very many also that bore no such offices at all as then, were pretendents and candidats either abroad at Rome for titulary Archbishopricks, Bishopricks, Vicar-generalships, Deanries, Parishes, Provincialships, Com∣missaryships, &c. or at home amongst their own Brethren for votes to be cho∣sen presented or preferred to such offices (either amongst the secular or regu-Clergie) as they aspired unto; albeit as poor and inconsiderable amongst the Clergie as little Cures in Parishes without other advantage than the bare be∣nevolence of the laye people; and even as poor and inconsiderable as a Guar∣dianship, Priorship, or some such other now very vain title in Ireland, amongst the Regulars. For because at Rome, and for what depended of that Court immediately, they perswaded themselves that to subscribe would be a perpe∣tual obstruction to all their hopes (as the case stands in Ireland, the King be∣ing of a different communion,) and even at home also they could expect no more favour from their own Brethren, or their own actual superiours, Bishops, Vicars-general, Provincials, &c. that were adverse to the Remonstrance, as most of them certainly were: even such as both in their judgements, for point of conscience, and in their natural inclinations also to the English Crown and interests of it in Ireland, were truly in their Soules for the Remonstrance, would not by any means be induced to declare themselves publickly such, either in word or writing.

2. That such as in the late Warrs had engaged themselves against both Pea∣ces, or either of them, and against the foregoing Cessation, and consequently for the Censures of the Nuncio, apprehended it (for want of Christian humi∣lity or a true sense of piety) as the worst of evils in this world, to condemn as much as virtually or consequentially their former temerity in such engage∣ments: and that they cleerly saw their subscription to that Remonstrance must have been thought by rational men (wherein I confess they were not decei∣ved) a tacit, and virtual or consequential acknowledgement of their said former proceedings to have been illegal and unjust; though it was not there∣fore intended.

3. That some who had been earnest enough for the said Peaces and Cessati∣on, and all along against the Nuncio, saw their neerest Catholick Relatives, born to good Estates very many of them, who had fought in those quarrels for the King, and all along declined any conditions even from the Parliament, no more regarded by the Kings Declaration and several Bills of Settlement than the very first grand contrivers of the Rebellion; but their estates given away eternally to such as fought against the King, even all along, even from the very first day of the Warrs, while any Warr continued.

4. That such others, and they were the farre greater number as had no af∣fection at all to the Royal or English interest, nor ever at any time had from the beginning, conceived a subscription would before the world tye them to that duty they would not be tyed unto; albeit for the generality of them they were more wary then to discover to others this their own peculiar cause, but in lieu thereof pretended if not conscience, yet at least reverence to the See Apostolick; when yet being pressed on by reason and argument in point of Religion, Faith and Justice, many of them in private conference declined ingenuously all pretences, and confess'd the true cause without any further shifting. Whence it is that I know they laugh in their sleeves to see those other Gentlemen of their indeed common profession but not extraction, through inconsiderancy, & other vain & false pretences of Religion, or submission to the Holy See, interpose betwixt them & the State so, that they need not fear any peculiar necessity to be put on themselves either to discover or decline that their own motive or cause, which indeed is the cause that renders them so strangly obstinate.

5. That besides, the Regulars generally, at least the Mendicant Orders (who in this Country live most by publick begging at the altars of parish

Priests, where the people meet on Sundays and other festivals (for which, if they will thrive, they must have the licence and recommendation of the respective Ordinaries, Bishops or Vicars general, or at least not to be opposed by them or discountenanced by the parish Priests themselves) pretended it a sufficient plea for not signing (when they were desired) That it behoved them to do nothing in such a matter before the Ordinaries and secular Clergie con∣curr'd, or at least not to subscribe without their consent; being sure, if they did, of meeting with much disfavour and opposition from them, and with a substraction consequently through their means of the benevolence of the laye people, over whom the Ordinaries and Priests must have had so great an in∣fluence as was known. And moreover that each of those Mendicant Orders in particular, being reason'd with, alleadged that if they had singly done it, or without the concurrence of such other Orders as depended in that kind of the secular Clergie, they should be sure to be singularly branded, as not re∣garding the Holy See: and those o••hers extolled, and particularly recommen∣ded in their place, and by the said Clergie to the devotion of the people. Whereby it would come to pass immediately that they would not be able to live in communities or otherwise. And further that their priviledges and faculties from the Pope, which gave them so much exemption from the Or∣dinaries, and credit amongst the people, would questionless upon the odious complaint of others, and representation at Rome of their signing, runn a very great hazard to be totally recalled.

6. The Dominicans pretended, and truely too, that hitherto they had been all united in one and the self same way without any visible breach amongst them, not even at that time of tryal when other Orders were devided in this Kingdom. That particularly they could not but reflect on their own prin∣ted Acts of Kilkenny, or of their Provincial Chapter held in their Convent there, 18. Ian. 1643. under Albertus (otherwise Terlagh) ô Brien, Prior Pro∣vincial then of their Order. In which Acts, and amongst the Declarations, the second is of this tenour pag. 6. Declaramus, cum juxta mentem Divi Thomae (quem omnes Theologi in hoc sequuntur) bellum quodlibet ex sufficienti Principis authoritale, justa causa, et recta intentione justificetur, Catholicorum hoc bellum pro fidei defensione, regiis praerogativis, patriae libertate, vitae et bonorum conservatione contra impiissimi Calvini sectam susceptum, undiqua{que} justissimum esse. Vnde Acta Capituli Nationalis, Kilkenniae celebrati 10. Maii, 1642. quoad hoc recipimus, fratribus{que} nostris recipienda proponimus, mandantes ut eis nullatenus directè vel indirectè se opponere audeant. That further yet, their general Constitutions, or those of their whole Order throughout the world, binds them all, nay and Oathes moreover bind such as are called Masters among them, to defend all the doctrine or opinions of their Angelical Doctor St. Thomas of Aquin: and that St. Thomas of Aquin's doctrine 2. 2. q. 10. ar. 10. and q. 12. ar. 2. is cleerly against that whereon the Remonstrance is grounded, and against that also which is therein even formally and expresly contained.

7. That such of the Franciscan Order as had been the very chief Heads amongst all the Regulars to maintain the Censures of the Nuntio, and all other consequents even against the rest of the same Order, who no less eminently op∣posed the said Censures: that those Franciscans, I say, alledged, that to sign any such Remonstrance was point blanck against all their former proceedings, and against all those opinions too in which their said proceedings were grounded.

8. That those Orders of a later brood in the Church, which began but within this last Century, or much about an hundred or sixcore years since, and therefore had no ancient foundations in Ireland, or any at all before the change of Religion, or suppression of religious houses, I mean the Jesuits, Cappuchins, and Excalceat Carmelits; and therefore to this day have no le∣gal admission in this Countrey for houses or new erections (and for old they never had any) not even, I mean, according to the Papal canons or constituti∣ons, which prescribe as necessary thereunto (besides the consent of the Su∣pream

temporal Magistrate, still supposed) an admission from the Ordinary, with the consent of the People and pre-existent Regulars; least otherwise the multiplication of religious Orders and Houses, especially such as live by almes, might prove too great a burthen to the Layety and Clergy both, and too de∣structive also to themselves, one of another: That those three late Orders, I say, pretended generally for their own excuse, their great dependence from the Ordinaries and Secular Clergy, as to their future admission to the respe∣ctive Districts or Diocesses, and their establishment for houses in the Coun∣trey. Besides, that they were but a very few, and inconsiderable in respect of others. That however their judgment, affection or extraction lead them; yet this cause alone might be sufficient for their excuse, not to subscribe without encouragment by example from the Ordinaries. And yet it is very well known, that several of them (as likewise of the other more ancient Orders) laboured earnestly and mightily, that there should be no such encouragment or example at all from Ordinaries or any other. Whereof the reason is very obvious. Because the later any religious Institution is, and the newer in any Catholick Countrey, the greater dependence it must have, and the more support it wants from Rome. Which those three last Orders amongst us, were so far from putting to any hazard to be lost by subscription, that they would assure themselves of it more and more by the greatest opposition they could make in favour of all pretences for the holy See; and thereby also be sure to continue their yearly pensions of Missionaries, such of them, I mean, as are pensionaries upon the account of mission, as several are.

9. That above all the Jesuits yet more particularly found themselves con∣cern'd on this particular account, that so many great and famous Writers of their Society, and by consequence the whole Society it self had been all along, these fourscore years at least, throughly engaged to maintain the contrary doctrine and practises.

10. That on the other side the Secular Clergy pretended there was no signing for themselves, before the Regulars concurr'd, who as being com∣monly the best Divines and Preachers, and many in number, and changeable from County to County, and from one Diocess and Province to another at their Superiours will, and in most parts in greater esteem with the lay people then the Secular Clergy, would, if not concurring with them, cast such an as∣persion on them, as would be able to render them infamous and contemptible amongst their own Parishioners, upon account of so specious a pretence amongst ignorant people as the renouncing the Papal power, and acknowledging the King to be Supream Head of the Church, would amount unto. For so, many, and very many too, of both Secular and Regular Clergy gave out to the com∣mon sort (against their own knowledge and conscience) the Subscribers mean'd, and did by that Remonstrance of 61. representing it as the same thing with the Oath of Supremacy, which Roman Catholicks generally have refused this hundred years, and therefore lay under so many incapacities and other pe∣nalties. Nay, some of those Clergy-men did not stick to say, and swear too they would sooner take the Oath of Supremacy than subscribe that Remon∣strance. And yet it is very clear those Gentlemen understand neither: or, if they do either, that certainly they are out as to both, in their explications of them, as far as from East to West. For in the sense wherein the sons of the Protestant Churches of England and Ireland take the Oath of Supremacy they acknowledge no spiritual Supremacy purely such, or any such spiritual Head∣ship, or supream Government-ship in the King in any causes or things what soever, even temporal: so far are they from acknowledging such in causes or things Ecclesiastical or Spiritual, not even in those which are by extrinsecal de∣nomination only called Ecclesiastical or Spiritual; but only a Supream Politick, Civil or Temporal Head-ship or Government-ship in all things whatsoever, by the power of the material Sword, and this of this Sword over all persons generally, as well Church-men as others. Which sense is very Catholick, and owned in relation to their

Kings and 〈…〉〈…〉 temporal Governours, by all Catholicks in France, Spain, Germany, Poland, Italy, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 wheresoever in the world. Nor do they intend to deny by the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Oath in the negative ••••me, any power purely spiritual to the Pope, or other even 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Prelate▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that power only which 〈…〉〈…〉 ••••••••ug∣nant to that sup••••••••, 〈◊〉〈◊〉, temporal, or politick Government-ship, be not said to be such, as indeed it cannot justly. And on the other side, it is plain the Remonstrance o•• 〈…〉〈…〉 not a word or clause, either defect•••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 di∣rectly, or by any kind of consequence importing the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 wherein the Roman Catholicke have refused ••••therto the ••••nd Oath of Supremacy, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this sense is no other than 〈…〉〈…〉 by the universality of the words or signs 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the af∣firmative and negative 〈◊〉〈◊〉, the Roman Catholick, Vulgar understands ever also a spiritual Privacy, or Supremacy purely such, to be attributed to the King, and denied to the Pope, and other Bishops in those Dominions▪ albeit this sense be plainly repugnant to the very Confession of Faith in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ar∣ticles of the Pr••••est•••••• Church England and Ireland, and to those others of Queen Elizabeth in her Injuctions, authorized and owned even by Parlia∣ment. Now it is no less manifest, and out of all controversie amongst such as do but even lead singly over the Protestation of 61. that there us not a word in it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••bi••••ting any such to the King, or denying it to the Pope, or in∣tending at all any such thing; nor indeed any thing else but what is allowed and approved by the doctrine and practice of all the Catholick world abroad, i•• peradventure the present Roman Court (not the Roman Church) be not excepted, and the few sticklers for it; although against the sense and inclination of all the wise and moderate Popes, even I mean too, such as gover∣ned that See in these latter times.

But however this be, or be not, such was the pretence of many for not con∣curring by their subscriptions: albeit they confess'd withal, the Remonstrance very catholick in it self. And for this pretence, or the scandal, raised against the Remonstrance of renouncing the Pope, or importing the same with the Oath of Supremacy, besides the malicious, or wilful stumbling of some at, one word in it, not construed or taken with the words immediatly following, & restrain∣ing that word, as all men of never so little reason or sense must allow it ought to be: I know not but the reprinting of the single sheet of that Remonstrance at London, by some of purpose to gain by selling it, when all the first Edition was immediately bought, and the reprinting of it with a false Title cryed and sold so up and down the Streets (which false Title imported the renoun∣cing of the Pope by the Popish Clergy of Ireland) whether, I say, this occa∣sioned not at first that aspersion amongst some ignorant people, I know not; though I am sure it could not amongst the Clergy, on Layety either, that read the paper it self, or what was therein contained.

11. That some also of the leading men had a special pick to it, only be∣cause advanced by the Procurator: by whose means they would not even de∣sire the freest exercise of their Religion: because he had been all along so earnest formerly against all their wayes in the controversies of the Confede∣rates, and so eminently appeared by preaching and writing against the Cen∣sures of the Nuntio, and against the faction adhering to the Nuntio in that mat∣ter. And that not only those, but others too, who had been formerly, of his way, and his friends, confessed ingenuously they were more startled by his book, entituled The more ample account (as being the account he gave in print of the causes, motives, &c. of that Remonstrance) then they were by the Re∣monstrance in it self: because in his explication of it therein, he left no lati∣tude, no kind of liberty for the people in any case whatsoever, not even in that of the most publick tyrannical, and general oppression, to take arms in their own defence, or for their own relief from such miseries, not even on their own bottom, or by virtue of that which is by some pretended to be by na∣ture and reason an inherent power in the people, as a people, although not as a Church of Christ. They could indeed (said those Gentlemen) do well enough,

renouncing any power in the Pope or Church; as such, to put 〈…〉〈…〉 hands, or dispense with them in their Allegiance, or to de••h one deprive, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 depose the King. But renouncing this inherent, power of the people, ••h•••• remedy had they to hope for, in the condition the miserable Catholick were in, and like to continue, having their Estates bestowed for ever 〈◊〉〈◊〉 His Majesty on others who had no other right to them?

12. That generally by all it was alledged the laws were still 〈◊〉〈◊〉 against their Religion. And they had yet no kind of assurance of as much a•• of the•••• suspension of their execution much less as of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, of 〈…〉〈…〉 pri∣vate promises had been made to the Procurator, or that he had other grounds to hope better; yet such were not apparent to others, not convincing at all. That i•• publick articles or peace were broken, and no way regardeth they had little reason any more to build o•• private promi••es or hopes 〈…〉〈…〉 ••ea••d of ones mouth speaking privately to another, And therefore albeit there was nothing in that Remonstrance which was not catholick and conscientious; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 they had no reason to be forward in subscribing it: whereby to publish to the world abroad their own temerity, whereas they had not as yet any assurance to be protected at home as much as in the capacity of meer Lay men, though they did not exercise at all their priestly functions; which yet they could not choose but exercise in some way, at whatever hazzard. And then what would become of them, if after subscribing such an Instrument they should be forced, for flying a persecution at home (which might be against them upon account of such exercise against the laws, whensoever it pleased, the Magi∣strates, Judges, or Protestant Bishops) to fly into other Countreys, where the Pope and Court of Rome could not but have much influence upon persons that would otherwise relieve and welcome them?

13. That it was moreover objected, that those very persons of either Laity or Clergy who had already subscribed, were nothing, for any thing could be then observed, more favoured, or more at liberty then others. The lay∣men Proprietours, not therefore restored to their Estates, not even, although several of them, could withal, according to the laws, pretend innocency, and all of them publick Articles both of War and Peace for their said Estates, and for their Religion too, or the publick and free exercise of it, and the repealing of an laws, especially of the 2d. of Queen Elizabeth against it. Nor the Clergy-men suffered to enjoy as much as one Chappel, without daily hazzards of im∣prisonments, & even of mens lives as that which about that time in 62. accord∣ding to the English account, or 63. according to the Roman, at Christmass in Dublin, both St. Stevens and New-years day, could testifie, when the Fran∣ciscans Chappel, who had been all Subscribers, and wherein the Procuratour himself did officiate, and whereunto he laboured to obtain all the favour, con∣nivence, and countenance he could possibly, without any peradventure, was by guards of Souldiers, and whole companies with naked swords assaulted, the Altar riffled, the Priests carried prisoners to Newgate, and many hurt both men and women grievously, and some slashed and wounded sorely, even to the great endangering of their lives. And that about the same time, or a little before, or after (for which of both, I cannot now remember) there was a Pro∣clamation issued against all religious meetings, or meetings at Mass, Sermons, or other such religious rites: wherein the Papists by name as well as Fanaticks were comprehended, without any priviledge to the Subscribers: as it was without any such distinction observed and forced to be observed so.

14. That the words were scrupled at as not reverential enough, for such of them as directly related to the most blessed Father.

15. That they saw nothing yet from his Majesty, Lord Lieutenant, or other Minister of State, could assure them that a demand of their subscription or concurrence to that Instrument proceeded from such Authority as they ought to submit unto, or take notice of. And therefore they found not themselves concern'd so as to answer positively: being, for what they saw as yet, it was

the desire only of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and of such a•• hath directly engaged with him, although ou•• loss good will to help the 〈…〉〈…〉 those 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he took, any way convenients 〈…〉〈…〉, he should 〈…〉〈…〉 excuse them till they further 〈…〉〈…〉 His Majesty 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Lord Lieute∣nant, on, which in the same thing His Majesty 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his 〈…〉〈…〉 their subscriptions.

16. And lastly the r••••••re the desired th•••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 like general Congrega∣tion of all Ir•••••• 〈…〉〈…〉 bishops, bishops, V•••••••• 〈…〉〈…〉 General of 〈…〉〈…〉 were actually 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (either by the 〈…〉〈…〉 ex∣•••••• of the into Bishops) 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Provincial Superiours of the Re••••••••, and some others 〈…〉〈…〉 of ••est Divines 〈◊〉〈◊〉 both the Secular and Regular Clergy, to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & by common consent or that at least of the grea∣ter part to determine whether they should subscribe the Remonst••••ned, do 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

X.

Although 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and with of those several pre•••••••• objections, allegati∣ons, motives or and few of their declining, or delaying the in subscriptions, the Procurator, and others 〈◊〉〈◊〉 answered the several part••••, both fully and satis∣factority as to th•• point in hand, of that nothing of all, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 all together could be a sufficient excuse for them not to declare publickly, even under their hands, and by concurrence to that Instrument, their 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and allegi∣ance to the King in all temporall 〈…〉〈…〉 whatsoever; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 then which that Remonstrance contains not; yet I will 〈◊〉〈◊〉 detain the ••nder being upon so ma∣ny particular heads of answers, which may be obvidence himself being it is not the design of this Tract to dispute, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to gives the procedure of that busi∣ness in gross as to the chief matters of fact, in the dispositions towards the ge∣nerall Congregation so desired, or a 〈…〉〈…〉 be defiled, but cer∣tainly hold upon that matter in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 To be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Answers were,

1. That it very ill ••••ted with the profession of the followers of Christ, and Successors of his Apostles and Disciples, or the function of Priests of God, and Preachers of Evangelical t•••••••• by their calling, for any earthly regard or am∣bitious aim of titles or diguleies, either 〈…〉〈…〉 of the Church, to decline the declaration of their conscience, or of the doctrine of Christ, whereby the stocks on people 〈◊〉〈◊〉 their charge, or to whom they were sent, might be s••••••dly and sufficiently instructed that to embrace, 〈…〉〈…〉 to 〈◊〉〈◊〉, as prescribed by the law of God. That besides, they were altogether ou•• in their way to those worldly and they proposed themselves, with so little re∣gard of their duty or conscience. That the case was much altered 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that hath been these hundred years pasts▪ And that if they expected a greater li∣berty, they should withal expect a more arrow inspection from the Prince or State into their affairs and Government, and to the persons amongst them advanced 〈◊〉〈◊〉 others, and to the means and wayes of their advancement hereafter; and their 〈◊〉〈◊〉 its consequently, principles and faithfulness to the Crown.

2. That 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of them as formerly had been so with ••unate (and indeed most of them were so) as to have been pacti••••s in the Nun••••o's and other an∣nexed quarrels against the brights of the Crown, 〈…〉〈…〉 of the Kingdom, had the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 reason now to be forward to embrace the opportunity given them of me••••ing hereafter a better opinion, and removing as well as they might out of His Majesties breast, Lord Lieutenants, and even out of all the rest of their fellow Subjects, especially Protestants, the jealousies and suspicions their former actions continue yet in them, and must alwayes continue if they refuse to give so lawful and dutiful, so catholick and conscienti∣ous an argument of their change and repentance, as their subscription to the said Remonstrance must be reputed.

3. That for those others of them, who in the 〈…〉〈…〉 him been honest and loyal all along, they should 〈…〉〈…〉 the fair hope they had of a ••ew 〈…〉〈…〉 its a 〈…〉〈…〉 then this, for their further good 〈…〉〈…〉 their profession and ••••••ing••ed 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of their 〈…〉〈…〉 uniform in in their doctrine and life, according to the law of God in all senti•••••• that Time servers nor Wealth ••••ck••▪ That besides they should confides the streight the King was in but with so 〈…〉〈…〉 the impossibility of satisfying 〈…〉〈…〉 hap∣pen in such a case, that of this Countrey, but why 〈…〉〈…〉. That to the publick good, and g•••••• parts of the Kingdom, 〈…〉〈…〉 of particular could not be preferred. That they 〈…〉〈…〉 be of the necessities of the publick for disposition▪ And if the King or now Laws did wrong any, even of the best deserving of their friends: their religi∣on and their conscience and principles told them, and their function or cal∣ling peculiarly, they, nor other Subjects had in such a case other remedy but prayers and tears, and supplications to Him that can believe the oppressed when he please in this world, and will certainly 〈…〉〈…〉 in Christian pati∣ence in a better. Finally, that the liberty, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 exercise of Religion, and of indoctrinating the People in the wayes to heaten were the mark•• prop••r 〈◊〉〈◊〉 them to sho•• at: and to this end they were called; not to contend for par∣titions of earthly patrimonies. And that where one Proprietor 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his ••and, a thousand Catholicks would loose their souls, if they would not pursue in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 even course the principles of the Religion and a good Conscience, and by their concurrence wipe off the jealousies raised against, and scandals aspersed on it by the doctrine and practises which that Remonstrance did condemn on disown.

4. To those that had ingrafted in them an aversio•• against all was called or reputed the Interest of the Crown of England in this Countrey, it was seriously inculcated how unfortunate both themselves and predecessors had been there∣in during the revol•••••• ••s and various attempts in pr••secution thereof these 500 years past, since H••••ty the 2d. And how the principles and arguments they made use of to flatten themselves to some kind of ••••••••fulness (which in∣deed 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a pitiful and in point of conscien••••) were such as chose, and no other then those which Father Charles 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Mah••n (the M••••er Jesuit) hath in his wicked Apology set out in Portugal (however pretended to have been printed at Frand••fords) and dispersed here amongst the Confederate though publick∣ly burn'd by the hand of a hangman at Kilkenny, and by the authority also of the said Confederate, and against which the Proculator himself by the com∣mand of to then supream Council preach't nine Sermons five Sundays one af∣ter another in St. Kennys Church on that text of Jeremiah, Quis est 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vobis sap ••••siqui considerat hoc, quare perierit terra. Even such as would involve by consequence all Kingdoms and States in the whole earth (whereinto my For∣reigner ever enter'd as any time) in perpetual war and blood shed. Such as would be••••••ve of all right all conquering Nations, let the causes of the invasi∣on be never so just, or continued-possession after be never so long, and the sub∣mission of the conquer'd never so voluntary, for what can appear to the eyes of man. And such also as would arm even themselves, who made use of such arguments, one against another, while the world did stand. Nay, and such too as being prest on by contrary arguments, would make them confess conse∣quently, as indeed they did (such of them as were ingenuous, and freely spoke their minds to the Procurator, urging them in point of reason) that it were not a sin against the law of God for any to involve the whole Kingdom i•• was again, if he could, to recover only for himself a small patrimony, even of a much as twenty pounds a year, whereof he had been (in his own privat judge∣ment) disposses••••d unjustly in the late plantations made before the wars. It was further laid open to such men how their sin, entertaining such m••r••••••es,

and harbouring such designs, was by so much the more abominable before God and man, by how much they were themselves Hypocritical in pretending only to others that knew them not, a speciousness of Religion, and that of the Church of God, and interest of the Pope. Then which or any of all which, God knowes, they intended nothing less, but where it brought or could bring their other truly intended worke about.

5. To the Regulars in general it was answer'd, That they knew better their own strength and their own exemption and their own priviledges then so. That they often engage against the whole body of the secular Clergie in matters wherein they are sure to offend them more and have more opposition from them, and less support from others, either in their own Country at home, or abroad in forraign parts, or even at Rome. And they were sure enough the Pope would be wiser then to discountenance such a numerous body of the chief maintainers of his spiritual Primacy at least, & in the whole latitude of even the pretences of it, & execution of such pretences, to so great a diminution of the ordinary power of all other Bishops wheresoever: as the Bishops themselves, Arch-bishops, Primats, and Patriarchs too complain of; whether justly or in∣justly, I meddle not with that. And that moreover they could not be igno∣rant of what their own Divines do teach in such a case of revocation without cause, at least for an unjust cause, and for so ill an end, as the supporting of errour and Heresy in the Church: or of what St. Paul before them taught, Non est potestas ad destructionem, &c. or of the character and power they re∣ceived in their consecration: or of what the power of jurisdiction imports: and what it is in its own nature; and that nothing els by addition, but ablatio obicis: and how both Christ himself and the Church of Christ supplyes what is wanting & what is obstructing, & crosses even that ebex or obstacle when it is put by an unjust sentence, and for a general destruction or corruption, by any Prelate soever revokeing so or attempting to revoke so against former laws & Canons. Nor could be ignorant how their own Divines also teach their privi∣ledges are most of them, for such as are material, inserted even in the body of the Canon Law, and ratified by general Councils, even by the very Council of Trent as many as are not there specifically revoked. And that the Pope is not Lord absolute, but Lord Keeper only of the Canons, at least of those we call (in opposition to others) Canones Vniversalis Ecclesiae. And further teach that the Priviledges of Regulars, as to the main and material of them, are of the nature of those are called Remunerative, which cannot at least so easily, and without an evident abuse, be recalled. Nor could be ignorant also, such of them as were conversant in Ecclesiastical History, how the Franciscan Order alone could and did maintain themselves and their own lawful priviledges against all the thunders of John the two and Twentieth, incensed against them principally or only for maintaining their Temporal Allegiance to Ludovicus Bavarus then Emperour, though deposed by the Popes unjust sentence; as much I say as such a Papal sentence could depose him verbally. That those Regulars moreover knew no less their own interest to be greater in the people and Clergie both of Ireland, and the esteem of them farre greater than that the Ordinaries could upon such an improbable ground, or would, or dared attempt any thing to their prejudice, much less prevaile, if they would be so inconsiderate as to venture on that ground any attempt against them. Where∣as on the contrary the Ordinaries themselves confess'd their farre greater in∣fluence, or that of Regulars on the people. Which is so true, that, for ex∣ample, Doctor Daly, Vicar general of Ardmagh (and Judge Delegate in all that Province, by Commission from the titular Catholick-Primate) when at Dublin some two years past (called upon to sign the said Remonstrance, or give his reasons why not) alleadged for not concurring then, and confess'd plainly and several times, his only reason for not doing it, was the opposition of the Franciscans in his Province: who were indeed, (said he) the only Divines they had. That for his own part he was no Divine, and his learning was but a

little in the Canons, and that little too principally in those of the Council of Trent (& yet such little thereof as he had by practice) because received in that Province. That the Franciscans only, boare all the swaye amongst his Ulster-people: and that indeed so very great, that if he could get but only four leading men of them, Father Thomas Makiernan, Anthony Gowan, Malachias Corcran, & Bonaventure Quin, to sign with him, he would undertake to bring the whole Province or Arch-Bishoprick of Ardmagh, with the several Ordinaries, Bishops, Vicars General, and other inferiour Clergie to sign at Dublin. And so true besides, that Father Oliver Dese, Vicar General of Meath alleaged also and confessed often, that four or five leading men only of the several Provin∣ces of Ireland, of that very Franciscan Order, who had been formerly of the Nuncios party, once concurring would infallibly draw after them to a like concurrence or subscription all the rest not only of that Order, but of all o∣ther Orders of the regular Clergie, and not of the regular Clergie alone, but even of all the Secular also in all parts of the Kingdom, who hitherto either opposed, or not concurr'd to it.

6. To the Franciscans in particular, I mean those leading Nuntiatists and their party in that Order, it was answered, That they had the more reason to shew on this occasion good example to others, by how much they were known formerly, upon an other quite contrary, to have been so active in giving them bad, by misleading them from their duty, to the utter destruction of their Country and Religion. And that now therefore they above others should en∣deavour singularly, and hasten to redeem as much as in them laye, by lawful conscientious and Catholick demonstrations of their loyaltie hereafter, what they had so perpetrated in former times against the Catholick and Christian maximes of fidelity. And that it is no shame to retract an errour, but a ve∣ry great sin to continue in it.

7. To the Dominicans, That union in an evil cause or purpose is not that union which deserves a blessing, but a curse from God. And a pursuance of it is not that perseverance to which our Saviour in the Gospel promiseth salva∣tion; but a most dreadful condemnation, even fire and flames and everlasting torments in Hell. That (as to those Franciscans was answered) it was no shame to retract or repent; but the shame was in continueing obstinately an errour: and it was never too late to begin to do well: and the reward pro∣posed on one side and the punishments on the other by God himself did not only countervaile, but surmount infinitely all those vaine apprehensions of be∣ing reputed changelings, and all that shame which they so much apprehended for doing well; but which indeed they ought to have reflected on when they formerly did so ill. That their first allegation of their Acts, Statutes, or De∣clarations at Kilkenny should be reputed amongst rational men both a sufficient and necessary motive for them above others to wash away the stain, which they so deeply were coloured with in graine. And their second, which was their grand Achilles, but only by a fond imagination, could be no excuse at all. Whereas they cannot but confess their said Oath, or said Constitutions, or both oblige them not, but secundum aequum et bonum, where no grand inconvenience follows: much less oblige them at all where the laws of God or man, of the Church, or Kingdom, Ecclesiastical or Temporal, unto which they must as Subjects conform, oblige them to the contrary. And they could not but con∣fess that their both Constitutions and Oath, if there be any such Oath of those amongst them them they call Masters of Divinity, are only for maintaining the doctrine of St. Thomas of Aquine, not as articles of Faith, nor as the doctrine of the Church, nor Dogmatically at all; at least not out of their School Pulpits: but only by way of Scholastical speculations, and for sharpning of wits, and shifting the truth problematically or probably in all such matters wherein the Scripture, or Tradition was not clear and certain, and still only within the Schools. That otherwise the whole Order of the Franciscans, and all the o∣ther Schools of Scotists, who maintain as stiffly, and are alike by their Consti∣tutions

bound to maintain against St. Thomas & the Thomists all the speculations, & all the subtleties of the Subtile Doctor Scotus (who writ ex professo against all or almost all even every individual position of St. Thomas as well in his Divinity as Philosophy, where the matter is not certain otherwise by Scripture or Tra∣dition) were to be condemned by them. Which yet they will not dare in point of morallity, prudence, and conscience. That moreover it is manifest, St. Thomas of Aquin is not weaker in his proofs for any of his Theological opi∣nons then for this of a power in the Pope or Church for deposing Infidel or Heretick Princes on pretence or because of Infidelity, Apostacy, Schisme, Heresy, where he determines it so in his Theological Sum. 2. 2. q. x. ar. 10. and q. 12. ar 2. And that he relyes for proof of so weighty an Assertion, first on a reason that would not move the meerest novice in Divinity. (Quia fideles, sayes he, merito suae infidelitatis merentur potestatem amittere super fideles, qui transferuntur in filios lucis. Supra, q. 10. ar 10. in corp. Which yet is the only reason this great & Holy Doctor brings to prove that a very infidel Prince who was never Baptized may be deposed by the Church.) Secondly, & for proof of that same Assertion, as relating specially to an Apostat, Heretick, or Schysmatick Prince that was Bap∣tized, relyes onely and wholy on the bare judgment and practise of Gregory the VII. otherwise called Pope Hildebrand, or on that Canon made by this Pope, which you may find in Gratian. 15. q. 6. cap. Nos Sanctorum. That as it is there∣fore manifest that St. Thomas of Aquin is not weaker in his proofs of any of his Theological Assertions then of this of a power in the Pope or Church for deposing Infidel or Heretick Princes (as the Reader may see partly in the Latin notes, which follow this Paragraph & for the rest satisfie himself at large in Fa∣ther Caro'ns Remonstrantia Hibernorum:) so it is no less manifest, that generally where the Thomists find in any other positions of this Angelical Doctor (and those too of infinite less concern) insuperable difficulties, they decline him there & expound him or his mind by some other place of his workes, where he held the contrary, or perhaps retracted considerately what he had before unadvisedly handled; by the example of St. Austin himself in his books of Retractation. And so those Irish Fathers might, if they pleased, have declined in this matter St. Thomas in his said Sum, and expounded St. Thomas there, by following St. Thomas where he holds by plain consequence of reason the contrary in his ex∣position of St. Pauls Epistles to the Corinthians. That they could not deny but that notwithstanding all their Constitutions and Oathes whatsoever, they all now generally and confessedly and without any exposition or interpretati∣on of one place by an other decline St. Thomas of Aquin, even in that matter wherein their whole Order these full 300 years found themselves most con∣cern'd of any, in point of reputation at least, to follow & defend him; that is, in the dispute of the Blessed Virgins conception without original sin. Nor can deny this matter to have come within these late years to that height in Spain (even where they are in such esteem) that the very Provincial of their Order in the Kingdom or Province of Castile was confined to Penna de Francia by or∣ders from the King until he subscribed under his hand against that opinion of St. Thomas in this matter, and consequently acknowledged so the Blessed Virgin conceaved without original sin, against the confessed doctrine of St. Thomas, and against the letter of his Constitutions, and verbal tenour of his Oath as a Master. And yet he was not so commanded by any decrees of the Church; which as it is well known, hath never yet decided that question. And yet also that question of the Blessed Virgin is no less known, to be of infinite less consequence to the Peace or Settlement of either Church or State, for the owning or disowning of either the affirmative or negative resolution, and for a subscription to either, than ours of the Remonstrance of our indispensable loyaltie in Temporal things to the Supream Magistrate, and our lawful, and rightful King. Finally that St. Thomas of Aquin's Scholastical assertion, what∣ever it be, or a Statute in an Order to teach such or such a doctrine or Oath of some few members of such an Order, how learned, religious, or eminent

soever that Order be, is a very bad plea, at least in such a matter as ours, a∣gainst ten thousand other Holy and eminent Fathers, Doctors, Prelates in all Countreys and ages of the Church; against so many express clear passages of Holy Scriptures, against the universal tradition of all Christians till Gregory the VII. days about the Xth. age of Christianity; and against the greatest evi∣dence of both natural reason, and of hundreds too of Theological arguments, the first grounds of Christianity being once admitted.

Qu••ni•••••• autem singula persequimur, admonere oportet, D. Thomam alicubi in ea opinio∣ne esse ut existimet ius dominii & praelationis Ethnicorum Principum justè illis auferri posse,* 10.1 per sententiam vel ordinationem Ecclesiae, authoritatem Dei habentis, vt ille ait. D. Thomae magna apud me au∣thoritas est; sed non tanta, ut omnes ejus disputationes pro Canonicis Scripturis habeam, vel ut rationem vincat aut legem. Ejus ego Manes veneror, & doctrinam suspicio. Sed non est tamen cur illa ejus opinione aliquis moveatur: tum quia nullam suae sententiae vel rationem idoneam & efficacem, vel authoritatem profert: tum etiam quia in explicatione epistolae Pauli ad Corinth. 1. contrarium planè sentit: tum denique quia neminem secum antiquorum Patrum consentientem habet,* 10.2 & rationes multae, authoritatesque in contrarium supperunt. Ratio autem quam adfert est, quia infideles me∣rito suae infidelitatis merentur potestatem amittere super fideles, qui transferuntur in filios Dei. Mala ratio, & tanto viro indigna: quasi verò si quis meretur privari officio, be∣neficio, dignitate, authoritate, aliovè jure aliquo quod possidet, ideircò statim spoliari possit ab alio quàm ab eo à quo id accepit retinetque, vel ab alio expressum mandatum & potestatem ab apso habente. Quis nescit Cancellarium, Conestablum, alios{que} Magistratus à Rege datos, mereri quidem amittere dignitatē suam, si qua in re suo officio abutantur? at eam tamen nemo illis auferre potest, quamdiu eos Princeps, à quo s••lo pendent, dignitate sua fungi pati∣tur. Simili modo Principes infideles, li••et merito suae infidelitatis mereantur potestatem amittere: tamen quia sunt à Deo constituti, & solo Deo minores, non p••ssunt nisi à Deo destitui imperio ac deponi. Et verô idem Thomas, in expositione epistolae Pauli superius hec capite relata, satis aperte indicat, Ecclesiam non habere eam authoritatem qua possit Ethnices deponere: ait enim esse contra ius divinum, prohibere ne Principum infidelium judicio stetur à subditis. Constat autem, Ecclesiam nihil contra jus divinum, vel jubere, vel prohibere posse. Perrot ••lere Principibus infidelibus jus Dominii & Praelationis, est re vera prohibere ne ipsorum judici•• stetur: Ecclesia ergo eam potestatem non habet. Et verò peruoluat quis∣quis velit historias, nusquam inveniet Ecclesiam id sibi juris assumpsisse, ut de Principibus Infidelibus sive Ethnicis judicaret. Nec solùm propter scandalum abstinuit, ut putat Thomas eo loco,* 10.3 sed propter defectum potestatis, quia non erat judex infidelium, secundum illud Apostoli, quid mihi de ijs, qui foris sunt, judicare. Et quia Principes à Deo constituti, solum Deum supra se judicem habent, à quo solo deponi possunt. Nec ad rem pertinet, quod Paulus, dum jubet seruos Cristianos dominis suis infidelibus omnem honorem exhibere, illud solum addit, ne nomen Domini & doctri∣na blasphemetur. non enim id dixit, quasi ea sola de causa servi dominis obedire debeant, sed quòd praecipué ea de causa, expressit itaque maximum malum quod inde ••riri potuit, ut servos à contemptu dominorum deterreret, nempe scandalum publicum totius Ecclesiae Dei & doctrinae Christianae.* 10.4 Non vult ergo Apostolus ijs verbis, servos possese licitè subtrabere jugo servitutis, invitis dominis, si id sine scandalo pos∣sent Ecclesiae; furtum enim sui facerent jure gentium; sed vult osten∣dere eos non solùm peccare, quod alibi apertè docet sed etiam publi∣cum toti Ecclesiae scandalum generare: quod singulorum peccatis longè gravius & perniciosius est, & super omnia evitandum. Gulielmus Barclaius. I. C. cap. 21. De Potest. Papae.

Pestremò, ad illos tres textus Iuris Canonici in objectione relatos, quibus probari vi∣detur, penes Pontificem esse potestatem Subditos a Iuramento fidelitatis absol••endi, Respon∣d••mus, primum canonem, Nos Sanctorum, esse decretum Gregorij Papae septimi, in quo eos, qui excommunicatis fidelitate, aut Sacramento constricti sunt, Apostolica autho∣ritate absolvit, & ne eis fidelitatem observent, omnibus modis prohibet, quovsque ipsi ad satisfactionem veniant. Secundus canon, Iuratos milites, est Vrbani Papae secun∣di, qui proximè post Victorem tertium, qui sex tantùm mensibus sedit, Gregorio septimo

successit, in quo Episcopo Uapicensi scribit, ut juratos milites Hugoni Connti, ne ipsi, quamdiu excommunicatus est, serviant, prohiberet. Qui, si sacramenta praetende∣rint, moneantur, oportere servire Deo magis, quàm hominibus. Fidelitatem enim, quam Christiano Principi jurarunt, Deo, ejusque Sanctis adversanti, & eorum prae∣cepta calcanti, nulla cohibentur authoritate persolvere. Tertius Canon Absolutos, est Gregorij Papae noni, in quo declarat, absolutos se esse a debito fidelitatis hominij, & totius obsequij, quicunque lapsis manifeste in haeresim aliquo pacto quacunque fi••∣mitate vallato tenebantur astricti.

Sed isti canones non efficaciter probant, esse in Romano Pontifice potestatem subditos a fi∣delitate Supremis Principibus, qui nullum Superiorem praeter Deum in temporalibus recog∣noscunt, ex lege Dei, & naturae debita, absolvendi. Et primò, si alicujus sunt roboris, evi∣denter commonstrant, Summum Pontificem potestatem habere non solum a sacra jurante•••• fi∣delitatis obligatione, verùm etiam ab ipsamet fidelitate, ejusque naturali vinculo rel••••andi: & propterea, nihil planè conducunt, ad hanc nostratium objectionem confirmandum, qui con∣tendunt, posse Summum Pontificem a sacro juramenti fidelitatis vinculo absolvere, abs{que} eo quòd in naturali fidelitatis obligatione dispenset.

Secundo, neque isti canones ullam Supremorum Principum mentionem faciunt, qui, nisi nominatim exprimantur, in legibus poenalibus comprehendi non debent: & propterea vel in Ecclesiae tantùm territorijs, quorum supremus Dominus temporalis est Summus Pontif••••, vim obligandi habent, qui proinde poenam temporalem decernendi authoritatem habe••, ••ui Principes omnes, qui ejus sunt vasalli, etiam subijcientur: nam in causis meré tempôralibus, qualis est rerum temporalium dispositio, non dico, temporalium directio, Summus Po••••••fex extra terras Ecclesiae subjectas, leges quae Principes etiam Supremos sibi in temporations non Subjectos obligent, condere non potest, vt a paritate rationis ex doctrina Fran∣cisci Suarez apertè colligitur: vel ficut Ioan:* 10.5 Parifiensis ex Card. Hostiensi Respondet Canoni Ad abolendam, in quo Summus Pontifex sancivit, ut bo∣na baereticorum confiscarentur, nempe eum non propria authoritate, sed ex consensu Imperatoris illud decrevisse; ita etiam istis Canonibus responderi posset, Summos illos Pontifices non propria tantùm authoritate, sed ex tacito saltem Imperatoris, aliorum{que} principum Supremorum consensu ordinasse, ut Subditi, qui aliquo vinculo sive sacro, sive civili Principibus non supremis, sed inferioribus obstricti essent, ab eo statim liberarentur, si Principes illi vel a fide Catholica deficerent, vel ob crimen aliquod sacro Excommunioationis vinculo ligati tenerentur. Nam alioquin, si ad∣versarij supremos etiam Principes in istis Canonibus comprehendi velint, necessario fateri de∣bent, quod tamen asse ere vix audent, Reges, & Imperatores, quamprimùm in generales Ecclesiae censuras, vel ob haeresim, vel ob aliud crimen incurrunt, eo ipso absque particulari aliqua declaratione, aut deprivationis sententia regnandi authoritate re quidem vera excidere; quod tamen, & continuae praxi, qua Papa in deponendis Principibus vtitur, & communi hominum intelligentiae apertè adversatur.

Tertio, tametsi concederemus, Canones illos Supremos etiam Principes includere, ad eos tamen eodem modo responderi posset, quo Card. Bellarminus,* 10.6 decreto Caelestini Papae tertij respondit, cujus Canonis Alphonsus de Ca∣stro meminit, simulque affirmat, se illum in antiquis Decretalibus vidisse, in quo Pontifex sancivit, &, ut idem Alphonsus asserit, definivit, per haeresim ita matrimonium solvi, ut liceat ei aliud conjugium inire, cujus prior conjunx in haeresim lapsus sit, quae tamen doctrina jam haeretica est, & in Concilio Tri∣dentino damnata: Respondeo, ait Card. Bellarminus, Caelestinum nihil de ea re certi staruisse, sed respondisse, quod sibi probabilius videbatur.* 10.7

Quod vero Alphonsus ait, epistolam Caelestini fuisse aliquando inter epistolas decretales, verum quidem est, sed non potest inde colligi fa∣ctum esse a Caelestino decretum planè Apostolicum, & ex Cathedra, cum constet, mul∣ta esse alia in epistolis Decretalibus, quae non faciunt rem aliquam esse de fide, sed so∣lùm opiniones Pontificum de ea re nobis declarant. Similiter etiam nos respondere possumus, praedicta tria Summorum Pontificum decreta, vel opiniones Pontificum declarare, vel in opinionibus Pontificum duntaxat fundari. Et certè, nisi istud asseramus, oportet cum Philopatro concedere, Principes supremos, quamprimùm a fide desciscunt, suis dominijs p••i••••ri, & statim ex••idere omni dignitate, & potestate, ante omnem sententiam supremi pa∣storis

contra ipsos prolatam, & subditos quoscun{que} ex vi juris divini, ab omni juramenti, aut fidelitatis obligatione, eo ipso absolutos esse, ut ex secundo illo Urbani decreto evidenti consecutione deduci potest: quod tamen isti nostrates, qui hos Canones urgent, non facilè, ni fallor, admittent.

Neque mirandum est, quòd Gregorius septimus, qui primus omnium Romanorum Ponti∣ficum Imperatorem deposuit, ut Godefridus, Otho Frisingensis, Trithemi∣us & Onufrius scribunt,* 10.8 etiam existimaverit, eum Subditos a fidelitatis vin∣culo absolvere potuisse. Nihilominus ex hoc Gregorij facto, aut decrete, sicut etiam ex alijs duobus illius Successorum, qui ejus exempliim sequati sunt, decretis, cer••o colligi non potest, eos talem habuisse Subditos ab eorum fidelitate absolvendi potestatem, sed solùm eos existimasse, & ut probabile sal∣tem supposuisse, talem absol vendi authoritatem sibi a Christo communicatam esse, Sicut etiam, tamelsi aliqui hujus Seculi Pontifices suorum predecesso∣rum, immo & ipsius Sancti Gregorij magni, vestigijs inhaerentes, suis de∣cretis, Brevibus, seu literis Apostolicis in corpore etiam Iuris Canonici con∣signatis statuerent, quòd quidam Sacerdotes insignes, qui Episcopi non essent, Sacramentum Confirmationis authoritate Apostolica conficere possent, (ut quidam tales hisce diebus ex concessione Pontificum illud administrant) nihilominùs non posset hinc certò concludi, Summum Pontificem tales licentias concedendi authoritatem habe∣re,* 10.9 cum plures Theologi eruditi, non obstantibus hujusmodi Pontificum sancti∣onibus, arbitrentur, talem authoritatem non esse a Christo Summo Pontifici concessam.

17. Pari ratione, quantùmvis quidam Pontifices suorum Praedecessorum exempla sequuti, in solenni castitatis voto dispensaverint, non tamen hinc firmiter deduci po∣test, talem authoritatem Summo Pontifici ex Christi institutione veré tributam esse; sed ad summum hinc colligitur, Pontifices sibi persuadere, & saltem ut probabile supponere, talem authoritatem sibi a Christo donatam esse; quod tamen nihil impedit, quo minùs alij Theolo∣gi, qui rationibus probabilibus permoti contrarium sentiunt, has Pontificum opiniones licitè reijcere possint, & tutâ conscientiâ jurare, si of us fuerit, se profiteri, testificari, credere, decla∣care, atque in conscientijs suis resolvi, quòd talis authoritas non sit Summo Pontifici a Chri∣sto communicata. Et propterea, non obstante hac objectione, quam quidam nostratium tam vehementer urgent, possum etiam, cum omni reverentia sacris Canonibus debita, lici••é jurare, me ulterius credere, & in conscientia mea resolvi, quòd Papa potestatem non habeat me ab hoc juramento, aut aliqua ejus parte, absolvendi. Wriddingt. Disp. Theolog. c. 6.

8. To the Jesuits (who though very few in the whole Kingdom, only four or five and twenty (in the next degree in paucity to the Cappuchins, and Ex∣calceat Carmelits) neither of which two last make twenty in all, nor both to∣gether above thirty; as for Caleeat Carmelits, there is but one only that I can hear of) it was replyed, That above all the rest of the Clergy, Regu∣lar or Secular, they would lye under hardest censures, if they shewed any re∣luctance. Because the doctrine of a King-deposing and King-murthering, or King-killing power in the Pope was of late dayes, and especially since the Oath of Allegiance was enacted by King Iames, maintained by so many celebrious Writers of their Society in so many printed works of theirs, ex professo on that subject, by Mariana and Sanctarel, and Becan, and Lessius, and Suarez, and Greizer, and Parsons, and Fitzherbert, and Bellarmine himself the chief champi∣on of all, and many others also whom I pass over. Because of the invasion of 88. and the Powder-plot treason, both, whether right or wrong, imputed to them. Because of the generall and horrible aversion from, and jealousies of their Society, upon the said, and other like grounds, in the minds of at least English Protestants. Because of their own extraction here generally, the few they were in Ireland, which was almost for every individual of them of the ancient conquerours of English blood: and their formerly consequent and affectionat siding with the supream Council, and the cessation and peace in the great differences of the Confederats, or Nuncius's quarrel; both which would be made use of now as strong arguments that it could be nothing else but the awing Authority of their General at Rome, and the Court there, and

the doctrine of the Society it self, prevailing now with them in the case, more then their own reason or inclination, that would so even against christi∣anity it self estrange them from their own nature as men and christians, and make them submit with a blind and sinful obedience to the will of others. Because the Procurator had out of a particular regard of such honest men of their Society in Ireland, as joyn'd with him formerly in the differences with the Nuntio, and out of an esteem and affection also for their Society in it self as considered in its primitive foundation, institution and observance, and in its labours for the training up of youth, laying aside the latter prejudices brought upon it by those inconsiderat works of some, though too many of their chief writers: because, I say, the Procurator had for those reasons ven∣tur'd so fairly and earnestly, both in his More Ample Account, and in his private discourses lately and earnestly with some persons of highest rank in both King∣doms, to vindicate, as much as in him lay, the Irish Jesuits (though not every individual of them) from those aspersions the generality of that Order lyes under amongst Protestants, at least in England, and from such aspersions in∣deed against their practises, and against their principles or doctrine, not of deposition only, but of equivocation, mental reservation, and of the lawful∣ness of changing opinions, resolutions, and practices too at pleasure, accord∣ing to their other maximes of extrinsick probability, and in all matters what∣soever; and because he had done so much herein, that whereas before, those great persons had no inclination at all to receive any kind of declaration of Allegiance, or faithfulness from men of such principles, as the foresaid printed Authors argue in their opinions the Society in general to be; yet he prevailed so far with them as not to involve the Fathers in Ireland in the same esteem with such others of the same Order in some other Countries as had so justly deserved their blame and censure.

9. To that other excuse, common to the three late Orders, as well Capu∣chins and Carmelits, as Jesuits, the answer was, That the Princes or States permission of, or connivence with them, should more be regarded then that either of Ordinaries or pre-existent Regulars, or of the Court of Rome it self. And this they could not expect in reason if they they appeared not zealous of His Majesties lawful rights and prerogatives in all temporal matters: and for the peace and safety of his People and Kingdoms: at least if they shewed them∣selves perverse and peevish against either, or against so lawful and necessary a duty as is a bare naked Remonstrance or Declaration of their loyal principles and affections, where, and when so justly expected from them, by, and to as∣sure His Majesty of their better carriage hereafter then Himself, or his Father of glorious memory, had found in the late wars of their Countrey. And if by their cheerful hearty concurrence to such demonstrations of duty, they merited a better opinion hereafter to be had of them by His Majesty and great Ministers of State, and such as would really deserve protection, they needed not fear the opposition of others whatsoever, whiles they behaved themselves as men of discretion and their profession should.

10. To that Bugbear, which those of the Secular Clergy alledged to excuse themselves, it was said, That they very well knew it was a meer pretence. That the Shoo did not really pinch them there. That albeit the Regulars were numerous and of esteem, yet not of so great or prevalent, as in such a mat∣ter, or any at all which had reason for it, and for the Secular Clergy, could any way bear them down, even in case the Regulars did not concur with them. That they were the Pastors and Leaders of the Flock by power, command, and law of the Church: and their authority and jurisdiction established by the Canons from the very beginning. That the Regulars had no such autho∣ritative commanding power, nor subjection due unto them from the people; but was voluntary in the internal Court of Conscience, in foro paenitentiali, or only in the private auricular confessional seat. That besides, it had no kind of colour but their example would be immediatly followed by all Regulars;

by some freely and heartily, who were otherwise themselves our of judgment, and affection too so principled and so affected, and only expected their au∣thority to back them; by others out of shame, and fear to see by any further opposition themselves reduced to a streight of giving other reasons then such as they could not own or maintain, and of discovering so the true cause, rebel∣lious principles and affections, and consequently of seeing themselves houted at by all sober and good people, even of their own religion and communion. And as for the false aspersion and scandal raised against that Remonstrance amongst some of the Commons, as if it signified in effect as much as the Oath of Supremacy: it was themselves suffered that of meer purpose to go o••, and they might with one single declaration as easily disabuse all p••ssessed there∣with, as it was raised without any ground. That no Church-man, even the most malicious, would before any understanding man, own the raising or for∣warding of it; however, it was known that some few of them in private cor∣ners did whisper it to the illiterate, as I could name a certain Prior of the Do∣minicans Order, Father Michael Fullam to have done most unconscientiously, that I may say no more; though chiefly of purpose to excuse by such diabo∣lical forgeries their own opposition, when upbraided therewith by good ho∣nest wel-meaning people, as some few others of them had the impudence (and I could instance Father W. L. of the Society, and Father D. D. of the Franciscans) for a long time to say, and aver too, that the King, as being a Protestant, should not be prayed for at all by Catholicks, either publickly or privatly; though some few others also, and somwhat more warily, though er∣roneously enough too, and against plain Scriptures both in the Old and new Testament, and the continued practice of the primitive Church, distinguish'd the manner of praying for him, and a long time held and indoctrinated others that he should not be prayed for so as to desire the temporal safety of his Crown or Person, victory over his enemies, or any prosperous earthly success unto him at all, but his conversion only, and repentance in this life, and sal∣vation in the next, without any further addition. That as this heretical do∣ctrine was soon and quite beaten down by the contrary practice of the whole Clergy, both Secular and Regular, which now we see and hear at all Chap∣pels and Altars: so that calumny and scandal would throughout the Kingdom cease in one fortnight, if they pleased to declare it such, as they are bound in conscience, truth, and honesty to do.

11. As for the pick of some to the Procurator (whom they falsely suppose to be the Author of the Remonstrance, though had he been so, he would ra∣ther glory therein then be ashamed thereof, or of the Declaration of loyalty inserted in that Remonstrance (if not peradventure for being any way or in part defective, or not home enough in some things, which, were it his draught, it had not been, albeit in the main dispute it be fully sufficient) the answer wa••, That it became not Priests, nor Christians, nor even moral or rational honest men, although neither Priests nor Christians, to obstruct the com∣mon good out of private animosities; much less to obstruct it to the pre∣judice of the Religion and Worship of God, and obstruct all too by sinister wayes, by calumnies and forgeries, and a false pretence of Religion, where there was nothing less then Religion intended, but rather the quite contrary. That in relation to his former actings in the controversies with the Nuntio, if they had considered things rightly, they would rather acknowledge, admire, & with thankfulness adore the Providence of God, which had inspired him then to do as he did, and as became a good Patriot, Subject, religious Man, Chri∣stian Priest, and Catholick Divine, to the end he might be, after so many revo∣lutions, some way instrumental to save them again. That they have found his endeavours, even in forwarding that Remonstrance, and in many other Instances, very useful, and very advantagious, and profitable too for all both Catholick People and Clergy of Ireland. And therefore he might in some measure, and sense, though with infinit disproportion, answer such of them as

traduce or maligne him, as Christ did the Jews, when at the instigation of some, both of the envious Priests, and wicked Scribes (and Pharisees too, that religious, but hypocritical Sect of those ancient people of God) the multi∣tude taking stones to throw at their Saviour of purpose to kill him, he told, and demanded of them, as the Gospel relates, multa opera bona ostendi vobis,* 10.10 &c. propter quod eorum opus lapidatis me? That for his exposition of the said Remonstrance, in his More Ample Account, if it did not convince them, as he be∣lieved it did, or whether it did or no, yet were not they desired to subscribe it, nor was it ever intended by him or any other, they or any else should either subscribe or approve otherwise of it, but, as they pleased, to read, or lay it by. That he alone was to answer for that Book if there was any thing amiss in it. And from them no more was expected but to sign the Remonstrance in it self barely considered, according to the true, obvious, and sincere meaning of all the several passages. And if they, taking it so, could otherwise rationally expound it than the Procurator did in his said little book, themselves were to satisfie their own consciences in that behalf, and leave his book to stand or fall to the Authors cost or profit. That, however, he found it a tye of duty on himself, for many respects, and particularly for that of acting by special Commission for the Catholicks both Clergy and Lay-people of Ireland, and to obtain for them some liberty, ease, or connivence in the exercise of Catho∣lick Religion, To let them know they could not by other expositions answer or arrive at the ends of that exposition, nor shew themselves to be truly & sin∣cerely loyal or faithful to the King in those contingencies wherein their allegiance might be for their former actions prudently suspected.

12. And for the general objection of all, their allegation of the laws still in force, &c. they were desired to consider, 1. How happy they would have thought themselves immediatly before the Kings Restauration, and for so ma∣ny other foregoing sad years under usurping Tyrants, if they had found a suspension only of those laws, and that connivence at the exercise of their Re∣ligion they now enjoyed under His most Sacred Majesty, and ever since, or im∣mediatly after the Remonstrance presented in their names, or behalf, to Him. That they had far more assurance than they yet deserved, being they demurr'd so long on professing under their hands a dutiful subjection, and no other cer∣tainly than without any such profession they were bound to by all the laws of God, under pain of Hell or Damnation, and by all the laws of the Land, un∣der the severest punishments of Treason. That they were not to expect capi∣tulations from the King for their being Subjects; but neverthess had cause enough to see, if they were not wilfully blind, He was, and would be to them all, a good, merciful, gracious, compassionat and indulgent King, blotting all their former iniquities (or those of so many of them as had been unjust to Him, and his Father, and Lieutenant, and other protestant People) quite out of His remembrance evermore, if they did shew themselves true penitents and converts, and sincere performers of their duty hereafter. That they were no indifferent, no competent Judges of those Articles they pleaded, whether they were broken or no by the King or his Ministers? or, if broke in any part, or to any person, whether such breach was lawful and necessary or no, in the pre∣sent conjuncture of affairs, after so great a change or alteration of the case? That reason might tell them, considering the condition of their Country, and Inhabitants thereof, which requires other laws, and other proceedings, and another kind of use of laws, at least in matter of Religion, than England does at present, they could have no ground to fear any forcing of them to other Countreys for want of protection at home, if, and whiles they demeaned themselves peaceably; provided they gave generally and cheerfully that assu∣rance expected from them of such peaceable demeanour hereafter. That in case of the very worst imaginable of evils, the comfort of a good conscience were to be preferred by them to any earthly emolument; and the conscience of having done their duty, by washing the scandal of unholy tenets from

their Religion, would be a portable theatre to them, whethersoever they should be forced, and the assurance of suffering only in such case for a pure, holy, and undefiled Religion and Communion, for justice and the Catho∣lick faith only, not for suspicion or conviction of treasonable maximes and pra∣ctices, condemn'd in all other Kingdoms and States in their own cases, as im∣pious, uncatholick, unchristian, and even, I say, condemn'd by the professors of their own Church, every where out of the small temporal Principality of the Pope. And therefore they needed not apprehend any such attempt, scorn, prejudice, or persecution abroad for having performed such a christian duty at home; but on the contrary, to be praised and cherished, if not perhaps, such as through vanity and folly, would esteem no other refuge, but where they might withal expect titles and miters, which they very little deserved, if not by such deserts as would untitle and unmitre them wholy, if they were sifted narrowly according to the Gospel of Christ or Canons of the Catho∣lick Church; though perhaps they would hold them fast enough according to those other late ones, made by Papal authority alone. But that if the very saddest they could by Chymeraes frame to themselves, did happen in such case as well abroad, as at home, it became them, who by special function are Preachers of the Gospel of Christ, and of all the promises and rewards of it to others, to apply those also to themselves, make use of them, and re∣member that saying of our Saviour, the eight and last, and most comfortable of all the Beatitudes, taught by this heavenly Master on the Mount to his Apo∣stles, Disciples and others, and to all Christians by them, Beati qui persecutio∣nem patiuntur propter justitiam:* 10.11 quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum, whether they suffer by Prince or Pope. For from both many holy men have often suffered persecution for justice; and some that are at this present glorified and invoked in the Roman Calendar as Saints possessing actually that King∣dom of heaven so promised them for suffering for justice, have been persecu∣ted on that account in their life, and to their death by Popes alone; as for example, St. Ignatius sometime Patriarch of Constantinople, excommunica∣ted by Iohn the eight of Rome.

13. That other no less general objection, viz. That the Subscribers, Lay or Ecclesiastick, reaped no advantage by their subscription, more then others who had not subscribed, & the Lay Proprietors not their temporal Estates, nor Ecclesiasticks a liberty or freedom to exercise their spiritual function without fear or danger, albeit the most powerful to render the Remonstrance unsignificant amongst such as either look only on the present, and see no further, or such also as value no∣thing but by temporal advantages; yet was more then sufficiently, more then abundantly solved by those other considerations offered to the Objectors. 1. That the design of that Remonstrance and subscription of it, was not thereby to be restored to their temporal estates: because if such, it had in∣fallibly designed an unsettlement of the whole Kingdom: since it was clear enough there is no Roman Catholick but, on condition, or certainty of being restored to his Lands or other temporal pretences, would sign it: and no less evident on the other side, they could not be all restored without infallible disturbance of the publick peace, and hazzard of all sides in a second bloody war, there being so numerous and stubborn a party which must have been in such case dispossess'd of all their livelyhood for ever, how justly or unjustly soever acquired at first. 2. That nevertheless very many, or most of those Remonstrants or Subscribers had been already, or were to be one way or other provided for, some upon title of Innocency, others by special provision. As indeed we have seen effected, and not Remonstrants only, &c. That if the opposers both of Clergy and Laity had not delayed so long their own concur∣rence, and thereby rendered themselves and their Catholick Nation suspected a new, but taken time by the sore-lock, and throughout the Kingdom general∣ly, cheerfully, and heartily manifested their firm unalterable resolution, what∣ever the former carriage of any was, to stand inviolably firm to the King here∣after

in all contingencies whatsoever, according to that Remonstrance, and as the first Subscribers had in their own behalf, and for their sake also done: they might with some colour have made this objection. But being the Sub∣scribers were so few, and they almost so innumerable that opposed still with headiness and rashness: it was too soon to expect those favours, which are commonly given by a State upon good grounds of considerable advantage to it self: such as would be in the present case the assuring of all the Catholicks in Ireland to stand firm and loyal in all kind of dangerous contingencies what∣soever. 3. That all generally of that Religion, ever since that Remonstrance was exhibited, and graciously accepted by His Majesty, had much ease, con∣nivence, and liberty for publick meetings, and publick exercise of their Reli∣gion, throughout all the Kingdom, without any considerable molestation therefore, in any place, if some very few walled Towns only, and within the walls only, or close by them, be not excepted; and that favour done at first, & continued ever since, by reason only of that Remonstrance, and for the sake of those who had given and subscribed it, and in expectation of the concur∣rence of the rest to the same or like dutiful manifestation of their Allegiance. That although some numbers of poor Catholicks in some few parts, Town or Counties, had been three or four several times, taking one place with another, molested by presentments in some Bishops Courts, Inditements and Capiases by the civil Officers of Judges of the Assize and of Sheriffs; yet upon applicati∣on made they found themselves presently at ease and rest from any further prosecution. 4. That albeit the indiscretion of too great a multitude of Ca∣tholicks, and too publickly and boldly convening, and thronging in the streets from about twelve a clock at night on Christmass day till at noon, even at the very door of the Parish Church, or St. Owens in Dublin, where those of the contrary Religion, warranted by the laws, and where also the very guards did meet, to serve God in their way, occasion'd that disturbance and hurry ob∣jected: yet they might visibly see the favour done the Remonstrant Clergy, whose Chappel that was. For notwithstanding their indiscreet carriage in that matter, they were all set at liberty within three or four dayes, and only because they were known to be true and faithful Remonstrants, as, besides their subscription to that paper, they had all along in the former quarrel of the Nun∣cio, and other differences of the Consederats, in the late wars, approved themselves to be men so loyally, religiously, and conscientiously principled. 5. That for the Proclamation, whatever the cause of it was, they had no cause to complain of its execution. Lastly, that they were blind if they did not see, ungrateful if they did not acknowledge, the vast difference 'twixt the condition then of both the Lay Proprietors, as to matter of estate, and of Ec∣clesiasticks as to that of liberty, and of both in all respects, and that, they could not but remember, they were in, all of them generally a little before, and for so many years together, without scarce any humane hope to see any end of their miseries.

14. Their objection of some words, and these were no more but two or three only, Pope, renounce, Papal, was answered by desiring them to shew by reason or argument how the naming of the Pope, or of his Papal power or pre∣tence, or renouncing of that power in him, which they confessed was not in him, could argue any irreverence or disrespect, especially where, and when it was so necessary to use that expression, or an equivalent, and no other would or could do the work, or compass the end they so vehemently and rationally desired. That surely the Catholicks of England, then which there are none in the world more observant of all respect and reverence to the Pope, who were the authors and framers of the Protestation, who worded it throughly, knew very well these words were not irreverential in any wise. That they should find hereafter, and had already, the Roman Courtiers would not, did not ex∣cept against the words, but sense. And that however, if they would insist only on the words, not sense, and that they would choose rather not to speak

English with the Catholicks of England, and those too of their own Clergy, Nobility and Gentry, who subscribed their sense in such a form of words, the Procurator doubted not to prevail with His Grace so far as a condescension to, or permission of their wording their own sense would amount unto; pro∣vided this came home to the same thing or sense of the former. Which yet he feared, nay, saw clearly it would not. As he was certainly perswaded by many arguments, they intended alwayes to decline the question of right, or autho∣rity, or power, either divine or humane in the Pope to depose the King, or dispense with, or absolve his Subjects from their Allegiance; but only at most, and at best to engage themselves to be true to the King, whether the Pope had any such or no, and without mentioning any thing at all of that pretence, or declining it otherwise expresly or tacitly. Wherein the Procu∣rator was not deceived, as shall hereafter in its proper place appear.

15. To that of the Kings, or Lord Lieutenants desire of their subscripti∣on as yet not appearing to them, it was answered, they had many sufficient arguments, publick and notorious for a whole twelve-month pass'd, of His Majesties and Lieutenants both being very well pleased with what was done, and very desirous of what was not yet done. That both very graciously ac∣cepted of their subscriptions, who had given the first example, both of Cler∣gy, Nobility and Gentry, and no less concernedly expected the concurrence of the rest. That it was unreasonable in them to stand upon the Kings or his Lieutenants desiring them to petition, or make other necessary or expedient application in their own proper concerns. That they could not be ignorant the laws required from them, under great penalties, other kinds of Declarati∣ons and Oathes, besides which the King, or his Ministers, would not think it reasonable to urge them to any; but withal, such as they know, the Oathes of Supremacy, and that of Allegiance in the Statute of King Iames, were; Oathes which they would a thousand times more hardly digest: and that they should think themselves happy to be esteemed and accounted hereafter loyal Subjects by (not expecting the Kings desire, much less command, but by) offering of themselves (in lieu of those) such a Declaration as they might subscribe with∣out scruple. And yet notwithstanding he could assure them, that for a greater conviction of their inexcusable delayes, and beating them from this retreat also, and for discovering their intentions clearly before the face of the Sun, they should see ere long, under his Graces own proper hand-writing, if no∣thing else would serve, what, without any ground left to reply, would clear this objection. Which, as hereafter will appear, they did both see, and read too themselves with their own eyes, in the original writing.

16. For their put off to a general meeting of the whole Clergy of the Na∣tion, both Secular and Regular, or of Representatives out of every Diocess and Order: They were minded first of the issue of all such, ever since 41. and more especially of that of 42. at Kilkenny (where the General Confederacy was first established as by common and authoritative consent, however, most of them were thereto necessitated by the Proclamations, and other severe pro∣ceedings at Dublin) but singularly, & above all of the Congregation at Water∣ford against the Peace of 46. and of that other at Jamestown against the Peace of 48. And they were told those had given little encouragment to the Lord Lieutenant to licence or connive at any such National meeting, until he had first some better arguments of their being changed in their principles and affections, then they had given yet by so many long demurs, and so many un∣reasonable reasons, pretences and excuses, and so much unwillingness, re∣luctancy and opposition to a bare Declaration of their loyal resolutions for after-times. That hence it might be rationally gathered, they desired such a meeting of purpose only to oppose hereafter with the greater authority, or colour of it, that profession of their duty. That without asking the Lord Lieutenants licence, permission or connivence, they met frequently in Dioce∣san Synods and Provincial Chapters, to determine those things which them∣selves

had a mind to, and no way related to any thing would please either His Majesty or State, or to the publick peace of the Country, or security there∣of, nay, sent from one Diocess and one Province to another, to consult and determine the means of opposing such a duty or profession of it. And so they might for a good end with less danger at least, nay without any at all, if they were so minded, convene securely without acquainting His Grace; at least without insisting on a pasport, or safe conduct, or other licence, or permission, under his hand, as they unreasonably demanded. In a word that this pretence and resolution of theirs, of not signing that Instrument, or other such, with∣out such a meeting, was in the consequence thereof the most dangerous and pernicious they could alleadge or entertain; being already (as they were all generally) satisfied of the lawfulness or Catholickness of the profession expe∣cted. For what could be more dangerous in any Kingdom or State, or hu∣man Society of a body politick of any people Civil or Ecclesiastick then that they would put the profession of their Allegiance to votes, and would not therein, or thereof, determine any thing but at the pleasure of their fellow Subjects, how averse soever to the State or King, and to the laws even the most necessary and just in temporal affairs? or what more dangerous then that there should be by necessary consequence as many Kings or Supream com∣manders of Allegiance of a people in a Kingdom as there are amongst the Se∣cular Clergy Arch-bishops, Bishops, or Vicars Apostolick or General, ruling the Parish Priests respectively subordinate to them? And amongst the Regular Clergy as many such as there are Provincial Superiours, who command their Priours, Guardians, Rectours, likewise respectively subordinate? nay as many too as there are such Local Superiours commanding those under their immediat direction? And yet, that being met alltogether, every one must de∣pend of every one in resolving whether he wil be a true Subject to his Prince or State, from which he expects protection, and to which, by the laws of God and man, he should own subjection? That for these reasons, and to prevent further inconvenience, and obstruct all those jealousies and suspicions, which a National Congregation insisted on, or a licence, permission, or connivence to convene so, insisted upon, would certainly raise, they would much better decline the thoughts of any such, or other whatsoever meetings, or depen∣dencies one from another, but from their own conscience and knowledge of both the expediency and necessity of answering, and concurring to such a du∣ty every one for himself, without any further debates or demurrs. Yet if they would continue still obstinat in that resolution, the Procurator would in convenient time use all his own best endeavours to satisfie them in that also; though he feared, if successful therein, it would prove, or end rather in a full and manifest conviction of their obstinacy, then sincere discharge of their duty, or good example either to Clergy or Layity; besides, that it would be a long time before it could be obtained, and they would loose, in the interim, many fair opportunities to do themselves, and lay people under their spiritu∣al direction, much right, and many good offices,, not only as to their spiritu∣als, but temporals also.

XI.

And these were the answers of the Procurator: as those were the grand ob∣jections, pretence, excuses, some of all; and the rest of so many several parties, or particular Corporations of the Clergy, Secular and Regular, for whom he acted, and with whom he treated. Which objections and answers, albeit not made together, or at one place or time, immediatly after his landing here from England, in September 62. where he discontinued other matters of fact in the procedure of the Remonstrance; yet because many, or most of them were then briefly handled 'twixt him and some of that Clergy met with, pre∣sently on his arrival, and because the opposition after came to be so great, and

so general, and so unreasonable withal, and the noise of this matter of that Remonstrance of 61. is so great, both at home in Ireland, and in forrein parts, especially at Rome: I thought fit to give all the intrigue against it, and the refutation of such unpolitick politick pretences in one prospect to the Read∣er; whereby also I might ease my self of some labour to insert them severally as they hapned, and do him a pleasure to find all-together, where∣by he may judge of them the better.

XII.

But I must desire the Reader will take notice here of two things. First, that all this while, not even to the writing hereof, for so many years since 61. till this present, about the end of 66. there was not amongst such a multitude of pretences and excuses, any one alleadged by any at all of unlawfulness, un∣conscionableness or uncatholickness, in point of Faith, Religion or morality, in the subscription of that Remonstrance, or of that Declaration of Allegi∣ance, or of the petition annexed thereunto; not I say alleadged seriously and insisted upon before, or in the presence of the Procuratour, or of any o∣ther (to his knowledge or hearing) that knew to reason of it; though some, three or four at most, by way only of Scholastical exercise or dispute, not to be insisted on finally as to practise, moved to him sometimes all they could to raise some Chymerical scruples against it upon these grounds. Of this num∣ber was one Father Bonaventure Brodin, a Franciscan, bred in the Colledge of the Irish Franciscans and University of Prague in Bohemia, where he taught Di∣vinity some years; a very unconstant person. For being come to London in the beginning of the year 62. soon after that Remonstrance was published, and having often and of purpose accoasted Father Caron, and Father Walsh the Procuratour, to move to them, as he did, all his strongest objections out of the late School Divines, Bellarmine, Suarez, and such other maintainers of Papal pretensions, whether Divine or human, to the Temporals of Kings, and in par∣ticular to the Crowns of England and Ireland upon what pretext soever; and having no less often from them, as himself confessed then, received ample sa∣tisfaction in every particular: and therefore, as he made them beleive, resol∣ved to subscribe if he returned not to Bohemia, and as soon as returned back from Paris, whether, if he went not to Bohemia, he pretended he would only goe, and staye there until he had heard of the Lord Lieutenants and conse∣quently the Procuratours coming for Ireland; yet after all this, had secret con∣venticles at London to disswade the Nobility and Gentry (who agitated at that time in several publick meetings for eight weeks together the same Remon∣strance to be subscribed also, with due applications, by themselves) from con∣curring, by putting into their Heads many chymeraes against it. And when this was found out by the Procuratour and objected to him so, as he could not deny it, returned again to his former profession: craved pardon on his knees of the Procuratour in presence of others, upon his departure for Paris: and renewed his promises never more to oppose, but perswade others all he could, of the Christian sincerity and Catholickness of it. And yet the second time, getting himself from France to Flanders, relapsed again, raiseing all the scand∣al he could there, even also by writing a book against it. In which attempt he was notwithstanding so unsuccessful, as he could not have the approbation of those very Irish or others at Lovaine, of even his own principles and affe∣ctions, for the printing thereof; nor of the Superiour General there, of his own Order, albeit a Dutchman and no way a favourer, at least outwardly, for any thing known of him, of that Remonstrance or Subscribers; nay nor the con∣sent or licence of the very Internuncio himself at Bruxels, howeverintrigued against and mightily startled at it. All and every of whom the said Father Brodin applyed himself unto and laboured with, as much as possibly he

could to get leave for printing his book; but could not, because they found it such as would not abide the test of reason, or do their worke at all. So that it never came to light. And yet too, the same Gentleman had the confidence to come for Ireland, and often also to the Procuratour himself, and playe fast and loose againe, and even at this present every where to disswade where he can; never constant but in inconstancy: pretending now for his last evasion, even after the Congregation of 66. that if the chiefest and best Divines only were called together (but such he pitches on, as are for the most part of his own gang) he would conform to the greater number. Wherein also he be∣trayes manifestly his own conscience. And because there is only one more, whom we could hear of, as a writer against the said Remonstrance, though not of this Nation, nor ever yet in Ireland; but a Portugues; yet one whom I my self have been in Oliver the Ʋsurpers time acquainted with at London, and at the first Portingal Embassadour's there, and ever since living at Rome: I thought it not any great remora of the Reader, but to some use, to give also of him here, and least I forget him elswhere, and of his success in his under∣taking the quarrel, a brief account. His name is el Padre Macedo, and his profession some years before I knew him, that of St. Francis's Order; but formerly of the Society of Jesuits. An old man now, but a good Oratour, Poet and Divine. It was he that writ in England upon the five Propositions a∣gainst the Jansenists, and by occasion thereof against Mr. White alias Blacklow, a learned Priest of the Roman communion, though much, for most of his books, censured at Rome. And he that printed at London that excellent Latin Panegyrick of Cromwel (in verse I remember well) though much unbecom∣ming (for the subject) a Catholick Divine, however it might sute a Heathen Poet & Oratour, as being in the praise of such a Tyrant Usurper. And he that being netled by Mr. Blacklows replyes, partly to be revenged on this Gentle∣man, or out of zeal perhaps, and partly to trye the fortune of his old age, and expect some reward for his earnest endeavours to stifle Iansenisme in England (whether for any other end? I know not.) went to Rome immediately after his said writings, and stayed there since. It was this good Father, as a veterane Souldier, an able Divine and penman, and a forraigner too that had no de∣pendance on England, they pitched on at Rome to write and print against that Remonstrance, and against the sense thereof expounded by the Procuratour in his little English book, wherein he gave the best account thereof he could, and the exceptions made first against it required. To which purpose they got the Irish Franciscans of St. Isidore, their Colledge in the City, to translate that little book of the Procuratours: hopeing also they might find therein some passages or propositions censurable by His Holiness, or Inquisition, or by the Congregation de propaganda fide, and thereby also find more cause and more matter to write against both the Remonstrance and chief defenders of it, such as they accounted the Procuratour and Father Caron. But their labour in that particular of translating of that book was lost. For when they had done all their worst, and brought their translation to the Colledg of Cardi∣nals de propaganda, nothing therein was esteemed censurable, at least other∣wise then the bare Propositions of the Remonstrance in it self. And therefore it lyes, and will in all likely-hood for ever lye amongst by layed sheets in that Colledg, without any danger of condemnation or prohibition: as even the Catholick Primate of Ardmagh, then at Rome (and in all probability con∣curring with the rest of his Countrymen against the Remonstrance and Sub∣scribers) writ•• to my self as soon as he was returned to Paris, in 65. as also he together writt that His Holiness did not, would not, censure at all or med∣dle with, or concern himself in that Remonstrance pro nec con, otherwise then by his displeasure only against those Churchmen that were the first Au∣thors or chief promoters of it. And indeed we have no reason yet to com∣plain of His Holiness in this matter, albeit very much of the proceedings of his Eminency, Cardinal Francis Barlerin, and of the two Internuncius's of

Bruxels. But however this be or be not, el Padre Macedo lost all his labours. How farre he proceeded in it, I do not know; but sure I am, whatever it was he writt on this subject, it never came to light. Whether because upon after thoughts they found he could saye nothing to purpose, and whatever he would saye, would certainly and fully be answered, and judg'd safer, to pro∣ceed rather by authority then reason, against that Instrument and those Sub∣scribers, and by discountenancing and keeping them from all hopes of pre∣ferment or title in that Court, until they retracted? or whether for any other more pious and godly consideration of the Popes Holiness? I cannot say for certain. But am notwithstanding certain, that to this day, as neither Macedo, nor Brodin, so none els, had the confidence either at home in Ireland, or a∣broad in other Countries, to publish as much as one sheet, or leaf, or line on that subject (against the Remonstrance) in print or otherwise, that came to my knowledg, besides those written letters only of Cardinal Barberin, De Vecchijs, and Rospigliosi (part of which I have before given, and shall the rest hereafter in their due place) and besides the Censure of Lovain.

XIII.

The second particular of those two I desired the Reader to take notice of here, as an appendix of those answers, is, That the Procurator alwayes, and to all and every, though so many dissenting, opposing, or delaying par∣ties and factions of the Clergy against subscription, in the perclose of his par∣ticular answers appropriated to their several objections, inculcated seriously, and vehemently insisted on this general argument against them. That where∣as they all generally confessed the catholickness, and lawfulness of that form, or of the acknowledgments, declarations, protestations, promises, engage∣ments and petition of that Remonstrance, and consequently the lawfulness of a subscription to it, and withal saw clearly, not only the expediency, but ne∣cessity also of their concurrence: and being it was evident enough they were bound under the greatest and strictest obligation of conscience, and even of eternal damnation, and they above other Christians, by their special functi∣on, to concur to all just, conscientious, or lawful means, or such as were not sinful, and were also (the circumstances of place, time, and persons consider∣ed) both expedient and necessary, as well to hinder the propagation, and la∣bour the extirpation of erroneous, false, sinful, and scandalous doctrine amongst the people whom they instructed, as to wash off their holy Faith and Church, such scandals already aspersed upon it, through the carriage or mis∣carriage of some, rendring it foul and odious, and horrible, and therefore estranging Sectaries of all sorts from all thoughts of returning or reuniting to it at any time, but rather fixing them in heresie and schisme, with loss of their eternal salvation, even of such infinite myriads of souls, for whose re∣duction to the Church, and means of salvation, they were specially commissi∣on'd by their calling, and enjoyn'd to preach and teach Evangelical truths, without addition, or substraction of, or countenance to any other novel, doubt∣ful or controverted opinions, much less of those are certainly false and scanda∣dalous, and even against the common peace, not of Catholicks or Christians alone, but also of Infidels, even of all societies of men on earth: it must fol∣low evidently out of these premises, they must confess themselves to live in a very sinful state, and extreamly dangerous hazzard of Gods most severe and most terrible judgments against them on the day of account, if they de∣layed any longer their duty to God and to the King, and to their own Church Religion, People, and to those too that abhorred their Church and Faith up∣on account chiefly of such their carriage, or of their not disowning as they might, and ought, such pernicious doctrines and practises, the antecedents, concomitants, and subsequents whereof, render the Professors of the Ca∣tholick Faith and Church, so abominable to all apostatized from, or other∣wise

born and bred out of it. For it is clear, that under such penalties all Priests of God, and Preachers of the Gospel of Christ by special function, are obliged by all just means to endeavour the best they can to render the Religi∣on and Catholick Church pure, undefiled, immaculate, without spot or wrinckle; whereby to invite and perswade others to it, for the salvation of their souls; or certainly that they must allow salvation, as they neither do nor can, to be found in other Congregations or Churches, either Heretical or Schismatical. And further, he minded them seriously, insisting no less earnestly thereupon, That no earthly regard, none at all of temporal, either advantages or disadvantages, of honour, profit, ease, much less of such vain titles and preferments as they look after, nor, on the other side, any appre∣hension of disfavour, discountenance, danger, persecution,, nor loss of goods, if they had any, nor even of liberty and life, could excuse them from this duty. That whether all their hopes of the King and his great Ministers, of his Councils and Parliaments, or of the moderate people of the Protestant Church upon one side, should fail them, having done their own duty, and their pleas of innocence, and articles both, or whatever else-were of no ac∣count, and all their both nearest and dearest Lay-relative Proprietors, to a man, were destroyed at home, and themselves finally forced abroad again, or design'd to suffer in their own Countrey the extreamest rigour of laws, ei∣ther made already, or hereafter to be at any time, or contingencies there: or if, on the other side, they were absolutely certain, being exiled, to meet with no less severity and cruelty from the Court of Rome, or an angry incensed Pope, and from all Princes and Catholick Prelates, and People too, where∣ever they came: that even this certainty of such evils (however in themselves, or to any prudent man, neither probable, nor morally possible) could not excuse them from this duty. That the first Subscribers had sup∣posed all the very worst could happen beyond all fear; and yet found them∣selves bound to do what they did. That they conceived their special functi∣on, nay, Christianity it self obliged them so in the case: and others of the same calling could pretend no special priviledge from Christ or his Gospel, or his Church, whatever the Courtiers of Rome (but at their instance and impor∣tunity, and that of their busie ignorant Agents and Sollicitours there) did erroneously complement them with. And therefore the conclusion of all was, that he understood not with what confidence or conscience, but that of hor∣rour and sacriledge, and of being guilty of the body and blood of our Lord, and of eating and drinking judgment to themselves, as St. Paul speaks, or their own condemnation, they could, persisting in their obstinacy, approach the Altars of God, and celebrate the Divine and unbloudy Mysteries.

With which final conclusion, as with all the rest of this last discourse, not∣withstandieg the Procurator most frequently, and earnestly, and pathetical∣ly perclosed all his several answers to the several parties of the Clergy; and to those too of greatest authority and power amongst them, even Provinci∣als, Vicars General, Bishops and Archbishops; yet, which is very notable, he never had hereunto, at any time, or from any person of them all, one word of reply; but sighs only from some, arguing a remorse; and silence from the rest, without any remorse at all, if their past, and after actions be sufficient testimonies of their affections.

XIV.

Now (after so long a discontinuance of, or digression from the bare matter of fact, and without further consideration of the arguments of either side, or of the allegations of the dissenters, & the refutations, or reasons insisted on by the Procurator) to return back thither where I was treating how, upon the arrival of the said Procurator, about the end of August, 1662. he had by con∣ferring at Dublin with several of the chief heads there, peevishly adverss to

the Remonstrance (some alledging one excuse, and some another, and others many together of such as you have seen already above, or before the answers) partly understood the whole intrigue from those men, and partly too from others, who came to him from several parts of the Countrey abroad, of pur∣pose to let him know the general conspiracy (either enter'd, or submitted unto even by some of the best affected, & most loyal heretofore) of both Secular and Regular Clergy throughout all parts of the Kingdom, against that Remon∣strance, and himself also upon account thereof, if he persisted in his resoluti∣on to draw them to it, or not to work for them a liberty (as they vainly con∣ceived he could) to frame another unsignificant one for themselves, and pre∣vail for the acceptance of such by His Grace and by His Majesty: the Procu∣rator fully therefore now understanding what he was to do, resolves in the first place to attempt the breaking of that ligue so general, & the breaking of it im∣mediatly, & by some Instances at Dublin, the Metrapolitan City. Whose Clergy, and their example must (especially in such a matter) have had great influence on the rest in other parts of the Kingdom: and certainly so much, that if they residing in the very sight of the State, and giving daily intelligence to the rest abroad, or if at least some leading men of them could not be wrought upon to desert so sinful and shameful (I will not say disloyal) a confederacy, there could be no hopes at all to prevail with any others. In which attempt he was presently (after some little pains taken) so far succesful as to have reason'd to a subscription, & publick owning thereof, the Guardian & other Fathers of the Franciscan Convent in that City, being in all five, & with them two of the Dominicans, whereof one was the then Prior of Droghedah, but residing at Dub∣lin. These were they that first of all others in Ireland at home, next after Father Valentine Browne at Galway, condemn'd by a clear, and ever since constant profession and observance of their duty, the rashness and sinfulness of that so general conspiracy against it. Though, I must confess, that as many as after followed their example to this day, have of themselves freely and heartily, without compulsion, or even other invitation then what was pub∣lick in the Book, and Letters of the Procurator, come along from several, and some from very remote parts of the Kingdom, to Dublin, of purpose to sub∣scribe that Instrument, and thereby quiet their own conscience, by declaring in that manner as they should, and was expected from them, their true allegi∣ance to the Prince.

XV.

But for as much as I doubt not there are very many both desirous and curi∣ous to know the number and names of all those of the Clergy, Regular or Secular, who have then, or at any time since, concurred (for the number and names of the Subscribers at London of that Clergy, together with the Bi∣shop of Dromore I have already given with the Remonstrance it self, in the beginning of this Treatise, as they are extant in print) and because it will be more satisfaction to give them altogether, then dispersedly in several places as they signed at several times: the Reader may satisfie himself here, in both particulars. For in the same very order, and with the same Titles, they sub∣scribed themselves, with their own hands, under the very original Remon∣strance, I give them here: with this Advertisement to the Reader, That the four first signed likewise at London, before the Procurator came for Ireland; three of them indeed, a pretty while after the publication in print of the Re∣monstrance with the other twenty four London-Subscribers; but the first of all, I mean Father Bartholomew Stritch, together with those other twenty four printed Fathers, and should therefore have made up the twenty fift of those formerly printed names. Whereof, I confess, I did not my self take notice till of late; looking over the original, and by meer chance comparing it with the printed copy. When also I found another mistake of the Printers, in put∣ting

Bartholomew Bellew instead of Patrick Bellew. For Patrick Bellew, who is now parish Priest of Dundalke, was he that subscribed amongst those very first 25.

The names of the Clergie-men, Seculars or Regulars, that, besides the first 24. subscribed the Remonstrance of 61. either at London, or Dublin, or els∣where in Ireland.

• Bartholomew Strich. Sacerd.
• Fr. George Goulde of S. Fran. Ord. Conf. and Preach.
• Cajetanus Macharius V. I. D. et Protonotarius.
• Fr. Thomas Talbot Almonier to the Queen Dowager.
• Fr. Valen. Brown Read. Iubilate of Divin. and Commissary of the Fran. in Conaght.
• Fr. James Fitz Symons Guardian of the Fran. at Dublin, and Custos of the Province of Ireland.
• Fr. Lawrence Tankard of S. Fran. Ord. Conf. and Preac.
• Fr. Patrick Porter of S. Fran. Ord. Conf. and Preach.
• Fr. Nicholas Fitz Symons of S. Fran. Ord. Conf. and Preach.
• Fr. Valentin Cruia of S. Fran. Ord. Conf. and Preach.
• Fr. John Reynolds of the Ord. of S. Dominick Conf. Preac. Gen. and No∣tary Apostolick.
• Fr. John Scurlock of the Ord. of S. Dominick, Prior of Drogheda.
• Fr. Nicholas Archbold of the Ord. of S. Fran. Conf. and Preach.
• Fr. Phillip Codd of S. Fran. Ord. Conf. and Preach.
• Fr. Christopher Plunket of S. Fra. Ord. Preses of Clane.
• Lawrence Archbold, olim Vic. Gen. of Dublin, and Rector of Laragh Bryan.
• John Murtagh Doct. of Divinity Vicar of Athlone &c.
• Bartholomew Read. Doct. of Divin. &c.
• Tho. Kenny Sac. et Theolog.
• Edmund Smith Sacerd.
• Fr. James Shiele of S. Fran. Ord. Conf. and Preach.
• Denis Ferrail Parish Priest of Mastrim, Theolog.
• Fr. Lawrence Cullen of S. Domincks Ord. Conf.
• Fr. Bonaventura Darcy of S. Fran. Ord. Conf.
• Fr. Patrick Carre of S. Fran. Ord. Guar∣dian of Carrigfergus.
• Fr. Iames Tute of S. Fran. Ord. and Guardian of Feorus.
• Fr. Francis Coppinger of S. Fran. Ord. Read. Gen. of Divinity and Guard. of Corke.
• Fr. Patrick Wesly of S. Fran. Ord. Guardian of Trim.
• Iohn Muldoon Prior. Insulae Sanctorum Vic. de Cashil et Rathclin.
• Fr. Anthony Fitz gerrald of S. Fran. Ord. Read. of Divinity.
• Fr. Iames Turnor of S. Fran. Ord. Conf.
• Fr. Patrick Euers of S. Fran. Ord. Conf.
• Fr. Christopher Dillon Ord. Carmel. Calceatorum, nunc in Hibernia Senior et Prior Conventus de Cultrack.
• Fr. Ludovick Fitz Gerald of S. Fran. Ord. Preses of Kildare.
• Ronan Maginn Dean of Dromore and Doctor of Divinity.
• Fr. Clemens Bern of S. Dominicks Ord. Prior de Villanova.
• Fr. Didacus Bern of S. Fran. Ord.
• Fr. George Coddan of S. Fran. Ord. Read. Gen. of Divinity and Missio∣nary Apostolical.
• Fr. Anthony Dalaghan of S. Fran. Ord. Guard, of Killihy.
• Fr. Thomas Harrold of S. Fran. Ord. Read. Iubilate of Divinity.
• Fr. Francis Dillon of S. Fran. Ord. Guardian of Ballimote.
• Fr. Columbanus Gernon of S. Fran. Ord. Conf. and Preach.
• Fr. Iohn Dondon of S. Fran. Ord. Guardian of Limerick.
• Fr. Iames Tute Iunior of S. Fran. Ord. Read. of Divinity
• Fr. Anthony Molloy of S. Fran. Ord. Read. of Divinity.

And a further advertisement is, That notwithstanding the letter to my Lord Lieutenant from the now late, but then actual Minister Provincial of the

Franciscans in Ireland, Father Anthony Docharty (of which letter you shall see, after some few Sections, a true copy) wherein he signifies his own plenary appro∣bation of, & concurrence to the said Remonstrance, as to all parts & words, and even according to the very sense and exposition of the Author (whom he supposeth to be Father Peter Walsh) yet for as much as he, to this day, would not subscribe the original, nay refused to do so now very lately, I do not rank him among the Subscribers. As I neither do for many reasons, whereof hereafter, the Bishop of Killfinuran; though so earnest and active for it at first, in St Maloes in France, by getting the subscriptions of others. Nor like∣wise, for some of the same or like reasons, do I name, amongst them, the Bi∣shop of Ardach; albeit, I have, in his own hand-writing all along, his Letter to his Brother Sr. Nicholas Pluncket, not only, or simply approving it, but by arguments deduced from the doctrine of St. Paul in holy Scripture, and from the practice of the primitive Christians, and the several degrees of obedience, taught even by Neoterick Divines, proving sufficiently, nay and abundantly, the catholickness and lawfulness of it.

XVI.

In the next place (and as soon as the Procuratour had, with so good suc∣cess, tryed this first attempt, made this first breach, and consequently, atleast in some degree or measure, broke the grand Ligue, and shewed they were not invincible, nor the chief contrivers of it so absolutely and generally powerful as they made account themselves to be) his care was to write to some of the most eminent persons among them, in the several Provinces, and first of all to the most Reverend Bishop of Meath, Anthony Mageoghegan, of St. Francis Order, as likewise to the Vicar Apostolick of Dublin, for Leinster, & to others in Mun∣ster, Connaught, and Ʋlster, for the respective Secular Clergy in those parts; as also to the Provincial Superiours of Regular Orders, for the Religious under their Government or Direction. But understanding of two Provincial As∣semblies (or Chapters intermedia, as they are called) of the Dominican and Franciscan Orders, in two different places in Connaght, that of the Dominicans, in Vachtirhiry, and the other of the Franciseans in Muintircheany, he writ speci∣al Letters to each by members of those Assemblies, but late and known Sub∣scribers: to the Franciscans, by Father James Fitz Simons, above named, Guardian of that Order at Dublin, and Custos of their Province; & to the Do∣minicans, by Father Iohn Reynolds, the above likewise named, of the same Order, and Secretary of their said Meeting. By which Letters he gave them notice of his arrival, and seriously minded them of that which should be their greatest concern in their Assemblyes. And how that, laying aside all further de∣layes, they should now at last resolve, after so long a time, even full seven or eight months, since they, with the rest of the Clergy of Ireland were specially invited by, and even by his printed Book, The more ample Account, to a neces∣sary concurrence with those had given the first example, by subscription of their loyal principles. And that they should not think of any other form, but of that already subscribed: or at least of none which came not home as fully as that in all respects, as to the sense, if they would needs alter the words.

The Bishop of Meath, by Letters of the 6. of October 62. and the Vicar Apo∣stolick of Dublin, by his also of 27. of September. 62. and some other Vicars General, from several parts, answered the Procurator with complements only, and put offs to a General, or National meeting of the Clergy, which they pre∣tended to desire: as they further pretended a necessity, that the Procurator should prevail with His Grace the Lord Lieutenant, for his permission; and this too under his Graces hand for such a meeting; not giving any assurance, or promise at all, as much as of their own endeavours of a general, or as much as of their own particular concurrence to that was demanded of them, if such a licence could be obtained.

The Franciscan Chapter seemed to be to little concern'd in that business, that they did not as much as treat once, or debate in publick of it. Only their Provincial, Father Docharty, after private communication with some of them, writ back to the Procurator, that he, and others of the most leading men would meet him after Christmass, in a place near Mi••••••fer••an, in West••••••li, some fourty miles from Dublin, to conferre of that matter and other things.

XVII.

But the Dominicans, though to no great purpose, debated it publickly in their said Chapter: Father Iohn Reynolds, the bearer of Father Walshes Let∣ter to them, having first declared to his Provincial there, That himself, and some others of his Order, had already subscribed. The opposition was fierce and violent of most, especially of some on pretence that the doctrine of the Remonstrance was point-blanck contrary to the position of St. Thomas of A∣quin, the Angelical Doctor, and Director of al their Schools, and whose do∣ctrine their Masters had sworn to maintain. And the said Father Reynolds found none to second himself but Father Clemens Birne (Prior of Villanova, or Newtowne, an old Monastery in Ulster, and County of Downe) who there declared himself positively; and one more besides, the Prior of Slige, Father Felix Conox, who likewise but timorously declared, that he saw no evil in that Remonstrance. The result was, to frame one of their own. Albeit the Fran∣ciscans complained soon after of them grievously therefore, or as attributing that form they pitched on there, to their Dominicans Order, or making use thereof as such, which was none of theirs, but framed by the Franciscans, as intended for, and in the behalf of themselves. But however this be, or be not, I am sure the contest was ridiculous. For this new form signified a meer nothing, whoever was Author thereof. And yet this Chapter of the Domi∣nicans (although told so publickly there, by some of their own members) would needs flatter themselves, and hope to abuse my Lord Lieutenant with it: as if His Grace did not understand English words, or knew not how to distinguish twixt general, unsignificant expressions, and those special ones were proper to come to the purpose. Wherein, least they should be mistaken, as they were told they were, at last they came to this final issue: That in case my Lord Lieutenant would not accept of this their new form, and that His Grace would peremptorily expect their subscription to the Remonstrance sign'd at London: their Provincial Prior, Iohn O Hart, should by common consent of all the Chapter, be impowered to call together (after their disso∣lution, and when the Dukes answer were known) four Priors of the next ad∣jacent Convents, Father Felix Connor, Prior of Sligo, Father Richard Ma∣dan, Prior of Por••umna, Father William Burke, Magister Theologiae, Prior of Rathbranum, Father Iohn Birn, Prior of Roscommon, and together, with these four, to determine of their subscriptions to the first Remonstrance, and finally, to resolve pro or con, whether they should subscribe that or no? And that all the rest of the Religious of that Order in Ireland, should effectu∣ally conform to such their determination, whatever it should be. Hereupon they framed, signed, and sent their Letter, and Remonstrance inclosed there∣in, by the said Father Reynolds, to His Grace; and their Provincial, another from himself, in all their behalf, to the Procurator. But out of too much wariness, and because they foresaw their said letter or Remonstrance would not be acceptable, as not comming at all to the purpose, and dwelling only in generals and unsignificant expressions, and having no real purpose, as their carriage ever since proved sufficiently they had not, to come at any time thereafter unless by compulsion and fear to any other truly material; they would not annex to their several names their several titles of Priourships, or of the places or Convents whence they had their denomination, and where they resided: fearing that if they had, they might be looked after and found

out the more easily; their own conscience or knowledge of their own reso∣lution making them so to apprehend fear, where there was no fear at all, as the Psalmist sayes.

The tenour to a word of both, or of their said letter subscribed only by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 hands in the behalf of the rest, and Remonstrance therein enclosed, but sub∣scribed by them all, who were 24 (besides the said Father Iohn Reynold,) who singled himself in that of such application or subscription from them, because he had already for himself and those others of his way done much better) I give here (as I will hereafter all other the several though alike unsignificant Remonstrances offered by others) that the Reader may through∣ly see the intrigue, and satisfie himself by knowing so many particulars of it.

For his Grace the Duke of Ormond Lord Lieutenant general &c.

Gracious Sir,

LEast our silence (in this desired and most happy time wherein his Sacred Ma∣jesties Subjects strive to manifest their loyaltie unto their natural King and So∣veraign Charles the Second) should draw upon us any suspicion prejudicial unto our Loyaltie to him, or give waye to his sometimes, and still our adversaries, to brand us with the vile spott of any disloyaltie, we the whole body of St. Dominicks Order in Ireland, do present unto your Grace the inclosed Remonstrance, ready to seal and sign the same with our dearest blood, most humbly desiring it may be as favourably ac∣cepted by your Grace as cordially presented by those who will never cease to pray for your Grace his good preservation and prosperitie,

Gracious Sr. Your Graces humble Servants.

• F. Iohn Hart Provincial
• F. Lawrence Kelly Diffinitor
• F. I. Burgate Diffinitor
• F. Eugenius Coigly Diffinitor
• F. Richardus Maddin Diffinitor

October the 15. 1662.

The humble Remonstrance of the Dominican Friers in Ireland.

WHereas the Divine, natural and human law dictates that all Subjects should heartily congratulate the prosperity and felicity of their natural King, it is most just that all the Irish nation should highly rejoyce the miraculous Restauration of Charles the Second, their natural King, their only deliverer from the hard and intollerable durance, and tyranny which they so many years have suffered in his absence, under the suppressions of an Ʋsurped power: and the Irish Clergie doth hold them∣selves by double obligation so to do, first by the tye of natural subjection to their most gracious and lawful Prince: secondly that they may vindicate themselves from the innumerable calumnies and lyes, whereby they are misrepresented unto the King and his Ministers, most falsely suggested to them, that they intend to raise rebellion and tumults. Wherefore we the whole body of the Dominican Friers unanimously (that it may appear to the world with what sincerity of mind and purity of intension we are inclined to our Soveraign Charles the Second, following the steps of our prede∣cessors and fully satisfied in our conscience) first do render most hearty thanks unto the King of Kings for the miraculous Restauration of His Sacred Majesty to His hereditarie Kingdoms, and will ever pray that the same divine power and providence that established Him in his own right, may give him long time happily to raign and govern. And for manifestation of our fidelity to Him, we do protest before God, Angels, and Men, without any equivocation or mental Reservation, our Soveraign

Charles the Second to be the true and lawful King, and Supream Lord of Ireland, and therefore that we are in conscience, and under pain of Highly offending. God to obey our said, Soveraign in all civil and temporal affairs, no less then any of our function to their respective Princes in Europe. And do further more protest that we know no external power that can absolve us from this Religious obligation, no more than other Subjects of the like function with us from the like obligation in Spain, France, or Germany, or any elswhere. Finally we execrate, abjure and renounce that (not Catholick) pernicious doctrine, That any Subject may Kill or Murthen his King by himself, or any other, though differing with him in Religion, nay we protest the contrary, saying that all Subjects are bound to manifest all rebellious and machi∣nations against their Kings person, His Kingdom at State, to the King or his Magi∣strate, which, we do hereby promise to do. And this protestation of our fidelity, we the aforesaid body of the Order of St. Dominick in Ireland do freely offer to His most meek and clement Majesty, and prostrate under His Sacred ••ee, we pray he may be pleased to accept this our protestation, and to defend and deliver us fr•••• the op∣pression of our persecutors, for our profession is to fear and follow him who in the Gospel commands to give unto God his due, and to Cesar his, and we will always pray for His Royal Majesty, his Queen, and the blessing of a happy posterity.

Dated the 15th of October, 1662.

• F. Iohn Hart Provincial.
• F. Lawrence Kelly Diffinitor
• F. I. Burgate Deffinitor
• F. Eugius Coigly Diffinitor
• F. Richard Maddin Diffinitor
• F. Dionisius a Hanreghan
• F. Constant, de Annunciatione Kyeffe
• F. William Bourke
• F. Cornelius Googhegan
• F. Felix Conuer
• F. Patrick Dulehanty
• F. Thomas Philbin
• F. Ioanner Baptista Bern
• F. Ge••ot de martiribus Ferral
• F. Michael Fulam
• F. Goruldfitz Gerrald
• F. Abtonius Kenogan
• F. Clement Berae
• F. Batricius Doyre
• F. Charles Dermo••••
• F. Dominick Fedrall
• F. Daniel Nolanus
• F. William O Meran
• F. Iohn Tyny
• F. Tadeus mac Don••ogh

XVIII.

As concerning the Letter, which this Dominican Provincial, Father Iohn O Hart, sent then by the same bearer, and of the same date, to the Procura∣tour, although it was civil enough, and a complement of thanks for minding his Order of their duty, and further desires both of recommending them and their cause to His Grace, and of hearing from him more often all particu∣lars▪ yet was it withal positive enough in declaring they could not or would not do more in that business than what they had now by their letter to the Duke and Remonstrance enclosed therein. Nor indeed was it ever at any time before or after to this day expected by the Procuratour, they would heartily or freely do any more: because he knew very well in what hands the Government of that Order was, or who were Provincials, Definitors, and Lo∣cal Priors of their Province then and for many years puff, and how unanimous they were all in the Nuncio's time, and for him, and his quarrel, and ever since for the Censures, and against any kind of peace with the Royal party; only four or five excepted, who yet had not the courage to mutter against the rest, if not in private cornes (Father Marke Rochford, Oliver Darey, Ioseph Langton, Peter Nangle:) and because he know they gloried particularly and mightily in their however unfortunate unity therein, having suffered no di∣vision amongst themselves, but runn altogether one way for ought appeared (so little did they consider, that unity in evil is a curse from God:) and be∣cause

he further knew certainly how they were touch'd to the very quick, and took it to heart extreamly that any at all of theirs, though but three only, Father Scurlog, Reynolds, and Scully (to whom since is added Father Clemens Birne) had subscribed the Remonstrance, and consequently saw themselves now in some degree begun to be divided.

In which judgment of them in general, that it may be seen the Procuratour was not deceived, but their violence made known, to the end it may find some check hereafter, I must not pass over in silence how they left no stone unremoved to vex the patience of those three or four subscribers, and force them to a recantation: exclaiming against them every where, discountenanc∣ing them in every thing, even against the rules not of their own Order only, but of the common Canons of the Church, and Christian charity also: threatning to deprive them of active and passive voice in all elections: and by actual instances thwarting (in such) Father Scurlog and Reynolds; making one man, of purpose to decline and vex them, Priour of three Convents to∣gether at one time, against the very Papal Canons. cap. Vnum Abbatim. 21. q. 1. (ex Concilio Agathensi c. 57.) Nay denying not licence only or a dispensa∣tion, or indulgence to Reynolds in case of sickness to eat flesh, but even an ab∣solution of his sins on St. Dominicks eve, because and only because he would not retract: as it was in plain tearms told himself then, and even by him that so denyed it, his own local Prior in the City of Dublin. And yet with more uncivil and barbarous usage to a Priest, and from the chief Superiour Provin∣cial in his visitation, boxing an other on the face, on that account only. For they never did nor could taxe him, nor any of those few other subscribers with any other kind of misdemeanour. Finally removeing all such Friars to other Convents from being under the direction or command of Father Cle∣ment Prior of Newtown in Ʋlster, of purpose or because he subscribed, and that being left alone he should be forced to sink or signifie nothing.

And verily it was much to their purpose to procceed so against those few subscribers; being perswaded that such usage would infallibly hinder others from subscription, and perhaps in time worke these very subscribers to a re∣cantation; as they have long since one of them; even him that first of all of their Order subscribed at London, Father Redmond Moore; albeit they needed not to labour much with him, having been heretofore an earnest man, accord∣ing to his weak ability, for the Nuncio; but now in my judgment not so blame∣able for this as for that of his either dissimulation in signing first, or recanta∣tion after of what he had so freely signed of himself, as himself well knows. But he is by his Provincial, and for his recantation made Priour of Athy. And that's excuse enough amongst men that have neither braine, nor shame, nor conscience, nor even fear of the laws of God or man.

Nor will I pass over an other yet more convincing and less denyable argu∣ment of my judgment of that Order, and Provincial, because in black and white under his own hand, and in his own hand writing all along, his original letter to the Bishop of Dromore, in 62. though the letter in it self bears no date. Which, because also it shews the general conspiracy of all Orders, and all others too of the secular Clergy against the Remonstrance, if this Provin∣cial deserve credit, and their unhappy endeavours abroad, even to force themselves to continue such a conspiracy, and so make themselves and all o∣thers at home as much as in them laye, for ever unhappy, the Reader hath given him here at length, as in the original, word by word, only some few lines of bare complement in the beginning of it omitted.

My Lord,

YOur Lordships letter I received &c. My Lord take to your Serious consideration the dolfull state of our poor Clergy in this Nation. Mr. Walsh drew forth a Remonstrance which is, in the opinion of all the Bishops, Ordinaries and Superiours of Ireland, most pernicious and temerarious, and so confirmed by the several letters

sent hither from his Holyness by the Internuncius of Bruxels, as Vicinior Nuntia∣tura, and by Cardinal Protector Barberini. And, besides that our own doctrina is contrary to it, we have seen the Declaration of Lovaine (as for the censure of Sa∣lamanca it came not to my hands as yet) to be always against the same Remonstrance. And so all the Superiours of the Church of Ireland, they made a steadfast resolution unanimously, to incurre all dangerous taxes before they should ever sign to it. And they wrote to Rome representing their resolution, and how they were threatned upon by Mr. Walsh, and desired the Congregation to advise them how to save themselves inter Syllam et Caribdem. Which being once sent to Rome they will never alter their resolution before they get an answer. We have also sent to our General our own Remonstrance, and told how we are threatned upon in case we should not sign; yet we get not our Generals resolution or answer. We are also forbidden by all our Brethren beyond Seas not to sign to it: so as that we are resolved altogether to stand to our former Remonstrance, which is thought by the English Fathers of our Order to be sufficient, and that his Majestie would never demand more expression of loyaltie from any of his Subjects, than what is given by Spaniards and French to their res∣pective Kings. Sennor, hic miserimus rerum nostrarum status. Yours is now to take up this controversie and see it pacified, and to commiserate the poor Clergie, who is resolved to undergoe an other persecution and bannishment. Si assi succede, V. S. llevara la culpa mas q' Valesio. Y q' hasta ahora como se porto V. S. tan gra∣ve sin procurar q' nadie subscribiera (a Dios gracias) no le echan mucha culpa. But now if you prevaile that our Remonstrance (which is well accepted by all the Clergie of Ireland) be accepted of, then erls mihi magnus Apollo, and you will gratifie all more than any that ever was seen in Ireland, and it will be known through∣out all Europe. Las cartas de aqui corren a hora por el mundo. Sir I must be∣seech your Lordship both for your own reputation, and our preservation that depends hereof, to contribute your witt, and the grace that God Almighty gave you, in this most pious and honourable worke. So, hoping in God that you will have a prosperous suc∣cess, concludes

Your most obedient Servant John Harison.

XIX.

Where you plainly see the sense and resolution of this Provincial, (for in his letters he writes himself Harison) and if you believe him (and time hath shewen after, you may) that of all the rest of the Clergie. Now what should have made him to be so disingenuous as to carry himself otherwise in word and deed, both at Dublin to his own Friars there, a little before the Procuratour landed in 62. and after, in his foresaid Capitulum intermedium, (for then at Dublin he charged them not to speak against the Remonstrance at all: telling them he saw nothing in it of evil, or that should be contradicted: as in that Chapter, soon after, where it was debated, he behaved himself in∣differently, not speaking at least in publick one word to disswade any from subscription, nor condemning either in publick or private Father Iohn Rey∣nolds, or those two or three that subscribed with him, but assuming the said Reynolds to be Secretary of that Assembly) or whether it was not rather in∣genuity and conscience, that so check'd his inclinations at first, as to force him to this carriadge? or whether only meer dissimulation until himself and others could worke from beyond Seas, some colour of authority to oppose it? I must confess I cannot determine certainly. As I cannot say, whether (having under∣stood what my Lord Lieutenant answered the bearer of his letter and Remon∣strance, and how His Grace declared himself on the reading of both) this Provincial summon'd together the four Delegats of his Order above named, or consulted with them about any further satisfaction to His Grace by signing the Remonstrance of 61. being their own was rejected?

But I am sure notwithstanding that he concern'd himself so farre as to send one of the said four Delegats, Father Richard Madan, Prior of Por••umna, to London, and there to Father Phillip Howard (one of Her Majesties Almoners and of the same Order of St. Dominick) of purpose to know of him whether His Majestie expected from the Irish Clergie any such thing as the subscription of that Remonstrance of 61. or other such? And that Father Madon after returning, gave out confidently how Father Howard assured him, the King did not, and what was done in Ireland thereupon proceeded wholly from the Procuratour himself, without any the least encouragement from the King, or countenance from his Lieutenant.

And I am very certain, that ever since, the chief leading men of that Order, conforming themselves further to all such directions as they receive from their Colledg or Convent of Irish Dominicans at Lovain (as those of that Colledg to what they themselves procure from Rome, and transmit to Ireland) have been in all parts of this Kingdom very insolent and violent, all of them in private discourse amongst all sorts of men, decrying the Remonstrance and Subscribers of it, if not as unlawful and heretical, yet certainly against the Interest of the Pope, Country and Religion; and some of them preaching publickly at altars against both, in the vilest and impudentest manner, telling the people they should rather abide all evils, suffer death it self, then approve of such a form; pursuant to the late Priour of Dublin, but now of Naas, Father M. Fullam's attestation, under his own hands writing, in a letter to one of his own Order Father John Scurlog, that he would for his own part soo∣ner take the Oath of Supremacy. To such a degree of folly and frenzy, their malice to the Subscribers drove them.

Which was the cause that (especially in Connaght and Vlster) they spared not to asperse the whole Order of Franciscans, as well those had not yet sub∣scribed, as those did, amongst the common people, with defection from the See Apostolick: because the Procuratour and greatest number of Subscribers, and maintainers of that form are Franciscans, and those tollerated by, and countenanced, or at least not proceeded against by their chief Superiours: and to the end they might, by such scandals raised of the Franciscans, be them∣selves esteemed the Champions of the Great Pontiff in Ireland, and both lessen the credit of others, and gain to boot their benefactors. Which was next that of pretensions at Rome, and distractions at home, against the peace of the Country, and establishment of the King, the only marke they shott at.

XX.

Wherein they had the Augustinian Order (who are twixt threescore and fourscore in this Kingdom, but most of them in Connaght) their unalterable, and no less, in so much, unconscionable Associats: I mean as to the generality of them. For I do not involue every individual of them in such unworthy intrigues; though I can say, that not as much as one of this Augustinian Order, hath for so many years since 61. (though several of them very home reason'd with by the Procuratour himself) any way declared his or their moderation in this matter, so farre they were all from subscription; excepting only that one Gentleman of theirs, Father Gibbon, who subscribed at London, amongst the other 25. there. And can say this much too of them, that Father Martin French, their late Priour at Dublin, hath acknowledg'd there, some 3. or 4. years since, they were the Order of all others that ledd the Van of opposition by common consent or decree in a chapter held by them in 62. and in Con∣naght, a little before those others of the Dominicans or Franciscans were held: which was to them, as it proved since, like the laws of Medes and Persians, ir∣revocable, untransgressable, without any regard of any other laws, either of man or God, positive or natural.

XXI.

About the same time the Procuratour had the above answers of the Do∣minican and Franciscan Chapters or Provincials, he received from England, by letter from the Bishop of Dromore bearing date the 18th. of October, the said year 62. another letter therein enclosed, which was to the said Bishop from the Dean, and in behalf of the Chapter of the English secular Clergie. For those have a certain select number, how many they are I do not exactly re∣member, but I think about 28. composing their Chapter, which represents and gives orders to all that Clergie, wherever dispersed in England and Wales, making a farre greater number, for they were about 600. in Cromwels time, sufficient, learned, and loyally affected all of them to the King. Which en∣closed letter of the English Dean and Chapter, the Bishop sent the Procura∣tour: as it was of purpose written, to answer, without place of reply, an o∣ther pretended scruple of some of the Irish Clergie, that they had not seen any approbation of the Remonstrance, or concurrence from the Clergie of England, though specially and by name invited to it by the Procuratours printed Advertisement, annexed to the Remonstrance, and by his book, or The More Ample Account, which he soon after publish'd amongst them at London. The original, being shewed by the Procuratour, convinced all that would be convinced by reason: for it was that you have here in the copy.

For the Right Reverend Father in God, Oliver Lord Bishop of Dromore.

Right Reverend Father in God &c.

ALthough it be a chief point of Christian duty to be passive, even in injustices without reply, yet is that patience scarce profitable (though with the gaine of private vertue) where the publique receives prejudice. And for this reason do I give your Lordship this trouble; for understanding from persons of Quality, that I and the rest of my Brethren of the Chapter, are reported to obstruct the subscriptions of the Irish Clergie, to the Declaration of Allegiance here exhibited to His Majestie, as upon this score, that being desired to joyn with you in it, we refused it, as both im∣prudent and unjust; and by that refusal of our concurrence, gave occasion to divers of the Irish Clergie to do the like, by which we seem to be a block in the way to that freedom of Conscience which we would gladly purchase with our blood: We humbly begg this favour of your Lordship, that as you are best able to cleer us in this point, that our concurrence was never required, nor were we privy to your business (the circumstances of our conditions being different from yours:) so your Lordship (being assured of our judgment) would please to signifie it where it may undeceive the over∣credulous. My Lord, I have spoke with our Brethren concerning this business, and find them so farre from censuring your draught, or proceed in that protestation, that as we know it destructive to Soveraign Majestie to be dependent in Regalities; so we take it derogative to good Subjects to deny him the power Absolute in Temporalities. And therefore being taught by the law of God to give him obedience indispensable, we cannot but judge, in that you runn along with your duty. As for the expressi∣ons passing a censure upon the contrary tenets, as some peradventure may think them too severe, we could wish the circumstances of affairs in these His Majesties King∣doms could have declared them impertinent; but considering this age overrun with disloyaltie, and even amongst those of our Holy Catholique Faith, some (to our great grief) have been too active under colour of bad principles: it cannot but be necessary, to declare those principles, no other then the Cockle of wicked doctrine, sow∣ed by the Enemy of mankind to the prejudice of Christianity, which being a law of an absolute Rectitude, in setting right our duties to God and Caesar, we are tyed to clear if from imputation: and professing it also a Rule that we will follow in

our affections, it seems altogether inexcusable if we startle at any engagement (with∣in the verge of Regality) wherein our Allegiance is payable. And therefore in the Circumstances you seemed to stand in, to free the Holy Catholique Faith, on one side from obloquies, and redeem your selves from calumnies; and on the other, to re∣lieve the Layety under your charge from heavy pressures, and further to open a dore to your liberty of Religion, we must needs judge, you have performed the Office of good Pastours both in framing and subscribing your Allegiance to the Prince; to hold forth to the whole whole world your Religion pure and spotless, your Allegiance built on a basis immoveable, and your selves well resolved Subjects.

For our parts we would be glad to runn into those occasions, even with the hazard of our lives, or the loss of our last drop of blood, to worke out our freedom from the severity of our penal laws; much more would we think it happy to gain it with the renounce of an Opinion, which justly brings a jealousie upon us from our Prince, and fellow Subjects, and in the judgement of the chief Assertours of it, of no greater note then to bring along with it the pains of Damnation to those of their party, that speak, preach, or print it, as appears by a written paper, have published by themselves. Wherefore that you may see how we stand affected; were this. Declaration of yours tendred us by Authority, in lieù of what otherwise we lye under, we should willingly embrace it: considering it as well singles out the loyal Subject from those of the bad Principle, as reduces the erroneous into the number of penitents. My Lord, The A∣postolical advice, to give none the least offence in our Ministry, but to preserve our selves blameless to all sorts of people and the Church of God, is the sole pardon, I can plead, for this entrench upon your patience, well knowing your imployments speak you a follower of the Apostles, by being a Servant to all persons in all things, not seeking your own, but the Countryes profit that they may be saved; in which common con∣cerne I shall be ever ready to runn your Lordships ways, being subject to the laws of the same holy Church, and Dread Soveraign, whom God long preserve, whose most loyal Subject I will ever remain, and

My Lord

Your Lordships, most humble servant in Christ Iesu, Humphry Ellice Dean of the Chapter.

London October 18th 1662.

XXII.

Much about this time also, William Burgat Vicar General of Imly, and Custos (as they call him) of the Diocess of Limerick, came from the Province of Mun∣ster to Dublin, of purpose to speak to the Procuratour, about his own and the common affairs of all the Clergie both of that and the Province of Connaght. For this Gentleman hearing in August before, that the Procuratour was arri∣ved from London, writt him presently a very civil letter, expressing much loy∣alty to the King, and affection to the Lord Lieutenant. And his letter was seconded with a good character given of him then to the Procuratour by persons of Interest and knowledg in that Province of Munster, the Earl of Clancarty, and Iohn Walsh Esq. By that letter the said Father Burgat let the Procuratour know, himself had been deputed some three or four years past, in the Protectors tyranny, and by the Clergie of that Province, as entire A∣gent for themselves to Rome, about their Ecclesiastical affairs: and by those of the Province of Connaght also, joyned in commission with an other, one Doctor Cegan for themselves. That money to bear his charges could not be had un∣til about that time of His Majesties most fortunat Restauration. That seeing the great and happy change, he demurr'd on the matter, until the Earl of Clan∣carty's first comming to Ireland. That having communicated unto his Lord∣ship what he intended, he was advised by the said Earl, not to stirr till he had

seen and been advised by Father Walsh the Procuratour. And that therefore he vehemently now desired to meet him about Kilkenny, or where else he would appoint. But the Procuratour having answer'd with desires of his comming to Dublin and meeting there, Father Burgat came at last along to Dublin. Where, notwithstanding the Procuratour spent much time informing him for 6. dayes consequently, of the causes and ends of the Remonstrance, and that the said Father Burgat averred constantly, that he neither found any thing in it could not be justly owned, nor heard any in his own Province hi∣therto speaking otherwise, or one word against it; yet, whether perverted by such obstinate persons of the Dublin Clergie, as he conversed with daily then, or whether byass'd by his own former intrigues and principles received at first, and retayned still after, from his Bishop when alive, Terlagh O Brien (a Prelate of too much violent zeal for the Nuncius's quarrel) and further yet by his pretensions at Rome and his entended journey thither, he would not sign at all, then or there at Dublin: pretending for excuse that, being he came from the whole Province of Munster to be informed, he would have the greater power to perswade them all generally, if he returned back without preingagement; and the less, if otherwise. Desiring nevertheless, the Procuratour to write by him to the chief Vicar General or Apostolical, as they call him, Iohn Burk of Cashil, to be communicated to the rest, concerning that matter of the Re∣monstrance, and their subscription. Which the Procuratour did; but never had answer from either. For it seems Mr. Burgat, who by all means decli∣ned, nay expresly refused to be presented to my Lord Lieutenant (though invited often to it by the Procuratour, because my Lord so lately had seen his letter, and heard that good character of him, given by my Lord Clancarty and Mr. Iohn Walsh, and was commission'd as above by two Provinces) judg'd it bet∣ter for his own private ends to have nothing to do in that business, at least not to appear for it. Which was the reason also he did not acquiesce to so many pregnant reasons given him by the Procuratour against his undertaking such a journey to Rome, at least as an Agent, or publick person representing both or either of those Provinces. Albeit he was so farre convinced by such reasons, as to promise the Procuratour he would only go as farre as Paris, to leave there some youths at School; and thence return immediately, with pur∣pose to alleadg new and probable difficulties met with, and so excuse himself to the Clergie that had employed and given him money; which otherwise he must have restored back: and yet not so neither or by only restoring their mo∣ney, without going over Seas, excused himself with any colour, being they so long depended of him. But in this promise also he failed. For he went a∣long to Rome, and there sollicited ever since, and lost both his money and time, without compassing as yet any of his designs.

XXIII

Likewise about the same time, the R. R. Father in God Iohn Burk, the Ca∣tholick Archbishop of Tuam, very aged, infirm and sickly, and looked upon as not able to live one year longer, came unexpectedly from St. Maloes: and, in my Lord Lieutenants absence, arrived at Dublin privatly, accompanied with father Thomas Quin the Jesuit, and another of that Society, in whose power, and under whose directions, this aged venerable Prelate wholy was. The Procurator, having done his first respects of visit to his Lordship, de∣sired to know his cause of venturing so confidently without acqainting first, and having by some way addressed himself to my Lord Lieutenant, and un∣derstood of some connivence for his return. Minded him of the carriage and proceedings all along of the Clergy, and especially of the Bishops of Waterford and Iames-stown. That although his Lordship carried himself fair∣ly and loyally in opposing the Nuncio, even to his face, at Galway, and forced open the Church there, which the Nuncio would have to observe his Interdict

& other Censures; & that he had sided all along with the Cessation & supream Council at Kilkenny, in that business, and further too, in concluding the second Peace; yet he could not forget how he sullied all his former glory, by his af∣ter unfortunate sitting, and concurring at Iames-stown with other Bishops, to those disloyal Declarations made there. That he had not since, by any pub∣lick or private application to His Majesty, or Lord Lieutenant, or by submissi∣on and repentance declared to either, washed of the stain of that scandalous & horrid transgression: nor given any assurance of his more loyal carriage here∣after. That yet both were of absolute necessity from a Prelate of highest rank: & such too as for example, and for the satisfaction of God and men, should be publick. That he should therefore petition for himself, and by his example induce the rest of the Irish Clergy to do the like, and most humbly beg par∣don for the time past: and for the future, sign that Remonstrance, whereof to that end he had in France, from London, a sufficient account. All which, and much more to this purpose, the Procurator humbly and earnestly mind∣ed him of, even sometime in the presence of the above Father William Bur∣gat, Vicar General of Imly. The good Archbishop heard him all out, both attentively and patiently enough, without sign of displeasure; but return'd no other answer, then That he was now so broken with age, and many diseases of body, that his mind also, or understanding, was no more of any kind of strength, or capable to discern what he was to do in that or other things. That he was for the matter dead already. That he ventured this journey from France by Sea all along (for otherwise he could not) of purpose only to die, and lye down at rest in his grave & native soil. That he would not have been to bold as to land at Dublin, but that he supposed my Lord Lieutenant away thence, in the Countrey at that time, as it happened, and that he might be carried away privatly to his own Province of Connaght, without any further noise of his arrival, or knowledge thereof given to my Lord Lieutenant. And that being his Grace the Lord Lieutenant was now returned to Town, he de∣sired the Procurator should most humbly present his most submissive respects, and make that true Apology for him of the design of his coming, and desire of being connived at for so short a time as he had to drag a miserable life, and end it by a death more welcome, which he daily expected.

But the Procurator saw well enough, that how infirm soever this good Archbishop was in body, yet he had still sufficient apprehension: and this ex∣cuse proceeded from the Fathers by whom he was led of late in all things; perswading themselves his behaving himself so, would give both countenance and authority enough amongst Catholicks, not to themselves alone, but to all others of the Clergy, in denying, or opposing a subscription, which he had so declined. That his name or extraction, and his known affection sometimes formerly to the King and English Interest, we 〈…〉〈…〉 himself sufficiently of entertaining other scruples in that matter, then those of religion and reve∣rence to the See Apostolick. And his quality of Archbishop, and the only then of that Nation and Religion at home, and the only moreover known to have formerly declared against the Nuncio, would be a strong confirmation thereof; at least might be a very probable excuse for all others of inferior degree, until he had declared himself on the point. All which, and the use thereof, notwithstanding the Procurator did well enough perceive and fore∣see; yet he could not help, having done his own duty. But however advised this good Archbishop to retire: as he did immediatly in a litter to Connaght; where he remains ever since, guided still by the same Fathers, as wholly in their power. The sequel whereof shall be seen hereafter in its proper place, or second Part of this Narrative.

XXIV.

The Procurator therefore, and by several other arguments, seeing now certainly where the first obstruction to a further progress lay, which should be removed: and seeing that albeit the Fathers of the Society were but a very few in Ireland, and most of them in or near Dublin, yet their correspondency both at home and abroad, especially at Rome, was look't upon by most of the Pretendents in, or Dependents of that Court: and their own confidence with∣all in themselves, was great, partly because they had so dexterously behaved themselves in the Nuncio's quarrel, that as they were perswaded, much could not be objected to them on that account, and partly for other causes, and for that in particular, of their extraction generally, as for that also of some po∣werful Relations of some of them: and albeit he saw well enough at the same time, what influence the example of the Dublin Clergy in general, both Parish-priests and Religious Orders (of which Orders there he had only yet won the Franciscans, and two of the Dominicans; but none at all of the Au∣gustinians, Carmelits, Cappuccins, or Jesuits; no more then he had none of the Parish-priests, who were four or five, and together with the said Regu∣lars made fifty Priests, or there abouts, in that City) albeit, I say, the Pro∣curator saw well enough, what influence the example of the Dublin Clergy in general, would have upon the rest abroad in other parts of the Kingdom: and that it would be to no great purpose, but altogether vain, to expect a concur∣rence from these, if those had refused, even there, where the Lord Lieutenant and Council, and Parliament sate, and where notwithstanding the Dissenters had as much favour or freedom, tolleration or connivence, or whatever else you call it, as the Subscribers; and that on the other side the Dissenters had the advantage of the Subscribers at Rome, and with the Generals of Orders beyond Seas; of whose special favour and grace, and above all of his Holi∣nesse's, they were certain for their opposition to the Remonstrance; as the Promoters of it should be certain of all kind of disfavour and so certain there∣of, that they could hardly ever expect any promotion or preferment in the Church, or in their own Orders; and that the Dissenters not only had that great advantage as to Church preferments, and with the Distributers of such, but no less certainly perswaded themselves to be equal in time at home, even with the first Subscribers, and even, I say, as to all protection and liberty from the King and State, if they should be forced at last to subscribe; such, how∣ever compelled subscription, sufficing the King of one side, and excusing them on the other with the Pope and others beyond Seas: and albeit the Procura∣tor saw as clearly, as consequently, that the rest of the Romish Clergy throughout all other parts of the Countrey, in the several Provinces received their punctual directions from those at Dublin, some from one Order, and some from another, and others from the Parish-priests, and accordingly guided themselves: and therefore saw the necessity of prevailing first with those of Dublin: notwithstanding, and though he laboured much, and often, with every Order of them severally, and Parish-Priests also, yet he made it his chief work, and for the reasons before given, to perswade the Fathers of the Society. Which alone was almost his only care for many weeks together.

XXV.

The progress and issue of all which, was, That by their own acknowledgment he cleared all the pretended conscientious scruples of those of them that treated with him. That after this, Father Iohn ••albot assured him, that neither himself, nor others of that Society, who had past their last vows, or fourth profession (and consequently could not be ejected, at the pleasure of the Ge∣neral, or upon other less accounts then other Regulars) would any longer de∣lay

their subscription, then the Procurator had got the positive answer of their Superiour, Father Shelton, what ever his answer were. And further, that they would justifie by Letters to Rome, and to their General, and own pub∣lickly to him, such their proceedings or subscription. That having several times discoursed with the said Father Shelton, and by Letter at last urged him to a resolution, he, before he would resolve, sent these two or three Queries in ••••i••ing to the Procurator, desiring an answer to them in writing also.

Whether the Pope hath a perswasive and directive power over temporal Princes in temporal matters, pro bono Ecclesiae? And whether temporal Princes, in such cases, may lawfully obey him, or are bound to obey him? according to that of St. Ber∣nard, Converte gladium tuum in vaginam. Tuus ergo & ipse tuo forsitan nutu & si non tua manu evaginandus. Uter{que} ergo Ecclesiae, & spiritualis scilicet gladius & materialis. Sed is quidem pro Ecclesiâ, ille vero & ab Ec∣clesiâ exerendus est. Ille Sacerdotis, is militis manu, sed sane ad nutum Sa∣cerdotis.

XXVI.

That the Procurator answered this paper of Quaeries by another of Re∣solves. And to the first Quaerie, That not only the Pope, but inferiour Bi∣shops, nay Ghostly Fathers, have a perswasive and directive power of tem∣poral Princes, even in temporal matters, and not only pro bono Ecclesiae, but for the particular spiritual advantage of such Princes: even such a perswa∣sive or directive power, as his Holiness, and other Bishops, Curats, and Ghostly Fathers have respectively in temporal matters, life, death, war, peace, estates, inheritances, &c. of all Christians respectively subject to them for spiritual direction. And therefore no such directive power of Princes in such mat∣ters, even pro bono Ecclesiae, as carries along with it a coercive power, in the strict and proper sense of coercive; but only a coercive power secundum quid, that is by inflicting spiritual punishments, and inflicting them only in a spiri∣tual way, or by spiritual means; although it be confessed, that sometimes, or in some cases, corporal punishments, or temporal, may be prescribed. Yet inasmuch as these cannot be inflicted on the delinquent by the Church, or, which is the same thing, that the Church hath no power from Christ to make use of corporal strength, external force, coaction, or the material sword to execute on the Delinquent such punishments, if himself do not freely consent, therefore it is, that we cannot allow even his Holiness, as he is Vicar of Christ, or Successor of St. Peter, any coercive power, properly, or strictly such, over any man, much less in the temporal affairs of temporal Princes; but only a coer∣cive power by means or wayes that are purely spiritual that is, by precepts and censures, and these too only when they are ad edificationem non ad destructionem. For it is manifest, that although the particular Bishops of Diocesses have a perswasive and directive power of their respective temporal Diocesans (what ever you say of Parish-priests and Ghostly Fathers, in foro paenitentiae) even, I say, in temporal things, in that sense, the Pope hath of the universal body of the faithful; yet such particular Bishops cannot use external coaction, force, or the material sword (by virtue, I mean, of their power from Christ, or from the Church too, as such) to give any mans possessions, and actually, & really transfer them to another; although peradventure, or in some contingency, they may, ex vi persuasiva and directiva, even enjoyn any to a voluntary transla∣tion of all his rights; as in case of necessary restitution. In which case, the Bishop notwithstanding would have as much power of coercion which would be necessary, or essential to the directive, as his Holiness. And yet no coercive power simply such (that is, to force restitution by the material sword) but se∣cundum quid, to wit, by spiritual commands, and prohibition, or exclusion by such commands only, from the Sacraments, and from the Communion of the faithful. Where indeed the directive and coercive power of the Church

(if you must needs use the word coercive so, and attribute it to the Church) doth, and must end.

To the second Quaerie, or the first part of the next disjunctive question, the answer was affirmative, whensoever Princes find not apparently, o•• clearly, a contradiction in their commands, perswasions, or directions, to the Commandements of God, or Canons of the Church, or find them evidently hazardous, or destructive, of their Kingdoms or People, or of any other against the law of nature, and reason, or conscience. And hence,

To the third Quaerie, or second part of the complex, or disjunctive que∣stion, the Resolve was negative, specially in all those excepted cases of a con∣tradiction to the Commands of God, or Canons of the Church, or hazzards of their Crowns, Kingdom or people, or manifest wrong to any other against the law of nature and reason. All which, Princes are not bound to judge of, according to the temporal interests, or pretences of either his Holiness or other Bishop.

To the authority, or passage alledg'd, out of St. Bernard, the answer is, 1. That it is curtail'd by the Quoter: the words immediatly following (part of the same sentence, and last period of that passage) being purposely omit∣ted. That period being thus concluded by the Saint, Séd sanè ad nutum sa∣cerdotis, & jussum imperatoris. Where he manifestly shews the difference be∣twixt the direction of the Priest, and command in the Emperour over the temporal, or material sword. 2. That St. Bernard never mean'd to impose any any necessity of conscience on the Prince to draw his sword whensoever, and as often soever, as the Priest, or Bishop, would becken or nod, or, which is the same thing, would advise, counsel, or endeavour to perswade him. But mean'd only, that the material sword should indeed be drawn by the Empe∣rours command in such controversies or quarrels, as the Priest might, and ought in conscience to justifie; according to the laws of God. And that tem∣poral Princes in undertaking war, or in matter of publick or private justice, where they must use the sword or force, should, if their be any doubt whe∣ther the undertaking, or execution, be according to the law of God, or no, and if themselves cannot resolve themselves, should, I say, in such cases advise with, or consult, the Priest, in that which belongs to conscience. The Saint, without any question, supposing what the Prophet Malachy speaks, That the lips of the Priest shall preserve knowledge, and others shall demand of him the law of truth. 3. That were St. Bernard speaking to the Bishops of Milan, Constan∣tinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Ierusalem, or to him of Paris, London, Toledo, or Triers, or to any other particular Bishop in the world, that had a temporal Prince, or General of War within his Diocess: he might, and would have said so much to him; nay, to the Priests that are no Bishops at all, I mean the Ghostly Fathers, or Spiritual Directors of Princes. 4. That this very Saint himself doth abundantly clear all scruples in this matter. For not to take notice of those words, tuo forsitan nutu, & to quit the advantage of these other, & jussum Imperatoris, both in this very passage quoted against me: that other in his first book of Considerations to the same Pope Eugenius, c. 5. is abundantly suffici∣ent. Non monstrabunt puto (sayes he) ubi aliquando quispiam Apostolorum Iu∣dex sederit hominum, aut divisor terminorum, aut distributor tèrràrum: stetisse deni∣que ego Apostolos judicandos, sedisse judicantes non lego, &c. Ergo in criminibus, non in possessionibus potestas vestra: quoniam propter illa, & non propter has accepistis claves regni caelorum: praevaricatores uti{que} exclusuri, non possessores. Quaenam tihi major videtur dignitas, & potestas, dimittendi peccata, an praedia dividendi? sed non est comparatio. Habent haec infima & terrena judices suos, Reges & Prin∣cipes terrae. Quid fines alienos invaditis?

After all which, he gave in the same paper of his answers, that is, in the skirt of it, this Advertisement. The Reader may be pleased to take notice, That however this be, or whatever may be thought of this doctrine; yet the Subscribers to the Protestation are not any way engaged either in the affirmative or Negative: it be∣ing

manifest, that the protestation in it self abstracts from either part, and consequent∣ly both from these Answers and the Queries too.

XXVII

That besides, and after sending the foresaid two or three Quaeries to the Procurator, the Jesuits (now I remember not which of them, or by whom) sent him this other, of one single Quaerie, and reasons for the Affirmative. Which (because it and the former were the only papers, and indeed only Quaeries and Reasons, either by paper, or without paper, insisted on seriously by them, or any others in Ireland, ever since this dispute concerning the Re∣monstrance began (And none else but those Fathers of the Society, and in this manner only insisted on them so) I give wholly and exactly, as in the original, given me without any subscription.

Whether a temporal or corporal punishment may be inflicted by virtue of a spiritual power?

Some reasons offered for the Affirmative.

First, it is a maxime of Aristotle, and allowed of by all Statists, Doctors of the Civil and Canon Law, and by all Divines, that frustra datur pote∣stas directiva sine coerciva. The spiritual power is directiva. Therefore in all rea∣son we must allow potestas coerciva, or a coactive power.

I know the answer of such as hold the negative is, that potestas directiva, hath a coactive power, intra eandem sphaeram, that is to say, when the potestas directiva is spiritual it must have potestas coerciva, or a coactive power, ejusdem generis, of the same kind: and therefore spiritual punishments are allowed to the potestas directiva spiritually, as Excommunications, interdicts, &c. but no temporal punishments.

To this I reply, that they can scarce produce one Classick Author of any note, that giveth this exposition: and they that hold the affirmative, may produce as many as ever wrote, ex professo, of this matter for the contrary, teste Basilio Pontio, one of the most eminent men of this age, who, expressis verbis, saith, haec est communis omnium Catholicorum opinio.

Secondly, omitting many other proofs, it is the opinion of two General Councils, that of Lyons, and that of Lateran, though perhaps not enacted, per modum decreti. But because General Councils are undervalued by some, that believe that only the diffusive Church is infallible, I will stand to the general practice of the diffusive Church, which is the surest way to know its opinion. When any person is nominatim Excommunicatus, he is not only put from Mass, and deprived of the suffrages of the faithful, but also he is forbidden any civil commerce and conversation with the faithful: he must not eat or drink with them: he must not discourse, nor be saluted by them: besides, they are whipped, and commanded to undergo austere penances. But all these are corporal punishments. Therefore the opinion of the Diffusive Church is, that a spiritual power can inflict corporal punishments. And this being once granted, it must be also allowed that the corporal punishment may be the greater, pro qualitate delicti: and consequently, when the crimes are great, it is in the power of the Church to inflict great punishments, corporal and tem∣poral.

Thirdly, It is recounted, 2. Machab. cap. 2. that Antiochus being King of the Jews, the Priest Mathathias seeing a Jew, by the Kings command, ready to offer sacrifice to the Idols, killed both the Jew, and him who, by the Kings command, did compel the Jews to sacrifice. Is it found in Scripture that this act is reprehended? or doth any of the holy Fathers condemn Mathathias of unlawful murther in this case? The same Mathathias being ready to depart

this world, and give an account to God of all his actions, exhorteth his Sons to take arms for the quarrel of God, and for the defence of their Religion. Nunc ergo (O Filii) aemulatores estate legis, & date animas vestras pro testamento Patrum vestrorum. And cap. 13. we find, vos scitis quanta ego, & fratres mei, & Domus patris mei fecimus pro legibus, & pro sanctis praelia.

I know the Author of the Book of the defence of the Remonstrance or Pro∣testation, saith, that the Machabees made war through ignorance, because they understood not their own law, nor had the light of the law of Jesus Christ: but he must give us leave not to believe him, until he produceth some more warrantable authority, then his bare word, God having justified their war with miracles.

I have heard some say (being pressed by this, and other arguments) that the wars of the Machabees were just, not for that they fought for Gods cause, or in defence of their Religion, but because the true Prince retaineth his right alwayes, and can recover his Kingdom again by force of arms, if occasion serveth, and he be able, though his people be conquered, and in a long and continued subjection to another King. And therefore the Machabees had right to recover Iudea from the Gentile King, and for this reason the war was just of their side. But this evasion is a very slight one; first, because the Ma∣chabees are not praised for fighting for that cause, but for their Religion. Secondly, because they had no right to the Crown of Iudea, but the Progenitors of our Saviour Jesus Christ; but they kept the command to themselves, and never gave it to the right line of succession to the Crown among the Jews. Besides, none will presume to say, that the wars of the late Earl of Tyrone against the Crown of England, were just, though his Ancestors were Kings of Ulster, or Monarchs of Ireland.

What a probable opinion is, and when a man may lawfully follow it?

Potest quis sequi, tanquam probabilem, opinionem unius doctoris probi & docti, maximé si adducat aliquam rationem intrinsicê probabilem, et non sit contra opinio∣nem communem. Ita Sanches, et undecimiali. Non tamen si ab aliis Recentioribus valde famigeratis recitatur. Ita Bresserus et alii. Ne{que} eo ipso quo invenitur impressa in aliquo Authore censeri potest probabilis.. Ne{que} approbatio libri approbat omnes ejus opinniones. Ita Marchantius et omnes alii communiter.

Let the Affirmative, and the Negative of the above proposed question be be considered, with the Reasons and Authors of both sides. If they find reasons and authors, according to what is laid down here concerning what is a probable opinion, he may follow which part he pleaseth, otherwise he can∣not not follow it as a probable opinion.

XXVIII.

That forasmuch as in the Procuratour's Answers to their two or three former Queries they had had particularly & cleerly his answer to this also, & that he found no new matter in this second paper but pitiful; though replyes in effect, which they can reasons for the affirmative, yet such replyes as are grounded solely on the bare saying or opinion either of Pontius, one of their own Socie∣ty, or of a confused rabble of such other Neoterick Schoolmen, thronging together and treading in the stepps one of another like a flock of sheep, with∣out further serious ponderation of the nature of things in themselves or of those reasons would render such their saying, intrinsecally probable, or even extrinsecally from any decision or at least from any manifest determination ob∣liging to submit unto: nor found any thing more then either a full conviction of their not being conversant in those great Classick Authors, Gerson, Maior, Almaine, Johannes Parisiensis, &c. or the precedent or example of the Maccha∣bees rebelling against Antiochus, and the answer of the Procuratour to it (in

his little book entitled The More Ample Account;) this imperfectly related, & as ill considered; and that worst of all applyed to maintain their affirmative re∣solve, or a power in the Christian Church, as purely such, to inflict by force of Arms, and by virtue of a Divine supernatural power, corporal punishments upon any: therefore, and because too that none came ever after to own this second paper, or demaund his rejoynder, and moreover because themselves that sent it, whoever they were, did no longer insist upon it or any thing contain'd therein (as shall be seen hereafter) he lay'd it by, as unsignificant for other purpose then to relate the folly of men that maugre all Christianity abuse themselves and others with such like silly and weak or false or only ne∣gative arguments.

For besides that if they had been pleased to consult Barclay, the Father & Son against Bellarmine; and Widdrington's so many learned works against both the same Eminent Cardinal's several books writt on this subject (& bearing either his own proper name, or those of Tortus, Sculkenius, &c) as also against all the choycest arguments even of Cardinal Peron, and so many others of the Society, as Parsons, and G••etzer, and fitz Herbert, and Lessius personated under the name of Singleton; or if they pleased to read what those other excellent Professors of Divinity of S. Benedicts Order, Father Preston and Green apologized for them∣selves most learnedly to the Pope Gregory the XIIII. they would have not only seen the vanity of their maxime of Statists or philosophers as here made use of, or of Aristotle in particular, so ill understood by them; but that mea∣ning of it (or that the coercive power must be of the same kind with the directive) to be that which was of a great number of most famous Clas∣sick Authors of the School (besides that it was in all ages the doctrine of the Church, and of even all the holy Fathers till Gregory the VII.) and that meaning also for what concerns our purpose, deduced out of clear and evident Scriptures; as those most famous Classick Authors perswaded themselves: I say that besides all this, if the authors of this Quaerie and second paper had considered a little their own allegations here (and the arguments to the contrary) they would find them partly false, and partly unconcluding.

XXIX.

First they would find them false, where they say that such as hold the nega∣tive can scarce produce one Classick Author &c. and such as hold the affirma∣tive may produce as many as ever wrote ex professo, of this matter; and if they mean only that Basilius Pontius sayes so, they will find him too notoriously false, if they please to consult Alensis, Maior, Gerson, Almain, Johannes Pari∣siensis &c. not to speak a word of all or any of the holy Fathers, nor of so many whole entire Vniversities, nor of the common sense and practise of so many millions of the whole Catholick Church in all ages till Gregory the VII. and after, that believed and acknowledg'd themselves as a Church of Christ purely such, to have no other coercion but what they had from the concession of Princes, and as long only as the Princes or civil Magistrate and laws did au∣thorize it. But Pontius does not say so, and therefore tis their saying only. For though he say, that his own assertion for the affirmative be the common opinion of all Catholicks; yet we know what Schoolmen now a dayes under∣stand in their Schools by that manner of speech when they say any assertion is the common opinion of all Catholicks or all Doctors: and that they intend on∣ly to oppose common against that which is not common, or not in the vogue, al∣though otherwise held by many in the very Schools, and even by Classick Au∣thors, and by all sides accounted very Orthodox, and by the most learned without contradiction accounted often the best & safest. As for their epithet of one of the most eminent of this age given Pontius, I will allow it if they mean such eminency as Canonists or Casuists (that commonly writ in some things the worst Divinity amongst Christians) can challenge to themselves.

XXX.

Secondly, they would find their Allegations false, where they say, The affirmative Resolve is the opinion of two general Councils, that of Lateran and that of Lyons: and I know they mean the fourth of Lateran, under Innocent the third, An. 1215. and the first of Lions, under Innocent the fourth, An. 1245. For albeit this objection (were the allegation true) presses not at all, in the wary tearms they make it here, being they onely pretend (not the Faith or Catholick belief, but) the bare naked opinion onely of these Councils, and being further they pretend no Decree of either of the said Councils or any other for as much as this opinion: and therefore leave us still at liberty (for any thing here objected) to hold always to our own contrary judgement; the opinion onely of never so numerous a Council not prejudicing the judge∣ment of others, when grounded upon evidence of reason, or Scripture, not considered of or canvassed in such Council; yet, how little soever this kind of objection deserves regard or answer, or how weak soever to any real pur∣pose, were the allegation true, I doubt not the objectors themselves will be convinced, it is not onely vaine but false withal, if laying aside passion and pre∣judice they consider well what they say here, and compare it to what they may see recorded in Mathew Paris, Nauelerus, Albertus Stadensis, and even in Plati¦na himself, and what also they may further see clearly demonstrated in Wi∣dringtons learned Works, especially in his Discussio Discussionis Decreti Concilij Magni Lateranensis, and in his last English Rejoynder to Fitz Herbert &c. con∣cerning what was done or not done by those two famous Councils.

How 60. Capitula or Chapters were rehearsed in that Council of Lateran, which to some did seem pleasing or easie, to others burdensome.

How nothing at all was plainly concluded by those Fathers of Lateran: their Council having unexpectedly been forced to break up by reason of the Popes recess to appease some troubles of Italie.

How these 70. or 72. Chapters, or Canons, commonly of late attributed to that Lateran Council, were onely Innocents's own draught, though not so distinguished, or not in this number, and onely at most proposed by him, but not assented to by them.

How those very Canons themselves do not pretend themselves enacted or assented to by the Council, but onely some few of them, and those in all but 14, videlicet, the 2. 4. 5. 18. 42. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 51. 66. 69. and 72. or last of all concerning the holy land: amongst which it is manifest the third Canon (whereof our controversie is, and which is now the third in Order) is not to be found.

How so little credit was ever till of late dayes given to those 70. or 72. Ca∣pitula, as Canons of that Council, or is to day by learned men, that they were never heard of as such for full three hundred years after the time that Coun∣cil sate, nor at all heard of until the year 1537. Wherein extracted first by Joannes Cochleus out of some German Library (as was pretended) and sent to Petrus Crabb a Franciscan, they were annexed afterwards to the other Councils by the said Franciscan Petrus Crabb (in his edition of Councils An. 1538.) as if they had been unquestionably the true Acts of that Council of Lateran, or such as had been assented to by all the Fathers, or by such a number of the Fathers as had made them Conciliary Acts of that Coun∣cil.

How consequently being there preceeded, but three years before, an editi∣on of the former and later Councils by Jacobus Merlin, without any such 60. 70. or 72. or any number whatsoever of Chapters or Canons of that fourth of Lateran, or any mention at all of them or of any other Acts or Canons of that Council: and being the Historians of those times, that is, such Historians as writt immediately or next after that Council, nay and such others too as

writt long after it, expresly tell us, that, as I have before said, that Council of Lateran concluded nothing plainly: therefore these 70. or 72. Lateran Canons (nor by consequence that third amongst them, whereof our present contro∣versie is) deserve not so much as (and as I mean Canons made Conciliarly by that Council, or assented to by the Fathers of it) to be put in equal ballance with those other 70. or 72. suppositicious ones of Nice, brought to us of late from Arabia, and collected by Alphonsus Pisanus.

How it is conceived (more probably according truth) that as Gregory the IX who was Nephew to the said Innocent the Third, put them in his Uncles name into the Decretals, and digested them into that number and method wherein they are in the said Decretals, though dispersed in several books, and under several titles of the same Decretals, and prefixed to the several Chap∣ters or heads of them, Innocentius Tertius in Concilio Generali, upon this ground that they were proposed by the said Innocentius Tertius, though not assented to in that Council (except onely the two first, which were and are of faith: and therefore needed no more but the tacit approbation of the Fathers, or their not opposeing them publickly when they were read) so the above (per∣haps well meaning) German finding after so many hundred years an old copie of them as prepared for that Council, or as digested after, or as devided by the said Gregory the IX. or by others for him, without further examination or consideration of what other Historians or Antiquaries, (that writt long be∣fore him) recorded to posteritie of the truth of those matters, published them as genuin Acts of that Council; which yet in truth were but the Acts of Innocent onely, authorized so by his Nephew Gregory the IX. in his Decre∣tals.

How moreover it appears as clear as the Sun out of those very Canons, or manner of speech in them and express words, That whither that Lateran Coun∣cil assented or not assented to those 60. Capitula, which Mathew Paris tells were proposed by Innocent to the Fathers, or whither that Council enacted these or any other Canons whatsoever; yet I say it clearly appears out of the very text or express letter of those 72 chapters, (now attributed to that Council) and I mean the Text or express words of the 11. Chap. 33. Chap. 39. Chap. 51. Chap. and 61. Chap. that they are not the Acts of the Coun∣cil, but with additions at least. And consequently that they are of no credit at all as Acts of that Council. For in the 11. Chap. we find these words, or manner of speaking. In Lateranensi Concilio piâ fuit institutione provisum. And Chap. 33. Evectionum et personarum mediocritatem observent in Lateranensi Concilio definitam. And Chap. 39. De multa providentia fuit in Lateranensi Concilio prohibitum &c. Quia vero propter Suppressiones et Cupiditates quorundam nullus hactenus fructus, aut rarus, de praedicto statuto pervenit, nos evidentius et expressius occurrere cupientes, praesenti Decreto statuimus, &c. And Chap. 61. In Lateranensi Concilio noscitur fuisse prohibitum, &c. Nos autem id fortius inhi∣bentes, &c. Behold Innocent himself, or Gregory the IX. or whoever els was author of these 72. Canons, witnessing plainly that they are not the Canons of that Council; but Canons made after that Council: because relating to other Canons formerly made by that Council. Now where are those other Canons formerly so made by that Council? no where certainly extant hitherto, or at least at this present, if not those 72. Supposititious ones: which yet implyes a plaine contradiction.

How Cardinal Perons arguments to prove them assented to by that Council are sufficiently answered by other Catholick Divines, who tell him that Abbot Joachimus's errors, and Amalrichus's are not therefore condemned by Catho∣licks, that they believe this Council to have made those Acts, now extant as their's which condemn them; but therefore certainly, because the Fathers there did not oppose, or at most made the two first Acts of those 72. or because the Church universal did after allow of the said two first Acts of Innocents con∣demnation of the said errours, and received or approved that condemnation

as they found it in the books of Decretals published by Gregory the IX. and because they found that condemnation in all parts of it conform to their old auncient belief. And the same they say of the articles of Transubstantiation, and of the procession of the Holy Ghost. And the same also proportionably of that Canon of Discipline, in cap. Omnis utrius{que} Sexus, or of that of an∣nual confession.

How further, when that most Illustrious Cardinal urgeth that both Scho∣lastical Doctors, and even Popes and Councils too quote some of the said 60. 70. or 72. Canons of Lateran, and as of Lateran, he is answered by other learned Catholicks, that they are quoted so indeed by some, but onely still out of supposition, or onely because those Canons were so propounded or re∣hearsed in that Council; but not out of any certain knowledg, judgment, or belief, that they were confirmed or assented to by that Council. Being such of the quoters as were indeed learned or versed in Ecclesiastical History might have known what the Historians of those days tell us, that the said Capitula seemed to some to be easie and pleasing, but to others heavie and burdensome: and that nothing at all was plainly concluded in that Council.

How besides, to a third argument, which may be drawn out of the Coun∣cil of Constance, in the 39th. Session, where ordaining what profession the fu∣ture Pope was to make, those Fathers of Constance decree, that every future Pope, hereafter to be chosen, must make this confession and profession, before his election be published, That he doth firmly believe the holy Catholick Faith, according to the tradition of the Apostles, General Councils, and other holy Fathers, but especially according to those traditions or Canons of the eight sacred general Councils, to witt of the first of Nice, of the 2d. of Constanti∣nople, of the 3^d. of Ephesus, of the 4th. of Calcedon, of the 5th. and 6th. of Constantinople, of the 7th. of Nice, and of the 8th. of Constantinople, and al∣so of Lateran, Lyons, and Vienna, also general Councils: how I say to this ar∣gument it is answered by very learned Catholick Divines, that by the Coun∣cil of Lateran here is not understood this (whereof we treat) under Pope Innocent the 3d. but the former celebrated under Pope Alexander the 3d. in the year 1180. And if it be understood of this Council of Lateran under Innocent, it is onely (say they) for what concerneth those decrees wherein mention is made of the approbation of the Council: as is that 46th. Decree which the Council of Constance mentioneth in the Bull of Confirmation of the Emperour Fredericks constitution. As also that by the Council of Lions here, is not understood that under Pope Innocent the 4th. who in the presence thereof excommunicated the Emperour Frederick, and whereat onely 140. Bishops were present; but that under Pope Gregory the Xth. in the year 1274. whereat St. Bonaventure, and St. Thomas of Aquin, and more than 700. Bi∣shops were present, according to Eberardus, whom Binnius citeth.

How also did we graunt or admitt, as I for my part, and for what concerns the present dispute, do freely graunt and admitt those 72. chap. controver∣ted, especially the 3^d. of them,* 15.1 where∣of our grand controversie now is,* 15.2 to have been conciliarly assented to by those Fathers of Lateran; yet nothing

to purpose can be concluded hence, or out of any of those Canons admit∣ted as such, or out of the Canon alleadged or pleaded for so mightily, not I say concluded from that Canon (and there is no other Canon but that amongst all those 72. Canons, pretended) for any such opinion of those Fathers.

How graunting even this very Canon particularly assented too, and enacted by those Fathers unanimously, (which yet cannot according to truth be graun∣ted) no more can follow hence but that this Canon, and for as much as it con∣tains any temporal punishment or penalty of confiscation, deprivation, for∣feiture, &c, of estate, was made by the Pope, not as Pope, but as a temporal Prince; and made so by him for the temporal patrimony of St. Peter, and other territories of the Roman See; and, for other Kingdoms or States, made such not by the Bishops or their authority, but by the authority of other temporal Princes of Christendom, who all assisted in that Council by them∣selves in person or by Embassadours.

How therefore, and for many other reasons, (which may be seen at large in Widdringtons last Rejoynder, chap. 9.10.11. &c.) that Canon comprehends not in word or sense at all any Supream or Soveraign Princes, or States; but inferiour Lords, or inferiour Magistrates onely; according to the Doctrine and maximes even of very many of the very best Canonists themselves.

How onely too it is at most but a Canon of Discipline, not even for that part of it which was proper to Bishops or to the Spiritual power, purely such: and consequently as to its vertue depending, even herein, of reception by those concerned, and of not being abrogated after by contrary use where it was once received, in what ever sense it was received, or if ever indeed in any place received.

How finally Cardinal Bellarmine himself (moved questionless by the strength and cleerness of all, or at least of many of these reasons given hitherto con∣cerning either the nullity or insignificancy of this Canon, or of the rest allead∣ged so vainly, as Canons of the 4th. Lateran Council) in his great Works of controversie, and Books therein de Romano Pontifice, where he amassed together all his strength, and all the Councils, he then saw might be with any colour alleadged by him, to prove the Popes pretence of power for deposing Princes or inflicting on them temporal punishments, omitted notwithstanding any kind of mention of this Lateran Council or Canon: so little did he value it then. Nor had after at any time recourse thereunto before he saw himself baffled, and beaten out of all his former arguments either of Scriptures, Ca∣nons, or other his pittiful congrueties of reason, by Doctor William Barclay, or Barclay the Father (in his learned Work de Potestate Papae: An et quatenus in Reges et Principes Seculares ius et imperium habeat?) And how then, for sa∣ving his own credit all he could, in his reply to the said William Barclay (though dead long before this reply) he thought fitt to impose on the world by this unsignificant if not plainly forged Canon of that Lateran Council; as Lessius, another of his own Society, and some time a famous Professor of Di∣vinity in their House at Lovain, had done before him, to render the English Oath of Allegiance (that I mean which is in the Statute of King Iames) odious and uncatholick upon this account. But withal how this most emi∣nent Cardinal was no less shamefully the second time foiled in all his allegati∣ons and arguments, or in those of the said Reply, and amongst the rest very notably in his allegation of this Council and Canon, and foiled so (I say) by Iohn Barclay, or Barclay the Sonn in his Pietas Ioannis Barclay (or his Publicae pro Regibus ac Principibus, et private pro Guilielmo Barclay Parente Vindiciae, Adversus Roberti S. R. E. Cardinalis Bellarmini Tractatum, de Potestate Summi Pontificis in rebus Temporalibus.) and particularly, for what concerns this Council, and this third Canon of it, in his Examen, in Prolegomena Rob. Bellar, num. 76.

How, for what concerns that other Council of Lyons, there is not one

word in History, or in the Acts of that Council, nay, nor in the very Sentence or Bull of Innocentius the Fourth (who there deposed Frederick) that may warrant this part of their allegation, or of their saying, it is, or was the opinion of that Council of Lyons.

How, on the contrary, the very title, or beginning of the Bull it self of Deposition, sufficiently insinuats the contrary: where it is said only, Sacro praesente, not Sacro approbante Concilio. That the Acts and History, which may be read briefly in M. L. Baïl, that Parisian Doctors late Sum of General Councils, witness the suddain horrour and amazement of that Council, when they heard so unexpectedly a sentence of Deposition, pronounced first by the Pope himself, that is, by his own mouth; and, after immediatly, a formal one read out of paper by his command. That Albertus Stadensis(a) 15.3 in his Chronicle, ad annum, 1245. most particularly, and expresly tells this Sen∣tence was pronounced, not by the authority of the Council, but by the only proper authority of Innocent alone. That in case that Council of Lyons had approved of it, as the truth is they did not; yet nothing thence could be concluded for that Councils opinion of a power in the Pope, or themselves, or in the Church, however taken purely, as the Church, to depose any other, or any supream temporal Prince. Because that Frederick (as Innocent, that very same fourth Pope of that name, who deposed him so, alledgeth in his Bull of Depo∣sition) That the said Frederick, I say, had bound himself by an Oath of Allegi∣ance to him & Innocent the 3d. formerly, to wit, when he had illegally usurped the Empire in pursuance of another sentence of Deposition given by the self same Innocent the Third, against Otho the former Emperour. And because the Empire is not Hereditary, nor hath been for many ages. And consequently may be such, or might have been such in the dayes of the said Innocent the Fourth, as might have admitted the Popes negative voice in the election; and further too, his provision, in case of a Tyrant or Usurper. But whether it was then so, or no, I am not concerned at all, nor is our present Controversie con∣cerned in it. For in other Princes, especially Soveraign and Hereditary, the case is different. As hath been well observed by the Author of the Latin Treatise, which begins, Rex Pacificus, de Potestate Papae.

And for the Emperour, how elective soever, I am sure he hath Lawyers, both Civilians and Canonists, nay, and great Divines too enough to defend his rights from any kind of subjection to the Pope in temporals: as even Fre∣derick himself had. For (sayes the foresaid Albertius Stadensis) Quidam Prin∣cipum cum multis aliis reclamabant dicentes, ad Papam non pertinere Imperatorem instituero, vel destituere.

Out of all which, I think I may conclude, that the Objectors themselves, will, if they lay aside prejudice and passion, and compare all I have answered here to their objection of the opinion of two General Councils, that of Lateran, and that of Lyons, will, I say, confess this allegation of theirs not only vain, but absolutely false.

XXXI.

Thirdly, they will find their allegations false, where they say, That General Councils are undervalued by some, that believe only the diffusive Church is infallib∣le I say, they will particularly find this transient animadversion of theirs to be very false, if they mean here the Procurator, as they do undoubtedly, but withal either stupidly or maliciously, grounding themselves on what he hath in The Mare Ample Account, pag. 60. Where indeed, there is no ground at all for this calumny: nor any man, but a meer blockhead, will say there is; what∣ever may be said (upon serious consideration) of the controversie in it self, about the fallibility, or infallibility of General Councils, debated throughly of purpose. For his discourse there is no other then this. That in case of such a metaphisical, or morally impossible, contingency, as was caprichiously

proposed to him (by Father Bonaventure Brudin a little before, one of those Franciscan Professors of Divinity at Prague in Bohemia) and insisted on mighti∣ly, and by way of interrogation, What would the Subscribers do, or think of their Remonstrance, if a general Representative of the Church, or a General Council, tru∣ly such, did hereafter condemn it? His discourse, I say, upon this occasion, as in answer to this wilde interrogatory, was, That in such case (should it happen, which yet the Procurator seemed clearly there to hold it was impossible it should happen) the Subscribers would either have recourse to the diffusive Church, or, which is very probable, suffer themselves to be mislead: it being very possible (said he) that out of one impossibility, another should follow; as Logitians tell us it is certain. Where, it is evident, he is so farr from undervaluing General Coun∣cils, That according to, at least some, very learned Catholick Divines, he ra∣ther overvalues them, in seeming here to hold it absolutely impossible they should erre against any doctrine of Faith, once delivered plainly in Scripture, and by Tradition. For that he seems to say so here, if he say any thing at all of the question of either side, or of the fallibility, or infallibility of General Councils, is most clear and manifest by, or in that reason, he giveth for his said disjunctive answer, and for either the first or second, or both parts of it, it being very possible, that out of one impossibility another should follow, &c. Where any rational man will confess, he holds it impossible, That a General Coun∣cil, truly such, should define the contrary. And why so, but because he sup∣posed two things? 1. That the doctrine of the Remonstrance was, and is a doctrine of Catholick Faith, clearly delivered, as such, by Scripture, and by Tradition. 2. That it was, and is impossible, That a General Council, tru∣ly such, should define against any such doctrine, or any doctrine so delivered. And is not this as much as in plain terms to hold absolutely, That a General Council, truly such, is infallible in all definitions of Faith, or at least so infal∣lible as never to define against Faith? and, consequently, rather to overvalue than undervalue the authority of General Councils, if (I say) we regard what some other eminent Catholick Writers teach, or what in particular may be read in Franciscus à Sancta Clara's learned work of Councils, that, I mean, which he calls Systema? And any rational man will further confess, That that dis∣junctive resolution of the Subscribers, and only for such a case, expressed so by the Procurator, was purely conditional; and the condition such too, as (for any thing known there of the Procurators judgment) was, and is abso∣lutely impossible (considering the special providence of God, & his promises to the Church) & but possible only in the fond imagination of the Proposer, or, of such a case, which wil never be, nor can ever be, according to all that may be gathered out of that book, or passage, of the Procurators opinion. For what else can his reason signifie, which he gives for that disjunctive, conditional answer? or, what these words, it being very possible, that out of one impossibility another should follow, as Logicians tell us it is certain? Which is, that one im∣possibility, that must be here the antecedent? which is it, I say, if not this, That a General Council should define the doctrine of the Remonstrance to be false? and, which is the other impossibility, that must be the consequent, if not the re∣course of the Subscribers to the diffusive Church, or suffering themselves to be mislead, &c? Now therefore it is clear, first, that he holds both that Antece∣dent, and this Consequent, to be impossibilities: for so he sayes expresly they are. And next, it is no less clear, that he holds the Antecedent absolutely im∣possible, upon this ground only, that he also holds the doctrine of the Remon∣strance to be delivered plainly by Scripture, and by Tradition; and withal holds it an absolute moral impossibility, that a general Council, truly such, should define any thing against plain Scripture or Tradition. For otherwise, how could he call that imaginary supposition, or case, an impossibility, or, as he speaks there, one impossibility? There is no man of reason would say deliberat∣ly, it were impossible that a General Council should define against any con∣troverted doctrine, unless he held as well, and as firmly, that a General Coun∣cil

might not erre, as he holds well and firmly either part of that controvert∣ed doctrine it self. Which is so plain, that it needs no further illustration: being there is no other ground imaginable for maintaining, or asserting an im∣possibility of a General Councils defining so.

No other ground therefore is given here by the Procurator for being tax∣ed with undervaluing the authority of General Councils, but only this conditio∣nal proposition (which he confesses implied virtually in his discourse) If a Ge∣neral Council shall define the contrary doctrine to be true, such General Council will erre. But that this conditional proposition, which yet was forced from him by that chimaerical Interrogation, doth not amount unto an assertion of any real, true, moral possibility of a General Councils erring, himself hath further demonstrated by several unanswerable arguments in the prosecution of his said discourse or answer, pag. 62. as by that of St. Paul to the Galathians, chap. 1. ver. 8. Though we, or an Angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. And by that of our Saviour Christ himself to the mis-believing Jews, Ioh. 8.55. If I shall say, that I do not know him (meaning his Father) I shall be like unto you, a lyar. 'Tis true, he did not so fully dilate himself, nor troubled himself, nor his Reader, with forming at large the argument grounded in these clear passages; but left that to the judicious Reader, as very obvious to any. For what can be more obvious, first, than that neither St. Paul did say, or mean, that an An∣gel from heaven, or himself, should, or would at any time, preach any other to the Galathians? Nor Christ our Saviour did say, or mean, that himself should, or would at any time say, that himself did not know the Father? Se∣condly, then that St. Paul, notwithstanding that certain truth, resolved, and prayed, or wished, that both himself, and even an Angel from Heaven, should be accursed in case of that otherwise, in it self absolutely, and morally impos∣sible supposition? and that our Saviour also, who, was essential and eternal truth himself, said, and therefore truely said, that in case himself did say he knew not the Father, he would himself be a lyar? Thirdly then that a ge∣neral Council, howsoever truely such, cannot be less deservedly subject to be accursed, or less any way be lyars is then Paul, or an Angel from Heaven, or at least then the natural Son of God Himself? and what can be more obvious to a rational man then this discourse framed on such premisses? St. Paul and our Saviour himself do cleerly say here that in case of one impossibility an other should follow: St. Paul that in case an Angel from Heaven did preach other∣wise he should erre, and therefore should be accursed: Our Saviour, that in case himself said he knew not the Father, himself should be a lyar. And yet neither St. Paul can be therefore taxed with saying absolutely that an Angel from Heaven shall or will or may erre, or may be accursed: nor our Saviour with saying absolutely that himself shall or will or may be a lyar. Ergo neither can the Procurator be in the case taxed with saying absolutely that a general Council truly such shall, or will, or may at any time erre, or with saying absolutely (what would onely be consequent to a general Councils conditional errour) that the case may, shall, or will be, that the subscribers shall or may be forced either to have recourse from the Representative Church, that is from such a general Council, to the Diffusive Church, or suffer themselves to be mislead by such a Council. And this is the argument which he supposed all judicious Readers would of themselves frame out of those two passages of St. Paul and our Saviour, given by him briefly in the said 62. page, of His More Ample Ac∣count. Which now again he confesses to appear so evident to himself, that he sees not what may be answered but cavil. For it matters not a pinn as to the greater or lesser consequence, or inconsequence, what perhaps some will object that St. Paul was more firmly and cleerly certain that an Angel from Heaven would not preach otherwise &c. and that our Saviour questionless was more certain that himself would not say he knew not the Father, then the Procuratour was or could be that a general Council should, or would, or might not define

the contrary doctrine &c, this matters not a pinn, I say, to prove the form of speech, or the strength of the Antecedent to be any way unlike, or not the same in both cases, as to the concluding or inferring the like consequence to our purpose, mutatis mutandis: for it is the likeness or sameness of the words in the Antecedents or premisses, and not the likeness or sameness of certainty in the eternal sentiments, that conclude alike, or inferr the like or same conse∣quents.

However to clear this matter a little further and illustrate it as with the beams of the Sun, I will give the objectors two cases to be considered here. One past, at least partly, and very long since, even 12. hundred years: and an other which may yet well enough be in future times.

The first, or that so already past, I have briefly hinted in my More Ample Account pag. 61. & it is this. Before the general Council of Nice (which was the first of ge∣neral Councils, truly such: being those Councils of the Apostles have yet a more excellent name, which is that of Apostolical, although, for ought we know, ended all of them without any definition of any matters of Faith, but that of the Le∣gals only) I say that before this first of Nice, assembled by the Emperour Con∣stantine, the Christian Church, especially in the East, was lamentably divided into great factions about the Faith of one Substance: one partly holding with Arrius, and, even amongst those, very many great Bishops and Archbishops and entire Churches too, That there was but one substance or nature of God the Father and of God the Son: the other holding they were by nature two sub∣stances, and so different by nature that the Fathers substance was increated, but the Sons, even I mean as God, purely and essentially created, or a creature, and onely like the Father, and God onely by grace and adoption. Now I de∣mand of our objectors, what should one of these true believers of one sub∣stance answer one of the other side an Arian Heretick pressing him hard before that general Council of Nice convened, and pressing him with this discourse? You hold firmly and pawn your Salvation on it, that there is but one and the self same identical increated substance, or divine nature in God the Father, and in God the Son as he is God: and you are absolutely resolved never to alter that your Faith, and you have subscribed a Formula or confession of Faith, and a protestation too or Oath whereby you declare and swear that you will never alter your judgment in this point: and whereby too you re∣nounce and disclaim in, and protest against all contrary doctrine, and all au∣thority whatsoever, Temporal or Spiritual in as much as it may seem able or shall pretend to oblige you to the contrary: and notwithstanding all this you see now here is very soon to sit at Nice a general Representative, or a general Council, truly such, of the whole universal Church of Christ on earth. What will you say then when they are sate, or what will you do, or what will you think of that your said Formula, confession, protestation, Oath, present resolu∣tion, and your subscription to all, if this general Council, most truly such, define the contrary?

I demand I say, of our objectors, what would themselves have the Catho∣lick Consubstantialists or believers of one substance in three persons (which is the very first grand Fundamental of Christian Religion) or indeed what the Consubstantialist or Catholick himself could answer in such a case or to such a metaphisical contingencie & caprichious interrogatory insisted upon by the Arrian? or what could he answer otherwise then as the Procuratour did to the like of Brodin? or what is there imaginable to be returned in answer, but that in such case the Consubstantialists would either have recourse to the diffusive Church (that is to the Faith of incomparably the farre greater body or number of Bishops and learned Fathers and Doctors of the several particular Churches of all ages dispersed throughout the world, whereof those gathered at Nice were in comparison but a small portion) or certainly in such case suffer themselves to be mislead out of their old way or belief, and for and by the authority of such a Council embrace the new fancies of Arrius?

••ading withal that out of one impossibility another must follow. And I further demand of our Objectors, whether the Catholicks answering so then to the Arrian Hereticks must have been therefore taxed with undervaluing the autho∣rity of general Councils? or, which is the same thing, with holding absolutely; or with averring or confessing absolutely, and by such answer, that the Coun∣cil to be convened so generally at Nice could erre in that Faith of one sub∣stance? If our Objectors will say that those Consubstantialists would or did think so: then it is evident our Objectors will be forced by consequence to al∣low the Procurator to think so to; and think it also lawfully and Catholickly. For neither he nor they can pretend to be Catholicks otherwise in any point then as those old Consubstantialists were. But if our Objectors will say, as indeed they must say, these old Consubstantialists must not therefore think ab∣solutely that Council of Nice could erre: it must by the same reason follow, that neither the Procurator by or for the like answer to the like caprichious interogatory must absolutely or positively think a general Council, truly such, can erre.

The second case is of a new Heresie that may (without any miracle) yet arise in the Church about the Divine processions. As, for example, that as there is a Father and Son in the God-head or Divine nature, or amongst the Divine persons: so there must be a Mother and a Daughter. And put the case too, as it may be, that both East and West and South and North of the uni∣versal Church, or in all Countreys of the World are as much devided upon this new Heresie as they have been formerly upon that of Arrius, at such time as St. Hierom said, after the Council of Ariminum, that the whole earth groa∣ned under Arianisme, seeing it self suddenly become Arian. And therefore, that by the true believers, and let these be the very objectors themselves, a Protestation is drawn and signed against this new Heresie, to hinder a further progress of it, or the corruption by it of the remaining Catholick party. And then suppose further that a follower of this new Heresie would put the like caprichious interrogation to our objectors; this for example, what if a fu∣ture general Council, truly such, define against your opinion? adding withal, that the objectors themselves knew very well this new controversie was never yet (in terminis) decided by a general Council.

In this case, I demand what could our objectors answer to this Querie insi∣sted upon? or could they answer otherwise then as the Procurator did to Father Brodin? And yet, would they allow that by, or for such answer from themselves, they should be justly taxed with undervaluing the authority of ge∣neral Councils? or with holding absolutely that a general Council, truly such, might erre? I am sure whatever they answer to these Interrogatories, I put them in this case, will be but to confound themselves, and make them an ob∣ject of laughter and scorn, for having so ignorantly or so malitiously amongst the people calumniated me or that my book or that passage of it, as if I had therefore undervalued the authority of General Councils, or as if I had positively or absolutely held they could erre: or as if I had taught a new way of disclai∣ming in a general Council, and of having recourse from such Council to the Diffusive Church: whereas I have been truly in that very passage as farre as from East to West, from any such matters; being my answer was onely con∣ditional and to a conditional Querie, and the condition too (according to what I delivered there) absolutely impossible, in the order (I mean) of moral impossibilities, or of such as are said only to be such by reason of Gods speci∣al providence, and special promises made to the Church, for preserving it for ever in all saving truths.

Whereof to convince yet further these very objectors, I must beg thy pati∣ence and pardon good Reader that I give here intirely the whole discourse from first to last, and word by word, which I made on this subject in my More Am∣ple Account, or which I made therein to both those Metaphysical contingencies or Queries which the foresaid Father Brodin insisted on. The first being, What

if the Pope should hereafter define the contrary in terminis? And the second, What if a general Council did &c? By occasion of which Queries, and in answer to them both, I writt thus in that little book page, 59. 60. 61. and 62. The answer to both these Metaphisical contingencies (for indeed they can be hardly thought greater) being first, That in case the Pope alone condemn the Protestation as involving even heresie, they would reflect on his fallibility in defining: and would rather hold with France, Spain, Germany, Venice, while these Countries change no other of their present tenets, and with all the ancient and modern times of the universal Church, then with the Pope in that case. Secondly, that if even a gene∣ral Representative of the Church, or (which is the same thing, a general Council of Bishops, truly such, define it, they would then either have a recourse to the diffusive Church, or which is very probable, suffer themselves to be mislead: it being very pos∣sible that out of one impossibility another should follow; as Logicians do tell us it is certain. Nor can it therefore be rationally objected that our signatures to the Pro∣testation, or other engagement, to maintain the doctrine of it, and keep religiously our faith therein pledged, must be unlawful or unconscientious, or must not be a duty incumbent on us, at least if required: and such a duty moreover, as we can not de∣cline, without sinning against all the laws of God and man. It is manifest there are opinions, and such as are confessedly such and only such, which yet famous Ca∣tholick Ʋniversities, end even whole Kingdoms engage themselves by Oath and vow to maintain. I instance in that of the B. Virgins Conception: and could alledg several others sworn to, at least by men graduated in Schooles. And there are hun∣dreds of opinions, even in matters of conscience, which the Dissenters themselves, I am certain, very often practice, and they think safely too, and with a good conscience, yea although they hold not seldome, the contrary to be no less probable, and sometime more, and more safe also, or which, what ever they do, there is no doubt but ten thous∣and learned and pious men do practice. And yet they know all these opinions, even that of the conception, must be 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 interroga∣tories? We have this advantage of them that in our judgments, and in the judg∣ments 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 in∣trinsick 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 on∣ly 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 que∣stions of Religion. And it is further manifest by reason, that were such Metaphy∣sical contingencies or apprehensions of them, of power to render any unlawfulness in our signing the said Protestation, the very same contingencie must vitiat their op∣posing us, even I say as to the question of expediency or necessity. And all the expo∣sitions 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, Defini∣tions, Anathematismes of so many ancient, holy, Christian Councels, either Provin∣cial 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 unlaw∣ful, 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 au∣thority to the contrary (that is, in so much) would be not onely unexpedient, but e∣ven unlawful, sinful, scandalous, schismatical, before the first general Councel of

Nice, against Arrius, or that other, which was held at Constantinople against Ma∣cedonius; 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 asseve∣ration 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, ri∣gorusly 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 ••ain know whither it be not an undubitable Maxime in moral Philosophy and Divi∣nity, 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 al∣so 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 ac∣quiescence 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 underva∣lue 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 false∣ly too, being I give them no such ground at all, nor any other of being charg∣ed 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 inflicted, other then what ought to be understood by those other words directed, prescribed, enjoyned, commanded: or mean other means, or wayes of execution, than those are purely spiritual, or ecclesiastical censures only.

Fifthly, and lastly, They would find their allegations false, where they say, that when any is excommunicated, he is forbidden all civil commerce & con∣versation with the Faithful, & this, according to the doctrine of the diffusive Church.

For albeit, the Casuists, or Summists, have this rule, Os, orare, vale, communio, mensa negatur, to be observed by the faithful towards ex∣communicated persons that are nominatim denunciati, or declared by their own proper names, and by the authority and special sentence of an Ecclesiastical Judge, to have fallen into the censure of excommunication, and therefore to be shunn'd; yet even those very Casuists, and by the doctrine and practice of both Diffusive and Representative Church, and even out of the very Canons of Pope Gregory the Seventh himself, against his own former, & against all other former & later censures of all other Ecclesiastical Canons or Judges, whether Popes or not Popes, have this special exception, Vtile, lex, humile, res ignorata, necesse. Which special Exception exempts from that ge∣neral rule the Wife, and Children, and Servants, and Subjects, and all such as by a superiour law of God, or Man, are bound to obedience, duty, service, or charity, salutation, reverence, respect, or even to any commerce, or conver∣sation meerly civil: and so exempts them, that nothing is more certain then that the Church, as purely such, hath no power from Iesus Christ, or from the nature of Excommunication, as it is purely Ecclesiastical, much less as it is Evan∣gelical, or grounded in the Gospel, not to exempt them. For the Church's power of excommunication is no more, no greater, nor the nature, or es∣sence of this censure, as from the Church, no other then what can be derived from that passage, Si Ecclesiam non audierit, sit tibi tanquam Ethnious & publica∣nus, Mat. 18. And it is plain, that one may be treated as a Heathen or Publican, by bare exclusion from a religious, or sacred communion, or from that which is only in such things: paying him, notwithstanding, all both natural and civil observances, enjoyned otherwise by the laws of God and man. As we know the Synagogue of the Jews did pay to the Roman (though heathen) Gover∣nours and People: and as we know they observed towards others, even the very worst of Publicans. So that other effects of excommunication, or those annexed unto it by Papal Canons, which disenable any to any kind of civil rights, or take away any such, or hinder any duty, are meerly accidental, meerly temporal, not spiritual: and consequently not binding at all out of the Popes own temporal Principality, but in as much as, and where they are approved of, and received by the other temporal Princes, States and Laws; nor even binding in his own temporal Principality, as proceeding from the Pope, as Pope, or as the Supream Bishop, or as having any power from Christ, or the Church, as a Church, but as enacted by him as a temporal Prince, and by that meer temporal power the Emperours or People, or both, have conferr'd upon, or continue, or suffer in Him, by tacit consent, or connivence, or sub∣mission, or otherwise soever.

Of all which, I have treated more at large in my Latin Theological Work of Answers &c. Out of which, though yet not published in print, I give this Latin Animadversion, as at present wanting time to translate it.

Alii effectus hujusce majoris excommunicationis, partim sunt ex jure naturae: ut quis{que} sibi à m••••bidis caveat, ne eundem morbum contrabat, partim ex Scripturae monitis ac institutis, cum talibus ne{que} cibum suntere, 1 Cor. 5.11. ne{que} ave ei dixeritis, 2. Ioh. 1.10. Vbi advertas licet, haec non posse dici praeceptu vel Dei vel Apostolorum, in stricto seu proprio sensu praeceptorum, uti nimirum distinguuntur á consiliis, seu uti praecepta dicuutur ad pec∣catum, saltim quod mortale sit, obligare, imo vel equidem ad veniale. Ne{que} solum non esse ••alia praecepta obligationis, praecisa nimirum circumstantia legis naturae in aliquibus casibus, & personis aliquibus, sed ne quidem consilia perfectionis data omnibus & singulis, at{que} in quibuscun{que} eventibus indiscriminatim, sed aliquibus tantum, qui nempe non sunt ex alio capite seu lege Dei vel naturae aliàs obligati ad recipiendum excommunicatos in domum, ci∣bum{que} cum illis manducandum, salutem{que} apprecandam ejusmodi salutatione.

Et quo ad praeceptum res est clara, primò quoad priorem locum qui ex Paulo est: ut legenti caput illud totum manifestè patet. Vitandi enim periculi & scandali gratia, corruptionis{que} a fermento malitiae (ut v. 7) admonet Paulus, v. 10. ac 11. non commisceri hominibus ejus∣modi, querum vetat ibi consortium. Ergo ubi non est periculum scandali, ne{que} erit vetatio co••••ortii. Praeterea ex ipsa ratione Pauli data v. 10. quod nolit Christianis prohibitum commisceri cum fornicariis (quos ibi vocat hujus mundi) aut avaris, aut rapacibus, aut idolis servientibus, manifestum est ne{que} mentis ejus fuisse modò, ubi regna integra sunt Christiana, ac mundus penè, prohibere commercium v. 11. cum iis aliis qui fratres nomi∣nantur, id est Christiani similiter, etiamsi fornicatores, aut avari, aut idolis servientes, aut maledici, aut ebriosi, aut rapaces. Ratio enim a Paulo data priori versu, ac pro licentia ibidem concessa, est, Quoniam oporteret christianos ex mundo exire, si nollent cum istis Eth∣nicis commisceri. Atqui haec aeqnè nunc militat in mundo Christiano, pro commercio cum aljis Christianis licito, etsi h•• alii sint ejusmodi vitiis inquinati. Si enim non liceret cuiquam Christiano communicare cum alio qui frater nominatur, est{que} nihilominus aut ava∣rus, aut rapax, aut ebriosus, aut maledicus, primùm sanè foret necessum (plantato jam Evangelio, et refrigescente in omnibus penè etiam Catholicis charitate primâ) exire de mundo. Deni{que} tota praxis ac doctrina Ecclesiae Catholicae, virorum{que} timoratissimorum n••n patitur aliam Pauli interpretationem. Ecquis enim putat modo illicitum peccatumve esse cibum sumere cum avaro Catholico, aut ebriosa, aut maledico, &c? Et sanè perquam no∣tum est post Extravagantem Martini Quinti (in Concilio Constantiensi) etiamsi constet ejusmodi vel pessimos quos{que} fratres in Excommunicationem expressam incidisse, licere nihilo∣minus iisdem communicare, etiam in divinis, antequam denuntientur nominatim a Judice Ecclesiastico, nisi forte sint notorii Clericorum percussores. Quod tamen non liceret per Con∣cilium, vel Pontificem declarari contra praeceptum Pauli. Ita{que} monitio tantum erat, et prudentissima ac sanctissima quidem illa Pauli, maximè pro tempore illo primitivae Ecclesiae, quando fratres erant adhuc rarissimi, quando ne{que} Principes adhuc nec Magistratus Christo n••mina dederunt, licebat{que} iis vitatis qui scandalo erant fidei, vel apud fratres alios vel apud infideles commercium habere pronecessarijs omnibus vitae cum aliis qui adhuc foris erant; sed m••nitio tamen cujus{que} prudentis, constantis, ac Deum timentis, cum{que} nullum foret pe∣riculum lapsus ex consuetudine vel commercio cum similibus, relicta discretioni; servanda nihilominus plerum{que} et praesertim in Ecclesia tum recenti ad confundendum eos qui tam in••rdintatè ambularent, at{que} ad infantiam Religionis sanctissimae ab opprobrie inter gentes a•• Iudaeos infideles praeservandam.

Taceo impraesentiarum neminem putare ex illo Pauli loco, vel alio quo••uam, Christianos et Catholicos omnes avaros, rapaces, maledieos, ebriosos, hoc ipso quod tales sint, ac notoriè qui∣dem tales, esse excommunicatos, vel excommunicatione quae paena est, vel ea quae Censura. Quod tamen foret necessum dicere si praeceptum esset Apostoli ad peccatum obligans. Taceo etiam adeò in vanum allegari à Theologis nonnullis ad probandum hinc vitandos fore excom∣municatos, quasi ex divino jure; cum vel nihil ad propositum ipsorum, vel nimium probet. Ex quibus patet non esse praeceptum obligationis.

Quod autem neque ex Divi Pauli mente fit modò vel consilium perfectionis, cibum non su∣mere cum quovis tali, patet, Quia (ut alia plurima omittum) nonnullis talibus, scilicet ex∣communicatis, tenemur multi ex naturae ipsius ac divinarum legum praescripto in i••s quae adi∣aphora sunt obedire: ut uxores maritis, filii minorennes parentibus, subditi superioribus quibuscum{que} tam spiritualibus quam temporalibus, et multo magis iis qui Principes ac Do∣mini sunt supremi, Soli Deo minores. Ex adiaphoris autem simul comestio ciborum omni

aeculo reputabatur. Consilia verò Apostolorum nequeunt intellig•• in praejudicium obligatio∣nis divinae aut naturalis.

Quoad posteriorem similiter ex Joan. locum, 2. Joan. v. 10. res est non minus liquida. Cum enim loquatur tantùm de haeretico, qui non confitetur Iesum Christum venisse in carne ut supra vers. 7. moneat{que} idem Apostolus Seniorem Electam ac natos, ut si quis venerit ad ip∣sos et hanc doctrinam non afferret, ne reciperent eum in domum, ne{que} Ave tali dicerent, planum est, tum ex aliis rationibus ad locum Paulistatim allegatis (quarum nonnullae sal∣tim aequè hic militant) non statuere praeceptum ad peccatum obligans, ubi lex alioquin natu∣rae seu periculi vitandi non obligat. Adeo{que} singulis, aut fidelibus universis, et in quo{que} Statu Ecclesiae non datum, ne quidem ut consilium. Igitur accommodè intelligendum est hocce divini Ioannis monitum. Ne{que} enim ullus dixerit in regionibus haeresi publicâ infectis penè universim, ubi Magistratus et Principes eadem lue pereunt, neminem eorum posse recipi in domum a Catholicis abs{que} peccato, vel etiam citra majoris perfectionis dispendium, nemini eorundem posse dici Ave. Imò constat Pontifices ipsos Romanos tum sua praxi propria, seu exemplo, cum talibus soepenumero communicantes, tum concedentes amplissima Missionariis privilegia et expressis quidem Bullis, ad communicandum cum iisdem, etiam in divinis, ad effectum licet conversionis animarum et haereseos impugnandae, non censere Ioannis hunc lo∣cum, vol alium divinarum scripturarum, vitare universim, seu ex praecepto, seu consilic, ejusmodi cum haereticis commercium. Quare ubi Canonistae (satis ineptè permiscentes excommuni∣cationem non censuram cum aliis duabus quae censurae sum, id est, cum majori et minori) volunt exclusionem a publicis precibus, negationem{que} cujuslibet communionis externae, effe∣ctum esse necessarium, seu per se (ut loquuntur) Anathematis vel excommunicationis Ma∣joris, et excommunicato auferri illa quinque, ab ipsis carmine illo vulgari comprehensa, Os, Orare, vale, communio, mensa negatur, at{que} incidere in minorem excommunicationem quoslibet alios Christianos in quoquam ex istis quinque vetitis communicantes cum anathe∣matizato (scilicet, modò post Constantiense Concilium, si nominatim sit denuntiatus; uno excepto Clerici notorio percussore:) corrigendi sunt si velint ita statutum esse aut à Christo ip∣so aut ab Apostolis immediatè; intelligendi{que} potiùs ita censere ex puris Canonibus Ecclesi∣asticis posteriorum Saeculorum, vel censuetudine Ecclesiarum, ubi nempe tales recepti sunt Canones, viget{que} consuetudo; sive jure inquam sive injuria. Fateor enim bisce vetitis quin∣que etiam plures alias inhabilitates incapacitates{que} additas pluribus variorum quorundam Pontificum Romanorum Decretalibus. Quae quam vim habeant nolo impraesentiarum disputa∣re. Satis esto, Regulam generalem proponere, ut quae sunt juris naturae juri positivo Ec∣clesiastico praeferantur. Quia ergo Pater familias tenetur jure divino naturali domum suam regere, idcirco nulla excommunicatio potest eum privare hoc jure: similiter Rex regnum, Magistratus populum, Index dissidentes (ut de Episcopis in Ecclesiarum suarum administratio∣ne nihil dicam: de quibus donec sint depositi etsi dubium videatur esse, non decerno vel hinc vel istinc aliquid.) Ac propterea ne{que} subditi ullâ eorundem excommunicatione privari possunt jure ad ipsos recurrendi pro suis causis et negotiis, ne{que} etiam obligatione parendi solui possunt ubi alias jure divino tenerentur. Imò jura vetera Ecclesiae Catholicae decreverunt, ut si cum excommunicato Rex communicaret, alii etiam subditi possent licitè eidem communicare; de qua re alibi plura. Itaque prohibitio Ecclesiasticae consuetudinis cum excommunicato nihil praejudicat juri divino naturali. Ʋnde Gregorius Septimus, qui télo hoc excommunica∣tionis tum principalis tum ob participationem, tatum pene orbem infecit, et Ecclesiam ferme pessum dedit, excipere tamen coactus fuit, re melius considerata (XI. q. 3. cap. Quoniam) Ʋxores, liberos, servos, ancillas, mancipia, rusticos, servientes, et omnes alios quorum con∣silio seclera non perpetrantur: peregrinos item ac viatores: ac universaliter quoslibet com∣municantes cum illis excommunicatis qui propter solam communionem cum praecipuis excommunicatis censuram incurrerunt. Quas omnes exceptiones postea revocarant Sum∣mistae ad quinque Capita alio versu comprehensa, Utile, Lex, Humile, Res ignorata, Ne∣cesse. Mihi tamen multo firmior ac tutior regula videtur esse, ut ubi jus naturae certat cum jure positivo Ecclesiastico, hoc illi cedat. Fr. Petrus Valesius, in Opero Theologico, seu Responsionibus ad Quaesita Ministri Provincialis. Respons. ad Quaes. Tertium.

XXXIII.

In so many instances they could find their Allegations to be false, if they did but a little seriously consider them. Now for their unconcluding ones, I take in the first place their allegation of the Faithful's being whipped (by the Church) and commanded to undergoe austere pennances. But, to conclude hence, that therefore a corporal punishment may be inflicted by virtue of a spiritual power, so as this spiritual power be properly or truly coercive or inflictive (and not directive onely, or meerly, of such corporal punish∣ments) whether the patient will or not, or so that it is authorized by God or by it self in its own nature of a spiritual power to proceed in a meer com∣pulsory way to the actual execution of such punishments, or to use corporal force, compulsion or coaction to inflict such on him that otherwise refuses to undergoe them; is a strange way of argueing. Every ghostly Father may in some cases enjoyn his penitent such punishments, and by virtue of his meer spiritual power may do so; but can inflict none either by himself or by an o∣ther if the penitent will be refractory. And not onely the Pope, not only the Bishop, but every inferiour Priest may in foro confessionali enjoyn his penitent, even how great soever otherwise, even a King or Emperour, what ever is judg'd necessary for his eternal Salvation: and consequently in some cases a deposition of themselves even from their whole temporal estates, Kingdoms or Empires: as in that of tyrannical and manifest usurpation, and of necessary restitution; the true and legal heire surviving, and known, and possible to be admitted without subversion of the State or people; much more where it may be availeable to the support of both. Yet I hope the Author of this Querie, and reasons for the affirmative, will not say that every such ghostly Father can proceed to execution whether their penitents will or no: or can by force of Arms or other corporal means devest them respectively of their ill-gotten goods, estates, Kingdoms, Empires, though only to put the lawfull pro∣prietors in possession thereof. And yet the power in every such Confessour to enjoyn such temporal restitutions, dispositions, or even depositions and de∣privations respectively, to be undergone and executed by the penitents them∣selves, and by virtue also of such injunction, cannot be denied to be both truly spiritual and very legal too in the nature of a spiritual power. There∣fore spiritual directions, injunctions, prescriptions, or commands of corporal punishments, or of disposing so or so of our temporal estates, allowed of or granted to be proper to a spiritual power, is a very unconcluding argument That a real execution (either immediate or mediate) by corporal compul∣sory means, coaction, or force, belongs to the same power. And yet it is granted still that the spiritual power considered as directive hath a proportio∣nable coercive power, to witt meerly spiritual, annexed inseparably; and there∣fore no other execution but by meer spiritual wayes, or means, that is, by de∣nying of communion in meer spiritual matters. For it is a most certain Chri∣stian and Catholick maxime, That the Church of Christ, as such meerly, hath neither territory nor sword; understanding those which are properly such, or the material, carnal, civil or temporal sword.

XXXIV.

In the next place who sees not the inconsequence of his example out of 1. Mac. 2? Mattathias the Priest under the dispensations of the old Testament killed the Jew that offered Sacrifice to Idols and took arms against Antiochus, and is not reproved therefore, but rather renowned. Therefore now under the new Testament corporal and mortal punishments, may be forcibly inflicted, and rebellion raysed against a lawful Prince, by vertue only of the spiritual power of Christian Priests. How many gross mistakes in this application and

conclusion? The Testaments are different, and so are the means of planting, establishing, propagating, or observing them no less different. The former had promises of temporal blessings: the later of purely spiritual. The former had by special warrant of the God of Hosts a carnal sword to maintain it: the later a spiritual word only. Besides, it appears no where that Mattathias killed that Sacrificeing Jew, or took arms against Antiochus, by vertue of his religi∣ous Priestly function: or that he did either but in a meer natural or civil capacity, as a chief member of the temporal common-wealth of the Jews; albeit his motive was mixed with religious considerations. And if it did, as certainly it does not, we know the law whereby he was to govern himself in point of conscience was that of Moyses, which as to the express letter, did warrant both his killing the Idolatrous Jew, and his rebelling against that hea∣then and Alien tyrannizing usurper. Therefore to conclude hence, That when there is an other Testament, Law, Priesthood, of a quite other nature each, and those old ones of Moyses quite abolished by an equal power with that authorized them; that now under the new testament, law and priest∣hood of Christ, no more a God of Hosts, but suffering Saviour, and now un∣der that Ghospel which directs it self to be planted, preserved, restored not by the sword but by the word, not by fighting but by suffering, which gives no temporal power, but meerly spiritual, nor contains any promises of earth∣ly rewards, but celestial alone: therefore I say to conclude from that ex∣ample of the Macchabees, that now this spiritual power of Christian Priests can warrant killing and rebelling by its own proper authority, is nothing less absurd then what the most unconcluding argument would conclude.

All which I doubt not the authors of this Querie and reasons for the affir∣mative would have had understood more easily if they had had reflected on them a little more coolely. But their interest or passion or both shut all the avenues to a serious recollection: or, which is worse, made then guilty of hor∣rible not only dissimulation, but opposition of such known truths in matter of conscience and Christian Faith: and consequently of that sin against the Ho∣ly Ghost, which shall neither be forgiven in this world, nor in the world to come. And if they had had understood, or reflected so, they needed not to have been driven to such a pitiful and shameful shift, as to quote so falsely or imperfectly the Author of The More Ample Account's answer to that ob∣jection of the Macchabees warre. Which answer yet, how satisfactory soever in the judgment of others, or unsatisfactory in theirs, was not by me, in that place or book, to any such weak argument as they frame here on the Macchabae¦an warre; not at all to invalidate their now pretence of a power in either Christian or Moysaycal Priest to kill and rebell by the sole vertue of their Sa∣cerdotal or spiritual power (for I did not then as much as dream of any such foolish consequence;) but against the pretence of an inherent natural civil and supream power in the people themselves, as a people or civil society, whether Priests otherwise or no Priests, or mixt of both. A farre more take∣ing, though, at least now under the new testament, a false and vain pretence also.

To that precedent of the Macchabees alleadg'd out of the old Testament to justifie this pretence of such an inherent natural (not spiritual) power in Christian Subjects, to rebell against their lawful Prince, on pretext of oppre∣ssion either in their religious or civil rights, or both, I answered briefly thus Pag. 94. of The More Ample Account. That neither the praised valour, noble attempts, vi∣ctories, and atchivemen••s of the Machabees can prejudice this doctrine. Because that as in their dayes yet the wisdome of the celestial Father our Saviour Christ, was not come to en∣lighten the world, or to teach the Jewes in particular, the perfect understanding of their own law, or to give a more excellent one to all Nations of the Earth: so they relied still on the first donation of Palestine, made by God himself immediatly to Abraham, for the children of Jacob, and made againe unto them in the Law of Mo••es; and doubtless were perswaded that no violence, or force, or conquering armes of the Asian Kings could devest them of that title which God himself appearing visibly had invested them with.

Is there any word here of such uncivil and ••rreverent language, as ignorance of their own 〈◊〉〈◊〉, charged by me on the Macchabees? Or who knows not that such perfect understanding thereof, as the holy Jesus caught the world after, is quite an other thing then ignorance simply spoken, or such ignorance of the litteral sense of their law, which would have been at that time (or in the dayes of the Macchabees, or any time before or after from the first giving of their law till Jesus came) accounted ignorance by the knowing doctors of the said law, and consequently have rendred those Macchabees guilty of a sin∣ful neglect, and hainous transgression? And who sees not I made out their plea of justification, not at all from such ignorance, nor even from an imper∣fect understanding, but from the immediate donation of Palestine to them, as to their Predecessors and Successors by God himself appearing so visibly and manifoldly, and by the clear express letter also of his Law unto them? And therefore, that I had sufficiently ruined all the strength of the argument built on this example by rebellious Christian Subjects for their pretence of such in∣herent, supream, natural power; being they can pretend no such visible ap∣pearance, donation, law of God to themselves, or to their Predecessors or Successors; but know all to be quite contrary. But after all, suppose I had not made so clear demonstrations against such pretence of a temporal, civil, or natural power in the people: or that I had not given so clear and satisfactory solution to this argument for it; what can be thence concluded, for the su∣pernatural, and purely spiritual power of Christian Priests? just a meer no∣thing. So that those Gentlemen might have spared themselves and me some labour in this point, and particularly both in this fling they had here at my doctrine in my More Ample Account, and in all that follows to no purpose in their own paper of that other answer, which, they say, some do give, but I am sure, I never gave, nor found my self necessitated to give. Yet I profess my thanks unto them in this one respect here, That they have given the occasion to clear yet more abundantly, and perhaps too more satisfactorily, at least to some, that of the Macchabees (I mean) as it is urged for the pretended inhe∣rent right of the people, as a civil, or temporal Society, though not as a spiritu∣al, or not as a Christian Church, but still as a people purely, or naturally consi∣dered. I did verily intend to add in that same little Book of mine, and to that now mentioned passage, for a second answer what I shall here. But ha∣ving had no time to review that passage then when the Printer came to it, I am now heartily glad of this occasion, that I may yet with-all evidence, and clearness imaginable, ruine this very strongest argument out of Scripture, whereof some, especially of our Opposers, make so much use, as of the most specious argument can be for that right of the people, at least, as of a people, though not as a Christian Church.

You are therefore, good Reader, to understand, that this Antiochus against whom Mattathias begin the warr, and his Sons the Machabeans continued it nobly and fortunatly, was not that Antiochus the Great King of Asia, who in the year of the world, 3742 and before Christ, 222. and either by title of con∣quest, or of a just war against Ptolomey Philopater, and his Son called Ptolomey the Famous, King of Egypt and Jewry, and against Scopas, General to this Ptolomey the Famous, or by title of the free and voluntary submission of the Jews themselves to him, or by both titles, was their lawful King, as also a good, bountiful, and very favourable King unto them, as long as he lived after: I say, that that Antiochus against whom Mattathias took arms, and encouraged the rest of his Countreymen to take arms, was not this Great and so good An∣tiochus, but another many years after, who was surnamed Epiphanes, though King likewise of Asia, who only, and by the reasonable practi••es or some few Iews surprized Ierusalem, in the year of the world, ••79••. and before Christ, 168. years.

That the Jews since their first, free, and voluntary submission to Alexander the Great himself in person, and in the year of the world 3630 and before

Christ 334. and since the death soon after of the said Alexander, the year be∣fore Christ, 322. were upon the partition of the Macedonias conquest and Empire, peaceably subject first to Ptolomaeus Lagus, and then after to his Son, Ptolomey Philadelphus (who had the Bible translated by the 72. Interpreters) and so forth in a continual series to the other Ptolomeys Kings of Egypt; only the few years excepted wherein Antiochus the Great prevailed so as I have said against Ptolomey Philopater, or his Son Ptolomey the Famous, and until this Great Antiochus contracted aliance with this Ptolomey, by the marriage of Cleopatra, upon which they were on both sides at peace again, and all things restored to to their former condition, and the command of Ierusalem, and the rest of Iewry, as likewise of Celosyria, Phaenicia, and other bordering Countreys, returned to the Ptolomeys, and the tributes, as in former time, since Lagus, gathered by, and paid to their Officers, who were the very Jews themselves: so it is plain and manifest in History, that matters continued so until the dayes of this Anti∣ochus Epiphanes, King of Asia or Syria, of whom our present controversie is; in whose time Ptolomey, likewise surnamed Epiphanes, King of Egypt, dyed, and his young Son, called Ptolomey Philometor, was crowned after him King of Egypt, and by consequence had the dominion of Ierusalem and Iewry.

That Antiochus Epiphanes, that wicked, ambitious, and most cruell King of Asia and Syria, taking advantage of the minority of this young Ptolomey Philo∣metor, without any just cause or provocation, or any other but his own ambi∣tious desires, entred Egypt with a huge army, and with intention to seize the young King, and possess himself of all his Kingdom of Egypt, and of his other dominions, and wel-nigh effected his designs, having, after his taking of Mem∣phis, besieged Alexandria it self, and the young King therein, but was on a suddain forced to break up his siege, and relinquish all again, and retire imme∣diatly out of all Egypt, upon summons sent him by the Romans to do so, or abide a sharp war from them.

That in his forced return to his own Kingdom, some few wicked Jews ha∣ving, out of desire to be revenged of others, even by the loss of their Coun∣trey, animated him to camp before Ierusalem, and the riches of that City, and treasures of the Temple there, having set him all on fire with covetousness, he marched directly towards it, and the Gates being treacherously set open to him by those within of that wicked faction, he surprized it in the hundred fourty and third year of the raign of Seleucus, the year of the world, 3796. and before Christ, 168. years.

That as this was done without any consent of the people generally, or of their Governours, so he behaving himself immediatly after as the most cruel tyrant that even surprized any place, and having broke all kind of conditions, either concerning Religion, Estate or life, even with those very traytors of their own City and Countrey, and having spoiled both the City and Temple, and carried all the spoils with him to Antioch but two years after he surprized them so, and having left most cruel Edicts after him for the future, and those put in execution with unparelled cruelty: it is evident enough, that as he had no just title for that was, nor any permission from the lawful hereditary King Ptolomey Philometor to seize Ierusalem or Iewry, so he had none from the people of Ierusalem, or Iewry, either first or last, to entitle him to the rights of a law∣ful King; not even, I say, from them in case they could justly give any such, their own hereditary King being still alive, and still too in possession of the greatest part of his dominions: nor could two years such forcible and cruel possession entitle him to any right at all.

That, in fine, as all this is manifest in History (in that of Iosephus, I mean, and in his twelfth Book of the Antiquities of the Jews (and in his eleventh for what concerns Alexander the Great himself) and being further it is no less ma∣nifest in the same History of Iosephus, and in the seventh and eight chapters of the said twelfth Book, and in the marginal Chronology, That Mattathias took arms against the said Antiochus Epiphanes immediatly after the said second year

of his unlawful possession kept of Iewry, 〈…〉〈…〉 is, immediatly ••ften the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and general, and cruel 〈…〉〈…〉 it is no less evident 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fo•• that he did so, that is, 〈…〉〈…〉 his 〈…〉〈…〉 King, but against 〈…〉〈…〉 unjust Usurper, and Ty•••••• also no less 〈◊〉〈◊〉. And conse∣quently, that no warlike actions, nor exhortations of Mattathias, nor any other of that Machab•••••• ar••, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of his Sons, or of that whole Nation of the Jews against Antiochus, that faithless, impious, inhumane King of Asia, ••••e to any purpose alledged to maintain the pretended inherent power of any Subjects whatsoever to rebell against their own true ••egal, undoubted, rightful, here∣ditary King, however oppressing them either in their religious, or civil rights, or both.

And this is the second answer I intended in my More Ample Account, And which I give here, not that it is any way necessary, or directly at all to that which our present Adversaries (the Authors of this second paper) dispute of principally at this present, or in this paper I now answer, but because they have given me by their indirect reflections, and by their impertinencius therein, a just occasion for (which I thank them) to give it here for a further illustration of what I said formerly on this subject.

XXXV.

As for their Latin Postscript, because I guess it was only added as an answer to an argument I press'd them with (ad hominem, as we speak) as also with the conclusion of it in English two of their own general principles, or doctrine of Probability, to convince them of the lawfulness (in point of conscience) of subscribing the Remonstrance, notwithstanding the pretence of some not only extrinsick authority, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 even intrinsick probability appearing still in their very souls (though I never did, nor do believe there was any such) against some position, or supposition, wherein that Remonstrance is grounded, or which is therein contained. I allow them till the advantage they can derive from these C••suists, even as themselves quote them here. For I am sure they will accordingly find the doctrine of the Remonstrance to be at least both ex∣trinsecally and intrinsecally most probable: and consequently, the signing of it lawful in point of conscience. But abstracting 〈◊〉〈◊〉 these rules, and authori∣ty of Casuists, which, at least in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 matter of probability, and as I have most clearly shown in my More Ample Account, pag. 16. &c. ought to be not only ab∣stracted from, but quite rejected, as most unsafe, and false, and erroneous, as likewise, and by consequence, the final English perclose, as a corollary thence derived, of this paper, I now consider I am no less certain they will find themselves obliged in point of conscience to approve of all the doctrine, posi∣tions, and suppositions too of the said Remonstrance, and reject, and condemn the contrary as very false, eroneous, and scandalous too, and consequently very sinful, if not manifestly heretical in Christian Faith; If I say, they have studied, or shall, as they ought to do, the arguments on both sides, or but con∣sulted with the Catholick Authors that have so lately handled them at large against the sophismes of Bellarmine, and others of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 way. For, I fear they will not take the pa••ts to sougth 〈…〉〈…〉 ••••••ancie famous, great, and Classick Authors, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in them their own ignorance and errour, so long since reproach'd in the very, Schools, For as concerning the Scriptures and Fathers, and universal Tradition of the Catholick Church, and practice of Primitive Christians, and that also of all ensuing ages, till the Eleventh of Christianity, under Gregory the Seventh; they themselves cannot, ••••ny all to be against them. Whereof, and ••s with other both arguments and objections, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 I could heartily wish they would, to satisfie yet more fully them∣selves, take but so much pains as to read over the Barclays and Wriddring••••n, Father Green and Preston, and, last of all, the most laborious and learned Latin Work, In fol. of Father ••edmond Caron, entituled, Remonstrantia ••••bernorum,

which is to be had in Dublin, at Mr. Dancer, the Booksellers in Castlestreet, and which alone may serve for all the rest. And then, a Gods name, such of them as pretend scruple in point of conscience, if any of them do yet (for I am perswaded certainly it is no more but a bare pretence, and I know there are scarce any that alledge even such pretence, or any thing at all of conscienti∣ousness in the matter, but meer temporal considerations) let them deter∣mine as conscience, not as worldly and mistaken interests shall direct them.

XXXVI.

Now to return whence I have so long digressed: Soon after ••••e said papers received, and the former answered in writing, as you have seen, and the lat∣ter by word of mouth, as you find here upon several occasions; the Procu∣rator being somewhat earnest with Father Shelton (the then Superiour of the Society) for his final resolution: because some others of that very Society desired him to be so earnest, alledging their own delayes, was that only of knowing his resolution, pro or con, and promising they would themselves, even in case of his denyal, subscribe nevertheless immediatly Father Shel∣ton, having first convoked to Dublin, from several parts, such as he thought fit to consult with, came at last to the Procurators Chamber, and without further debate, about the merits of the cause, told him briefly and positive∣ly they would not subscribe that Form, nor any other determining the main Question, that is, any disowning a power in the Pope to depose the King, or absolve his Subjects from their allegiance in temporal affairs: because (said he) this was a matter of right controverted 'twixt two great Princes. Yet they would frame one of their own, and such as became them to subscribe. Upon which he departed. But the Gentleman that accompanied him, one of his own So∣ciety, Father Iohn Talbot, who had often before treated of the same matter, and promised his own concurrence with several others of his Order, what∣ever the Superiour did, told the Procurator in his ear, as they were part∣ing, that Father Shelton had not rightly delivered the result of the rest. But nevertheless, being soon after demanded the performance of his own for∣mer, and free promise, excused himself also, until he had seen, or known it was expected by my Lord Lieutenant himself that they should subscribe; of that their subscription was required, or desired by his Grace, and not by the Procurator only. Wherein, desiring further to be satisfied, the said Superi∣our Father Shelton, and with him two more of the Society, Father Thomas Quin, and Father Iohn Talbot, being called upon, waited on his Grace: ha∣ving first sent to the Procurator their own Form, or that which they would subscribe even this you have here.

The Jesuits first Remonstrance, Declaration, or Protestation of Allegiance.

AS we do acknowledge King Charles the Second to be our true and lawful King, and rightful Soveraign of Ireland, and all His Majesties Dominions, So we confess our selves to be in conscience ob∣liged to obey His Majesty in all civil and temporal affairs; and not∣withstanding diversity of Religion in Him and us, We protest we are, and during life shall be as loyal to his Majesty as any of his Subjects whatsoever, and as either in Spain, or France, the Catholick Sub∣jects are to their respective Kings, and will be ready to detect, and discover to His Majesty, and to his Ministers whatsoever Treasons, or Conspiracies shall come to our knowledge; yea, and expose (if

need be) our lives in defence of his Majesties Person, and Royal Au∣thority; and that by no Power on Earth, whether Spiritual or Tem∣poral, we shall be moved to recede from any point of this our Allegi∣ance; and we further from our hearts detest for impious Doctrine, and against the Rules of all Christianity to averr, That any Subject can murther his Anointed King or Prince, though of a different Faith and Religion; and much more we abhorr as damnable, the practice of that wicked assertion.

But being told by the Procurator it signified a meer nothing, not even as much as a bare, absolute, or positive acknowledgment of the King to be King: much less any thing of the cases controverted, as that of the Popes pretended power to depose the King; or even of his actual procedure to a deposition, excommunication, dispensation with, or absolution of Subjects from their Allegiance, whether he have such power, or not: they changed that their first Form, and prepared this other, which themselves delivered my Lord on the 4th. of December 62. The Procurator being present, and Father Quin speaking first, as one formerly known to his Grace, and one to that sign'd with seven other Catholick Divines of Dublin, the lawfulness, and tye upon Catholicks to resist the Irish Forces headed by the Nuncio, when the Confe∣derats rejected the peace of 46. and were drawn to besiege Dublin. The tenor of their second form was this.

The Jesuits second Remonstrance, Declaration, or Protestation of Allegiance.

WE acknowledge His Majesty King Charles, the Second, to be our true and lawful King supream Lord, and rightful Soveraign of this Realm of Ireland, and all other His Majesties Dominions.

We acknowledge our selves bound in Conscience to obey his Majesty in all civil and temporal affairs; and notwithstanding the diversity of Religion in Him and us, we engage that during life, we shall be as loyal to his Majesty as any of his Subjects whatsoever, and as either in Spain, or France, the Catholick Subjects are, or ought to be to their respective Kings: and shall be ready to expose (if occasion shall require) our lives in defence of His Majesties Person, and Royal Authority; and no power on earth shall move us to recede from any point of this our Allegiance.

We shall be ready to detect and discover to his Majesty and his Ministers, whatsoever Treasons or Conspiracies against his said Majesty, shall come to our knowledge.

We detest from our very hearts, that impious doctrine which averreth, that any Subject can murther his anointed King, or Prince, though of different judgment in religion, and we abhorr the damnable practice of that wicked assertion.

Their answer was then from his Grace, that he would consider of it next morning. That if it came short of the printed one, as to the substance or sense, they could expect no benefit thereby. That it was in vain to use any distinctions or reservations. That when he thought fit to act in this matter, as the Kings Lieutenant, he should not repute any person worthy of his Ma∣jesties protection, that would not acknowledge the Royal Power independant from any but God alone. That, notwithstanding Father Quin insisted so much on the loyalty of his own Order in the late controversies and wars of Ireland, yet he could not forget how the chief person of them, Father Robert Nugent, was a great Mathematician at Killkea, when the Nuntio came to be∣siege Dublin. That he covld not understand why they declined a subscrip∣tien to the Remonstrance, signed, presented to, and received already at Lon∣don by his Majesty, whereas themselves now confess'd (for they did so in his own presence) it was very lawful and Catholick, and could not be even as much as a venial sin for any to sign it. That finally, notwithstanding all, he would not advise such wise men as they were what they had to do; but knew

what himself was to do; which was, to observe his own Masters directions. And if they thought fitter to observe another Master, that is, him they called their General, and is at Rome still, to command or direct them what he please from the Pope, they were to look to that, and run the hazzard.

Wherefore, and forasmuch too as within a few dayes more, they under∣stood by several wayes, that his Grace, having seriously considered of that second Form of theirs, declared it in many points unsatisfactory, they form'd yet a third, adding somewhat more to the former, but abstracting still both from any expression comprehending, in terminis, the Pope, and from any likewise that might engage them not to decline the question, or position of Right, or that which asserts a power in the Pope, or Church, in some cases, to de∣pose the King, and absolve his Subjects from their Allegiance; being obsti∣nately resolved to declare, and engage only against matters of fact, and this too with as many exceptions, equivocations, abstractions, distinctions, re∣servations, as the words of this third Form would bear, and the Divinity of their Casuists would allow.

The Jesuits third Remonstrance, Declaration or Protestation of Allegiance.

WE the undernamed do acknowledge his Majesty King Charles the Second, to be our true and lawful King, supream Lord, and right Soveraign of this Realm of Ireland, and all other his Majesties Dominions.

We acknowledge our selves bound in conscience to obey his Majesty in all civil and temporal affairs; and notwithstanding the diversity of Religion in Him and us, we engage our selves, that during life, we shall be as loyal to his Majesty as any of his Subjects whatsoever. And we engage our selves to expose our Lives (if occa∣sion shall require) in defence of his Majesties Person and royal Authority; and that no sentence of deposition, excommunication, or any other censure whatsoever, shall m••ve us to recede from any point of this our engagement of Allegiance and Duty.

We engage our selves to detect, and discover to his Majesty and his Ministers, whatsoever Treasons, and Conspiracies against his Majesty or Governours, shall come to our knowledge.

We detest from our hearts that impious doctrine, which averreth, that any Sub∣ject can murther, or kill his anointed King or Prince, though of a different judge∣ment in Religion: and we abhorr the damnable practice of that wicked assertion. All which we swear religiously to observe, according to the common, and usual significa∣tion of the words, without equivocation or mental reservation. So help us God.

This third Form they offered, and delivered my Lord by some friend of theirs, within a few dayes after they had given the second by themselves. But they found here also, that his Grace understood English as well as them∣selves: and that it was for some other purpose then that of a bare change, or complement of words, they strove so mightily to decline the printed Form of 61. being they would not in so many changes come near the material sense thereof, notwithstanding they laboured so much to perswade others, they ne∣ver had any exception against the sense, but against the words only, as not being reverential enough; because, forsooth, the Pope, though only by this highest title of his office or dignity, was express'd therein, and because of the words disclaim and renounce, which yet signified only (as there) a disclaim, or renunciation of that ill grounded pretence of power in his Holiness to de∣pose the King, or licence his Subjects to take arms against Him. But this exception against such words was found at last not to be The Exception; but a real one indeed against the sense, in whatever terms express'd.

XXXII.

The Fathers having found all their three several changes to no purpose, one of them, whom the Procurator esteemed still very much, came to him, and offered to change the fourth time their Form, and express in particular the Pope, so they were not required to meddle with the question of right. But the Procurator answered, they went too long already about the bush. That if they mean'd really, and conscientiously, and sufficiently too (as to the form of words) to declare, and oblige themselves as to matter of fact, or in all contingencies whatsoever, and, notwithstanding any sentence of depositi∣on, deprivation, suspension, or excommunication against the King or his Liege-people, and notwithstanding any other declaration whatsoever, or dis∣pensation with, or absolution of the said people from their allegiance, upon what pretext soever, civil or religions, temporal or spiritual, to continue al∣waies true and loyal Subjects to him who is now their King; to Charles the Second, and to his lawful Heirs and Successors: they should not scruple, neither in point of conscience, or worldly interest, to disclaim, and renounce, in plain express terms, any such pretended power in the Pope. That, for what belong'd to conscience, nothing was clearer then that they had the same war∣rant to renounce the power, which they had to renounce obedience to it in all kind of contingencies whatsoever: because it is impossible there should be a power in the Pope to command them, and they in no case bound to take notice of, or obey it. For as it is a maxime, that, Frustra est potentia quae non reduciter ad actum; so it is another maxime, that, Frustra est potentia mandan∣di si non sit obligatio parendi, There can be no act of a commanding power but vain, if there be no case wherein it is to be obeyed. That for matter of interest, or worldly regard of favour or disfavour, they might be sure it would be the same thing at Rome to renounce that power, and to renounce all obedience to it for ever; nay, the latter a farr greater guilt before God and man, if the Romans or others understood the Fathers scrupled at the former, and swallowed the latter: because the latter, without a persuasion of the former, cannot be less then folly, or sacriledge; whether the swearers intend to perform or not. That Bellarmine himself, their own great Patron, tells them so much in his Writings against Widdrington, where he disputes against the Oath of Allegiance, and proves enough to this purpose, though very little to his own, but however concludes truly, that 'tis impossible a man should swear without sacriledge, that notwithstanding any excommuni∣cation, or other sentence from the Pope against the King or his people, he would alwayes continue a loyal Subject to the King, in opposition to the Popes commands, and yet not be perswaded at the same time the Pope had no power in any contingency whatsoever to excommunicate him for continu∣ing so in his loyalty. Because, that otherwise he binds himself against his own conscience to oppose a lawful power (lawfully acting) in some case which may possibly happen. That on the other side, if they did not mean really and conscientiously, and sufficiently too (as to the form of words) to declare and oblige themselves, as to matter of fact, or in all contingencies whatsoever, to to be loyal to the King, notwithstanding any sentence of deposition, excom∣munication, or other declaration whatsoever, &c. then it was to no kind of purpose for the King, or his Lieutenant, to receive any Form at all from them. That it should be argument enough to any States-men, or other persons whatsoever of even but ordinary understanding, that their meaning was not good, just, or honest, if they pursued their design of leaving some start∣ing holes for themselves or others: as they had hitherto in in their several forms. That finally, no man that knew any thing of their School-divinity, especially concerning the Popes infallibility, and their maximes of ex∣trinsecal probability, was so blind as not to see their purpose in declining a

declaration and protestation against the matter of right: and that it was to no other, then to have a sufficient reserve for themselves before the world, in case his Holiness should point-blanck determine definitively for himself that question of right, and upon that account condemn the printed Remonstrance of 61. and to no other at all, then that they might be able then to speak confidently, they had therefore even upon the contradictory question denied to declare against any such pretended power in his Holiness: and to say con∣sequently, that now, his Holiness having defined that power to be in himself, and, pursuant thereunto, deposed the King, or excommunicated his people for obeying him, they also were quit of all obligation by any Remonstrance of their own; which therefore they framed so as not to oblige them by its tenour in such a case.

But all these reasons were lost on the Fathers; nay, even on him that had, as the Procurator thought, very sincerely and faithfully promised so often to subscribe even the Remonstrance of 61. in terminis; nay, and after he had not only heard from the Duke's own mouth so much of His Graces earnest∣ness in that business, but seen moreover within a while after His Graces Let∣ter written all by his own hand to the Procurator on that subject; which Letter I shall give presently upon another occasion.

XXXVIII.

This ill advised carriadge, and strange obstinacy of those Fathers did not a little perplex and grieve the Procuratour, both in respect of themselves, and himself, and the cause too. For he had a particular kindness to some of them, nay to their whole Order generally in Ireland, for the great communi∣cation, intimacy, and frendship formerly betwixt their leading men and him at Kilkenny, in the controversies of the Confederats and Lord Nuncio. Which he manifested sufficiently in his panegyrick of St. Ignatius their Founder, de∣livered by him in their Chappel in that town, and at their own instance, in the year 48. And therefore he was now so much concern'd in them for their own sakes: because he foresaw that if they would pursue this obstinate re∣solution, it would in time reflect heavily upon them all in Ireland, and con∣firm those that managed the State there in as great prejudices as those were held generally in England these fourscore years against the Fathers of the So∣ciety in particular. For his own too he was so much concern'd: because when the Remonstrance was first at London graciously received by His Ma∣jesty, and consequently not doubted of to prove in time by the subscription of it very instrumental to prevaile with His Majestie for some ease and some quiet, and protection to the subscribers, and when notwithstanding some talke was there about some Jesuits opposeing, a great Minister of State bid the Procuratour not to trouble himself at all with any thoughts of perswading the Jesuits to it, because (said he) of the wicked and perfidious principles of that Order generally in their Morals being such as they elude all tyes and duties, and so elude such that there is no faith to be given to their subscrip∣tions: and because that notwithstanding so great prejudices against them yet the Procuratour singled out the carriadge and represented it of those in Ire∣land (whereof he told the experiences he had) from that was said to be of the Fathers of that Society in England in former or later times: and hereby perswaded that Illustrious person to hope better of the Irish Fathers, and lay all prejudices aside for some time against them until he had seen the issue. For the cause in hand also; because he foresaw what influence this example of their (however unreasonable obstinate) carriadge would have on the rest of the Dublin both Regular and Secular Clergiemen: and these and those both joyntly and severally on all the rest of the Kingdom; not that the Iesuits in Ireland have any thing singular in them either for number or learning, being in both inferiour at present to several other Orders even of the Irish Religious

men; but for the repute of wariness had of them, and for their more frequent correspondencies with their General at Rome (to which they are tyed above all other Religions) and for the great power their General is supposed to have with His Holines, and consequently for the dependence many of the Irish Clergie who pretend at Rome have of the Fathers here, who transmit their letters and recommend their pretensions.

XXXIX.

In January following (42. or 43. according the several stiles of England and Rome) the Procuratour, together with Father James Fitz Simons, Guar∣dian of the Franciscans at Dublin, and Father Anthony Gearn••n of the same Order, went to Multifernan in Westmeath, and mett there with the very prin∣cipal heads of the whole intrigue against the Remonstrance, who came thether also from several parts of purpose to meet him. These were Father Anthony Docharty, then actually Minister Provincial of the Franciscans throughout the Kingdom, Thomas Makiernan, Brian Mac Egan, Bonaventure Mellaghlin (all three formerly since the troubles of Ireland begun, haveing by succession borne at several times the same Office) and Peter Gennor, then Guardian of that place, and Definitor. Father Francis Ferral, who was of late also Provincial of that Order, and most earnest against the Remonstrance, and as leading as any they had, if not more, and their chief Divine, and should have been of that meet∣ing, came not, because of a fit of the gout sorely upon him. But as being within 8 miles to them, they had his advice and mind. These having been the men that lead all the dance, and not of late in this matter only, but many years before in all other affairs: who had sent an express Agent over Seas to get the Remonstrance condemn'd at Rome, and by forreign Vniversities, of purpose only that they might with the more colour of some religious and conscienti∣ous pretext both refuse it themselves and diswade others from it: and being the men whose example had most influence of any others on all, especially on the Nuntiatists throughout Ireland, of what calling soever: the Procuratour went so farre to meet them as themselves desired: and met them with the more willingness so farre off from Dublin, to the end they might not alleadge the place to be such as allowed them less freedom to speak plainly their mind, grounds or reasons, against that Form, which they decryed so much. For he ho∣ped they would enter into some dispute with him of it, in point of religion faith of conscience, as to the lawfulness or unlawfulness of it in such respects; being many of them and their party pretended, amongst the illiterate or igno∣rant, they were averse to it only on these accounts. But he found them other∣wise resolved then to examine it by the rules of Religion or conscience. For although he stayed with them three dayes and nights, and gave them provo∣cations enough in publick to speak against it if any thing they had to say, al∣leadging to them for it reasons both divine and humane, both weighty and manifold, nay and telling them at last, That for his own part he was really perswaded in his conscience the contrary doctrine was not only erroneous but in it self heretical (albeit he would not therefore decline communion with any) yet all could not worke as much as one argument from them, either from Scripture, Tradition, Fathers, Canons, or natural reason: nothing at all but meer silence in answer to all: and, besides that, nothing els but the objecti∣on of some two or three words, as not being reverential enough (as to the matter only of wording) and the expectation of a Censure against it from Rome.

The Procuratour answered them to the first, that the Catholicks of Eng∣land who drew that Form (as may be seen in Father Cressy's Exom••logesis) were cautious without exception to word their sense so as they could not be quarreld against by any on that account. That there was more danger in their excess of reverence and observance of the Pope and of his power then in their

detect even by expression of words. That it was not the words, but the sense would be quarreld against at Rome. That likewise it was not this or that in∣dividual or specifical word, but the true and full sense in whatever words was expected from them by the King or State, if they liked not those words which the best masters of the English tongue the Catholicks of England, and, after them, those of their own Irish Clergie, and the Nobility and Gentry also of their Nation at London had already made use of. And therefore since they professed they bogled not at the sense, they would do well to draw it fully in their own words, but such as expressed that cleerly and without equivocation or other kind of reservation. Which if they did, he would undertake my Lord Lieutenant would receive it graciously, and represent it to His Majesty as the same in effect with that others had given before them in other words.

Having nothing to reply to these answers, the Provincial took pen in hand presently, and desired the Procuratour himself to assist and help him with o∣ther words, instead of the words Pope, disclaim, renounce, &c. Which the Procuratour doing, Father Thomas Makiernan, whose learning was that of the Papal Canons, as having been bred in Spain a Canonist, interceded, and confess'd at last that for his own part he could not resolve yet to come home to the sense. And the rest desired some respit until next Easter, promiseing that if by that time no Censure came from Rome against the Form of 61. they would subscribe it. This, Father Peter Gennor said positively to the Procura∣tour, and none opposed it, but Father Makiernan somewhat doubtfully. How∣ever they all entreated the Procuratour that he would in the best manner he could in the mean time excuse them to His Grace the Lord Lieutenant.

Now the reason why they desired this respit was that themselves, as the chief contrivers, had employed last Summer both from themselves, and from the Bishop of Meath Antony Mageoghegan, and some Vicars General, Father Iohn Brady a Franciscan over Seas of purpose to sollicit a Censure both from the Vniversity of L••vain, and from Rome too, by the intervention of those of their party there, especially by the credit and authority of the Internuntio of Bruxels: and they expected both infallibly before Faster. Nor were they frustrated in their expectations in part, I mean as to a Censure from Lovain; though none to this day from His Holiness; if they will not unjustly call the private letters of the two Bruxel's Internuntius's de Vechiis and Rospigliosi, or those others of Cardinal Francis Barberin, a Censure from Rome. Which every man sees they cannot but very unjustly tearm a Roman Censure, or a Censure of His Holiness, or by his authority so done or notified that any one at all is bound to take notice thereof. For they wanted all both the formalities and essentials of a Censure from His Holyness, as from His Holiness in the qua∣lity of Pope determining any matter: as they wanted likewise the essentials of a sufficient publication; if nothing els were wanting. Besides it is a maxime with Canonists that in praejudicium Tertii credit is not to be given to the let∣ters of even Cardinals, for what relates to the mind, will, or judgment of His Holiness, if they produce not authentically their commission. And lastly it is manifest out of those very words which Cardinal Francis Barberin relates in his Second letter (which you shall have in the second Part of this Treatise) as the command of His Holiness to Him, that His Holiness never censured, nor mean'd to censure any point or passadge of that Remonstrance of 61. but intended only the Cardinal should warn the Clergie of Ireland not to con∣found the civil obedience due to the King with that spiritual observance is due to the See Apostolick. And who sees not that to distinguish both, or the one from the other, is the main drift of, & well observed in that Remonstrance?

XL.

But for asmuch as these Franciscan Fathers used these delayes of purpose to have the more colour to excuse themselves from signing when they had the

return they expected from their said Agent by Easter, I thought fit to give here a copy of that Instrument which they or the chief of them, and others with them gave him under their hands, when they sent him away to worke all the intrigues he could against both that Remonstrance and subscribers of it, but above all against the Procuratour. It was as followeth, translated out of the Latin.

The Instrument sent by Father John Brady, and signed by Antony Ma Geoghegan Bishop of Meath, and by some other few men, of the Franciscans chieflly, as Francis Ferral, Thomas Makiernan &c. and sent of purpose to procure the Protestation to be censured.

WE the vndernamed of both Clergies of Ireland, finding our selves much traduced in forraign Nations, as if we had been at least the mediat Au∣thors of a certain writing, printed at London 3. February 1661. the title whereof is The humble Remonstrance, Acknowledgment, Protestation and Petition of the Roman Catholick Clergie of Ireland, exhibited to our most Serene King of Great Brittain, Charles the Second, by a certain Father, Fr. Peter Walsh, under the title of Procurator of both Clergies, Secular and Regular, which writing is said in a further Explication thereof (set out likewise in Print) by the same Father to have been sent him out of Ireland to London, as from the Generality of the said Clergies, to the end he might present it in their names to the King: Therefore that it may ap∣pear publickly to the world, how injuriously we suffer in this matter; We do by this present Instrument make it known and signifie and in the word of Priests do holily swear that neither we nor any of vs have concurred to the making of the said Re∣monstrance, Protestation, &c. or to the sending of it from Ireland to London, nor finally to the presenting of it to the King, nay not so much as to have seen heard or understand any thing of the said Remonstrance, before it appeared in Ireland, in the moneth of March last past. And therefore do well know it hath been framed and forged by the said Author and his complices.

In witness whereof we have sub∣scribed to this Instrument, this day, being the 24. of July. 1662.

XLI.

To return: when the Procuratour heard their put off, he told them first he understood well enough their purpose: and thereupon shewed them a copy of this Instrument they had given the said Father Brady, which he recieved a little before from some of their own in Ʋlster. That he knew well enough who subscribed it, as for that some of them were present there; and who re∣fused to subscribe it, as for instance one by name Father Oliver Dese Vicar Gene∣ral of Meath and knew they perswaded the Vicars General to raise 6. pounds a Diocess for their Agents charges: and this to worke sedition at home by the help of forraign Censures. That besides much disloyaltie to the King, and much malice to the Procuratour, it contained manifest lyes. Secondly he told them, such an answer was worse then a plain denyal without any reason given for it. Because it rendred by consequence any subscription of theirs, at any time and to any Form, unsignificant as to any kind of assurance of their loyaltie or Faith to the King. For upon the same grounds they would re∣fuse to sign at Easter if such a Censure came by that time, they might and should and would questionless retract their signature whenever there came any Censure from beyond Seas, especially from His Holiness. And then to what purpose any Form at all, or any subscription from men so principled or so resolved? nay to what other intent was the Remonstrance of 61. but to assure the King against such danger? or what use could be or was intended to be made of it for the advantage of the Roman Catholicks of Ireland, or what to perswade the Kings Councils, Parliaments, or other Protestants to be

more favourable to them hereafter, if not upon this account only, That His Majestie could in all contingencies whatsoever be sure of such as would sub∣scribe it.

But all this, and what ever more he said then, and in those three whole dayes and nights he stayed with them (and very much he said in that time, even also upon grounds of humane prudence, and of both the present and past conditi∣on of their Country and people of their religion in it, and of their own late carriadge in the Warres) was to no more purpose then to wash the Blackamore. Only he prevailed, (and this only too in private) with the Provincial, Father Docharty, to give him two letters written all along with his own hand, and subscribed by him. The first was licencing those of his own Order, such as would, to subscribe the Remonstrance, even that I mean so much controver∣ted. For the Procuratour objected to him (and it was very true) that he had partly by himself immediately, in his visits of the Convents, and partly by others deputed by him as Commissaries to visit where he would not goe himself, commanded the respective local both Superiours and Inferiours, not to subscribe that Remonstrance. And for instance, that himself personally, visiting those of Trim, enjoyn'd the Guardian of that place, Father Patrick Wesly, and that too under paine of Excommunication, not to subscribe. And his Commissary to some of the Convents of Leinster, Father Antony Darcy, enjoyn'd the same to those of Wexford, though not under the same penalty. The second letter was to my Lord Duke, as from himself alone, and contai∣ning his own private approbation of and concurrence to the said Remonstrance, even as to every part, clause, word, and even too in the true, obvious, and whole genuine sense of the Author, whom he supposed to be the Procuratour himself, because it goes commonly in his name. And here you have his se∣cond letter at length copied verbatim out of the original.

May it please your Grace,

HAving recieved from the Reverend Bearer full satisfaction in all particulars, relating to the late Remonstrance, and Protestation so graciously accepted by his Majestie, and haveing further known by him your Graces expectation of a more general concurrence from the rest of the Irish Clergie to the said Protestation, and considering moreover that the said Protestation containes nothing but the dutie of a Catholick Subject to his most Sacred Majestie, though of a different Religion from that professed in the Roman Church: I found myself bound in conscience by the laws of God, and dictates of natural reason to concurre (as I do by these lines un∣der my hand, and most heartily from my very Soul) with the rest who have already signed, & to approve of, and own all and every particular of the said humble Remon∣strance, Acknowledgment, Protestation, and Petition presented to His Majestie at London, and to your Grace by Father Peter Walsh, in the name or behalf of the Roman Catholick Clergie of Ireland.

Yet my Lord, forasmuch as I am tyed by my charge and Rule to take suddenly a Iourney to Rome, as likewise Father Fitz Simons, Guardian of the Franciscans of Dublin, is, your Grace will I hope excuse me for the reasons which I have intrusted the Bearer withal, not to sign, or subscribe my name in the common paper with the rest until I turn back, if it be Gods pleasure, that I return safe. And will give me leave I h••pe likewise to beg this further favour th•••• this letter appear not against me, nor my name in Print until that time: unless peradventure that Father Walsh get the concurrence of all other hands or of such of them as he knowes would other∣wise endeavour to do me ill Offices at Rome, and render me the more unservicable there and at home after to His Majestie, and your Grace.

I confess My Lord, this reservedness argues some weakness, or fearfulness in me, and yet I cannot help it otherwise at present, or until at least we have some further

certainty of the Popes silence then we have yet, then by assuring your Grace in the faith of a Christian, that I will during life observe most religiously in the whole la∣titude, words, and sence of it, according to the explication of the Author unto me, that Protestation. And indeed my Lord, I can assure your Grace further, that it is no new Iudgement, nor new affection of my Soul that works in me now, but that which I have had these many years past been very much inclined to, and which more∣over the sufferings of my Predecessors, and unfortunate family I am of, ever since Henry the 8. for the Crown of England, hath in some measure made natural to me.

For the rest my Lord, I have begd of the bearer, that he would from time to time let me know your Graces pleasure, and Commands, and let your Grace know that I will have all those under my charge, as farr as I can have power with them, to continue their devotions and vowes to God for his most Sacred Majesty and your Grace: and that whatever others do, I will ever joyn with such as are most devoted to your Grace, as

My Lord

your Graces Most faithful, most obsequious and most affectionate Servant. Anthony Docharty. Minister Provincial of the Franciscans.

This letter I thought fit to insert, because the said late Provincial of the Franciscans (for now he is out of his Office) carried not himself as to that matter of the Remonstrance either before or after the said letter so candidly and sincerely as would become a person of his place. For he, notwithstand∣ing all his wariness, being suspected by many that he had subscribed, and de∣manded by them, whether he had? would never own any such thing (that I may say no more) and thereby rendred his said concurrence altogether un∣significant as to any use could be made thereof. His denyal was grounded (I suppose) hereon, that he had not subscribed the individual paper of the original Remonstrance, which most others had. And peradventure this equivocation had been harmless if it had stayed there, or there were not fur∣ther ill consequences of such equivocation. But it was otherwise: as his end in both subscribing and denying was for his own private concerns, without any regard of the publick: and was only to save his own stake with both sides, however were a looser. Yet this much I will say for him, that after this he writt earnestly over Seas to hinder all he could any censures or proceedings against the Subscribers; albeit in some of his letters to that purpose he con∣demned them himself. Nor indeed was it agreable to his purpose of dissemb∣ing with both parties to do other; haveing been himself the principal in sending before the above named Father Iohn Brady to procure censures against the Remonstrance in it self, and by consequence against the first pub∣lick and printed Subscribers of it. And he could not but know that in all likelyhood he had done his worke by that time, as indeed he did all he could do.

However this be, I think it not amiss to mind those Franciscan Fathers of that meeting at Multiferum, of their unreasonable obstinacy, when they re∣member the following letter of His Grace to the Procuratour, as he was on his journey thether, which they themselves there did both see and read; the Procuratour having so thought fit to answer their pretence of not subscri∣bing on this account, That they were not yet satisfied His Majesty or Lord Lieutenant expected any such matter from them; but on the contrary were told it was only the Procuratours desire and worke to engage others as deep as himself, for his own sake only, or to bring himself off the better at Rome by the multitude concurring with him.

For Mr. Peter Walsh.

Sir,

Dublin 26. Jan. 1662.

COnsidering how well His Majesty received the Subscriptions to the Protestation presented to him in England, I do a little wonder that the example hath not been more readily and frequently followed here, than for ought I can hear from you it hath been. I have no end in wishing it should, than that those of loyal and peace∣able dispositions may thereby be distinguished from others, for their own advantage. Yet any prudent person will believe the Subscribers are more like to find it than the Refusers. I desire to know who have already subscribed since your arrival in this Kingdom, and who have refused to subscribe. And so I rest

Your very affectionate Friend, Ormonde.

XLIII.

Soon after the Procurator had return'd to Dublin from this meeting at Multifernan, and the Bishop of Meath, Anthony Mageoghegan, led wholy by those Fathers, had, on pretence of the sharpness of the season, excused him∣self by Letter from another meeting with him in his return: and when he considered there was no more to be done with, or expected from, the Gene∣rality of the Irish Church-men, at least for some time, or until they had a general Congeregation: by advice of some persons of quality, he desired the prime Noblemen and Gentlemen then at Dublin (and who had not been at London when the Remonstrance was agitated and subscribed there by such as at that time were there) to meet at my Lord Clanri••kards, of purpose to re∣ceive satisfaction in that business, whereof there was so much talk amongst all people, and to discharge their own duty, what ever the Ecclesiasticks did. Being met, the Lord Birmingham, as a most rational and most candid person, obiected all he had from others to the Procurator, as if all had proceeded from him only. But the Earl of Tirconel being present, as he was most instru∣mental both in this meeting, and in so many others held at London formerly, about the Remonstrance, to forward it, cleared the Procurator fully, for what was done at London; declaring, that the concurrence of the Nobility and Gentry was wholly and solely their own act, originally mentioned by the Earls of Glancarty, Carlingford, and himself, and seconded in very good ear∣nest home by the Earl of Inchiquin; some English Catholick Noblemen having of purpose come to their meeting, where they declared the joynt approbati∣on of the Catholicks of England, and that were the case of the Irish theirs, they would most freely and heartily subscribe that very individual Remon∣strance, with the Preamble and Petition, without any change. And for the Procurators endeavours to perswade the Clergy in Ireland, since his arrival, the above Letter of His Grace, produced there to my Lord Birmingham, and the ••e••••, did satisfie them no less fully, that he did herein but what he ought, and was his Majesties and Lord Lieutenants desire, and was both expedi•••••• and necessary for all concern'd, to concurr unto and obey.

Hereupon presently, without further debate (for none at all scr•••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the catholickness or lawfulness; such scruples having been sufficiently 〈◊〉〈◊〉 before clear'd amongst all persons of reason and conscience) as many as were at that meeting, and had not subscribed at London, put their hands to a

clean copy of that which was before signed by the Nobility and Gentry at London; and others that could not be present then, subscribed in their Chambers. Both these, and those in all were eight Lords, and twenty three Esquires, Collonels and Gentlemen.

• The Earl of Clanrickard.
• The Earl of Castle haven.
• The Lord of Gormanstown.
• The Lord of Slane.
• The Lord of Athenry.
• The Lord of Brittas.
• The Lord of Galm••y.
• Henry Barnawel (now Lord of Kings∣land.)
• Sir Andrew Aylmer.
• Sir Thomas Esmond.
• Sir Richard Barnawel.
• Philip fitz Gerrald.
• Nicholas Darcy.
• Francis Barnawal.
• Sir Henry O Neale.
• Nicholas White.
• George Barnawal.
• Richard Beling.
• W. Talbot.
• Iohn Walsh.
• Michael Dormer.
• Iohn Bellew of Wellistown.
• Patrick Netervil.
• Robert Netervil.
• Charles White.
• Coll. Walter Butler.
• Coll. Thomas Bagnel.
• Gerrald fitz Symons.
• Robert Devoreux.
• Coll. Iames Walsh.
• Edmond Walsh.
• Gerrald Fennel.

And being joyned to the London Subscribers of the Irish Nobility and Gen∣try, they make in a•• one hundred and twenty one, whereof one and twenty Earls, Viscounts, and Barons.

XLIV.

But these Noblemen, not thinking they had by their own only subscripti∣ons done enough in this matter, unles they had invited the rest of the Peers and Gentry of their communion where-ever in the Countrey abroad through∣out Ireland to the like loyal concurrence, framed the ensuing Letter, and signed two and thirty copies of it, one for every County in the Kingdom, to get all the hands of the rest of the Catholick Noblemen, and Gentlemen where-ever, to the said Remonstrance.

Sirs,

THe desires we have to serve our King, Countrey; and Religion, in all just ways, gives you the trouble of this Letter. Which is to let you know,

That after serious deliberation, finding our selves, and together with us all others of the Roman Catholick Nobility and Gentry of this Kingdom, as well as the Cler∣gy of it, obliged by all the rules of Reason, and tyes of Conscience, in the present conjuncture especially, to concurr even by subscription to the late Remonstrance and Protestation, presented Last Summer to his Majesty (by such of our Irish Roman Catholick Noblemen and Gentlemen, as were then at London, and subscribed it there) and received so graciously by Him: We have therefore this last week given a beginning here at Dublin to that concurrence, by our own manual Subscriptions al∣so, to the same Remonstrance, prefixing to it a Petition to His Grace the Duke of Ormonde Lord Lieutenant for ••i••veigh••ng our said Concurrence, and represent∣ing it to His Majesty.

That reflecting on the unsignificancy of a few hands or subscriptions, for attain∣ing those great and good ends ••e drive at by this loyal and Religious Declaration, we thought it concerned as further to invite by special Letters all the rest of the Nobi∣lity and Gentry of our Communion in the several Provinces and Counties of this Kingdom to the like Subscriptions, to be transmitted to us hither without delay. Whereunto we have found our selves the rather bound, that we certainly know it is

expected from us all by his Majesty, and by the Lord Lieutenant, and that his Grace doth wonder why the example of the first Subscribers at London hath not been here at home more readily and frequently followed hitherto by the rest, who are no less con∣cerned. And that we know moreover, that by the neglect, or delay, this twelve months past, of a more general Concurrence to a duty so expedient and necessary, we have let pass already fair opportunities to reap very many advantages by it.

That we hope the same prudential, Christian, Catholick, and obvious reasons which perswaded us, and such others as before us did give the first example from London, will prevail with you no less. Being they import as much as the clearing of our holy Religion from the scandal of the most unholy tenets or positions that can be taught, written or practised: the assuring his Majesty evermore of our loyal thoughts, hearts, and hands for Him in all contingencies whatsoever: and the opening a door to our own liberty, and ease hereafter from the rigorous laws and penalties under which our selves and our Predecessors before us in this Kingdom of Ireland, as other our fellow Subjects of the Roman Communion in England and Scotland, have sadly groaned these last hundred years.

That as we believe you will not think, we would for even these very same ends, how great and good soever, nor for any other imaginable swerve in the least title from the true, pure, & unfeigned profession of the Roman Catholick Faith, nor from the reverence or obedience due unto his Holiness the Bishop of Rome, or the Catholick Church in general: so we believe also you will rest satisfied with the plain evidence of the very words, genuine sense, total contexture, and final scope of this Protestation, and of every entire clause thereof, that nothing therein, no part, nor the whole of it denies, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 indeed at all reflects on the spiritual jurisdiction, authority, or power of either Pope or Church, or any power whatsoever, which we, you, or any other Catholicks in the world are bound by any law, divine or humane, or by the maximes of our known and common Faith, or by the condition of our Communion to assert, own, or acknowledge: the whole tenour of it asserting only the supream temporal power in the Prince to be independent from any but God alone, and the subjection and alle∣giance, or the fidelity and obedience, either active or passive, due to Him in temporal affairs, to be indispensable by any power on earth, either temporal or spiritual.

That finally, we do upon consideration of all the premisses, and what else your own reasons may deduce thence, and give further as additional arguments, very earnestly desire and pray your unanimous, cheerfull, and speedy subscriptions to the said Remonstrance and Protestation, which we have sent along with this Letter, and by the hands of whom we have likewise prayed to call such of you together as he may conveniently, or go about to your several dwel∣lings for that end. And if any chance to refuse the signing of it (which we hope none will) to bring us a true list and exact account of such, together with the signa∣tures of the rest, that the multitude may not lye under prejudices for the failing of some.

Which being all we have to trouble you with at present, commending you to God, we bid you heartily farewell.

Dublin this 4th of March, 1662.

Your very loving friends and humble Servants.

• Castlehaven Audley
• Clancartie.
• Carlingford
• Mountgaret.
• Bryttas.
• Clanrickarde.
• Fingall.
• Tirconnell.
• Galmoye.
• Slane.

XLV.

And questionless if these copies had been sent then as was design'd, there had been all the hands of the Nobility and Gentry in the Kingdome to the Remonstrance, before six months were over: and the Clergie had been asha∣med of their own obstinacy, and no less confounded at their own scarce cre∣dible inconsiderancy. But it pleased God to dispose affaires so, that His Grace the Lord Lieutenant (albeit otherwise very desirous to see these letters take effect, as he was timely acquainted with the drawing and signing of them) yet as they were ready to be dispatch'd to the several Counties, and most of them too by Noblemen) considering the dangerous plot then in hand amongst those disloyal Fanaticks who were to seize the Castle of Dublin; and think∣ing prudently that if any papers whatsoever were carried about at that time by the Catholicks for getting hands or subscriptions, those wicked plotters and their party would misinterpret them, and pretend thereby a plott or some dangerous conspiracy a preparing amongst the Papists, whereby to ex∣cuse the better themselves for meeting frequently in armed troups by day or night: and considering moreover what influence the Irish Clergie had in the late warrs on the Layety of their communion, yea notwithstanding any for∣mer Oath, and that the same might be again, unless the Clergie themselves had subscribed: His Grace was pleased for these reasons to countermand for that time, and suspend ever since the sending about of those letters; expect∣ing it might be done more seasonably when the Clergie had signed first: and questionless too expecting the Clergie would sign as soon as their pretence of not dareing to meet by Representatives in a general Congregation were layed aside; though it happen'd otherwise, as will appear in the second Part of this first Treatise.

XLVI.

However the Catholick Gentry or old proprietours of the County of Wexford, and few survivours of the Cittizens of that Town expected no such invitation by letters from the Noblemen; but without any other then that they had gathered out of The More Ample Account, and their own reason, having framed for themselves a suitable both Petition to the Lord Lieutenant and preamble to His Majesty, subscribed the Remonstrance with about two hundred hands, (for they wanted only three of that number) and sent it His Grace by Mr. William Stafford of Lambstown, who took great pains in this business. Which Instrument of theirs I would not omit to insert here at length as an eternal monument of their honest loyal hearts, however they have been abused in the late warrs by some of their spiritual leaders (though perhaps that too more out of ignorance and blind zeal then any malice) and whatever or how sad soever their condition above most other Counties be e∣ver since, as it was then when they signed so freely of themselves; yea not∣withstanding the contrary endeavours used by some Clergiemen, especially two Fathers of the Society, to disswade them. Whether those Fathers behaved themselves so undiscreetly out of any disaffection to the King, or rather out of mistaken Religion, and prepossession by such foolish arguments as they had learned in their own Schools, or by reading Bellarmine, Suamz, or such other by ass'd writers, or whether by special command or direction of their Superi∣ours, I knew not.

To His Grace the Duke of Ormond Lord Lieutenant General an General Governour of Ireland, The Humble Petition of the Subscribers.

MOst humbly sheweth, that they come with the same alacrity and cheerfulness to present to your Grace the ensueing Remonstrance and Protestation which some of their fellow Subjects of the Nobility and Gentry of this Kingdom, not long since, humbly laid at His Majecties Feet; Who was graciously pleased to accept thereof. And they with the same zeal acknowledging themselves to be bound in the same duty, and indispensable tyes of obedience to His Majesty, His Heirs, and Suc∣cessors in all temporal matters, do humbly beseech your Grace that this their most hearty concurrence to the same faithful Protestation, and humble Remonstrance may be made the more acceptable by your Graces conveyance thereof to His Majesty. And they shall pray &c.

To the Kings Most Excellent Majesty, The faithful Protestation, and humble Remonstrance of the Ro∣man Catholick Gentry of the County of Ireland.

WHereas a considerable part of the Roman Catholick Nobility and Gentry of Ireland, by the name of the Roman Catholick Nobility and Gentry of Ire∣land, presented to your most Excellent Majesty a sincere Protestation and humble Re∣monstrance, intituled the faithful Protestation, and humble Remonstrance of the Roman Catholick Nobility and Gentry of Ireland; for divers substantial and solid reasons in the said faithful Protestation, and humble Remonstrance, ingenuously and conscientiously expressed and set forth: Now we the said Roman Catholick Gentry of the said County of Wexford, whose names are hereunto subscribed, being mem∣bers of the said Roman Catholick Gentry of Ireland, being bound in Conscience and duty to own the said faithful Protestation, and humble Remonstrance, as well as our Countreymen first subscribing thereunto, for the motives in the said faithful Pro∣testation, and humble Remonstrance expressed, and in imitation of our said Countrey∣men, and to avoid all jealousies, and misopinions which may be concieved of our selves, and of our Religion; and feareing least we may be thought to vary from the said first Subscribers, in doctrine, in Religion, or Religious Tenets, do sincerely and truly without Equivocation, or mental reservation in the sight of God, and in the presence of your Majesty Acknowledg and confess your Majesty to be our true and lawful King Supream Lord, and rightful Soveraign of this Realm of Ireland, and of all other your Majesties Dominions; and therefore we acknowledg, and confess our selves to be obliged under pain of sin, to obey your Majesty in all civil and tem∣poral affairs, as much as any other of your Majesties Subjects and as the laws, and Rules of Government in this Kingdom do require at our hands: and that notwith∣standing any power, or pretention of the Pope, or Sea of Rome, or any sentence or Declaration of what kind or quality soever, given, or to be given, by the Pope, his Predecessours or Successours, or by any authority spiritual or temporal proceeding or derived from him or his Sea, against your Majesty or Royal Authority, we will still acknowledge and perform to the utmost of our abilities our faithful loyalty, and true Allegiance to your Majesty; And we openly disclaim and renounce all forraign power be it either Papal or Princely, spiritual, or temporal, or us much as is may seem able, or shall pretend to free, discharge, or absolve us from this Obligation, or shall any way. give us leave or licence to raise tumults, bear Arms, or offer any violence to your Ma∣jesties Person, Royal Authority, or to the State or Government: being all of us ready not only to discover and make known to your Majesty, or to your Ministers all the Trea∣sons made against your Majesty or them, which shall come to our hearing, but also to

loose our lives in the defence of your Majesties Person, and Royal Authority, and to resist with our best endeavours all conspiracies and attempts against your Majesty, be they framed or sent under what pretence, or patronized by what forraign power, or authority soever. And further we profess that all absolute Princes, and supream Governours, of what Religion soever they be, are Gods Lieutenants on Earth, and that obedience is due to them according to the laws of each Common-wealth respe∣ctively in all civil, and temporal affairs. And therefore we do here protest all Do∣ctrine and Authority to the contrary. And we do hold it impious, and against the word of God, to maintain, that any private Subject may kill or murder the Annoin∣ted of God His Prince, though of a different belief and Religion from his, and we abhorr and detest the practice thereof, as damnable and wicked.

These being the Tenets of our Religion in point of Loyalty, and in submission to your Majesties Authority, and our observance and veneration of, or Communion with the Sea of Rome in matters purely spiritual, no way intrench∣ing on that perfect obedience, which by our birth, by the laws of God and man we are bound to pay to your Majesty, our natural, and lawful Soveraign: _____ _____ Pro∣strate at your Majesties Feet, we humbly beg that all your Majesties Roman Catho∣lick Subjects of Ireland, who shall by subscription or consent, concurr to this pub∣lick Protestation of Loyalty, be protected from persecution for the profession or exer∣cise of their Religion, and all former Laws upon that account against them repea∣led.

• Sir Thomas Esmond
• Nich. fitz Henry
• Garret Sutton
• Nicholas Stafford
• Iohn Keating
• Nicholas Maisterson
• Robert Devereux
• Peter Edmonds
• Iames Deverenx
• Richard Wadding
• William Roche
• Thomas Harper
• Nicholas Stapoll
• Iohn Doyle
• Pa. Doyle
• Philip Lewis
• George Iophinge
• Charles Kensly
• Philip Lamport
• Bar. fitz Henry
• Iohn Sutton
• Barnaby Connor
• Iohn Devereux of Dips
• Edward Maisterson
• Thomas Rosseter
• Richard Whitty
• Robert Busher
• Edward Hay
• Luke Turnor
• Anthony Hay
• Thomas fitz Henry
• Richard Cullen
• Iohn Lewis
• Stephen Synott
• George Chevers
• Mathew Chevers
• Baltazar Codd
• Ha. Hore
• Iesper Stafford
• Teigh Morcho
• Robert Stafford
• Iohn Stafford
• Walter Butler
• Hugh Cananogh of Bollinreddy
• Iohn Devereux
• Edward fitz Harrys
• William Furlong
• Richard Shortal
• Patrick Chevers
• Patrick Synot
• Iohn Prichans
• Barnaby Conor
• Iames Butler
• Martin Synot
• Robert Redmond
• Nicholas fitz Iohn
• Iohn Wadding
• Iames Nevil
• Iohn fitz Henry
• Iohn Morphy
• Philip Devereux
• Iohn Chevers
• Richard Wadding of Ballicogly
• Iohn Cod of Garri∣lough
• Owen Ferrall of Corr∣cannan
• Dennis Stafford of Bal∣leconnor
• Mathew Hay
• Iames fitz Harry
• Richard Dake
• Thomas Chevers
• Marcus Synnot
• Iohn Nevel
• William Stafford
• Philip Roch
• Philip Stafford
• Morrish Morphy
• Morgan Cuillon
• Patrick Roch
• Richard Chevers
• Richard Conni••
• Patrick Codd
• Robert Codd
• Walter Codd
• Daniel Morcho
• Anthony Broders
• Iames Broders

We the Roman Catholick Surviving Burgesses Proprietors and Free∣men of the Town of Wexford, as Members of the County of Wexford, do subscribe hereunto as to the annexed Faithful Protestation & humble Remonstrance of the Gentry of the said County, owning the same, and eve∣ry clause sentence and word therein contained, in the manner and form therein expressed and set forth, being penned so by our unanimous consent and assent thereunto.

• Nicholas fitz Henry
• Peter Esmond
• Thomas Chevers
• Nicholas Hay
• Andrew Esmond
• Iohn Keating
• William Hay
• Richard Lamport
• Iohn Codd
• William Synot
• William Hay
• Patrick Redmonds
• Iohn Connor
• Thomas Codd
• Toby Cavanagh
• Iohn Bolion
• Richard Vell
• Richard Hay
• Andrew Vitte
• Thomas Turnor
• Peter Colfer
• Luke Warrrant
• Richard Codd
• Iohn Walse
• Iohn Devereux
• Philip Devereux
• Richard R••••••ford
• Iames Barly
• Patrick Hughes
• Francis Roo••
• Richard Hay
• Nicholas Spa••on
• Philip Malq••
• Nicholas Re••ne••
• Peter Nevel
• Lawrence 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• Peter Lampor••
• Iames Purcell
• Martin Brian
• Iohn Hay
• Christopher Jordan
• Walter Nevil
• Iohn Hore
• Richard Green
• Richard Cogly
• Walter Codd
• Valentin Burn
• Iohn Wadding
• William Stafford
• Arthur Bryan
• Barnaby Turnor
• Walter Codd
• Edward Sutton
• Barlamy Hay
• Philip Rosseter
• Philip Walsh
• Philip Roch
• Patrick Morphy
• Thomas Codd
• Nicholas Whit
• Garalt Gavanim
• Patrick Money
• Walter Cogley
• Iohn Wadding
• Iohn Comrick
• Iohn Cogle
• Lawrence Devereux
• Iohn Codd
• Philip Brown
• Iohn Walsh
• Robert Hassan
• Edward Synot
• Richard Witte
• Robert Maxuell
• William Byrlin
• Iames Walsh
• Robert Rosseter
• Mortagh Morphy
• Iohn fitz Walter
• David Singon
• Thomas Coullum
• Dennys Stafford
• Richard Codd
• Peter Wadding
• Iames Lewis
• Iames Clooke
• Iames Synot
• Anthony Kearny
• Philip Morogh
• Stephen Stafford
• Luke Turnor
• Thomas Synor
• Iames Toole
• Iohn Mayler
• Philip Stafford
• Nicholas Stafford
• Alexander Maxell
• Richard Hay
• Iohn Rochford
• David White
• Dennis Edwards
• Morogh Donogh
• Iohn Chevers
• Nicholas Walsh
• William Brian
• Jasper Hay
• Am. Sutton
• Richard Synot
• Thomas Clook
• Christopher Deoran
• Nicholas Walsh
• Iohn Jeron

XLVII.

It was now Easter, and April or May, or thereabouts in 61. (for I do not exactly remember the month) but I know 'twas soon after the plot of that same year for surprising the Castle of Dublin was discovered openly) when the Agent of the Anti-Remonstrants, Father Iohn Brady, was returned from Flanders and arrived at Dublin; having before he came taken care, or cer∣tainly others for him to send hether many copyes of the Lovain Censure. I mean the short one, or Censure of the Lovain Theological Faculty (against the Remonstrance) dated by them on St. Thomas of Canterbury's day. Which

day peradventure they fixed on of purpose as most proper for such a Censure; being that holy renowned Prelate, Thomas of Canterbury strove so much for that Ecclesiastical Immunity (against Henry the Second, and against those his Statutes agreed upon at Carlile and Clarendon, even by all the Representatives of the English Catholick Clergie in those days, and even by St. Thomas of Canterbury himself at both those places) which some do think is given up by the Remonstrance: as I note in an other place.

But forasmuch as I speake by way of some distinction of a short Censure: the Reader is to observe That when this Lovain Theological Faculty had been wrought upon by the Authority and power of the then Internuncio at Bruxels Hier nimus de Vecchiis (Abbot commendatary of Mons Regalis in Italy) but at the instance and by the sollicitation and importunity of both the said Agent Father Brady, and of some others of the Irish Priests, as well secular as re∣gular, both Dominicans and Franciscans, residing in their several Irish Colled∣ges and Convents there) to take the said Remonstrance of 61. into their con∣sideration, and censure it so as to render it not only odious but sacrilegious, as farre as their Censure could, and thereby fright to a refixion (as they speake) those had already subscribed, and from any filture subscription all such as had not yet; they culld out of the said Remonstrance certain clauses, or single propositions therein formally or virtually implyed, and according the stile of Vniversities considered such apart, and censured them, adding their reasons or grounds (how unreasonable or groundless soever, I say nothing at present) why they had censured them. So that this Censure of thei••s which was indeed their first, original, and genuine Censure, in the whole con∣tained 7 or 8 sheets, or there abouts: as those have seen and read it with their own eyes and on the place, the said Agent and Father Brian Barny, told my self. That when Iohn Synnick, an Irish man of the County of Corke and both a Doctor of Divinity and famous and leading in that Vniversity of Lovain (forasmuch as he had been their Agent at Rome in Ʋrban the VIII. Pontificat, and for the booke or 5 propositions fathered on Iansenius, and because of his other printed works, his Goliathismus, and Saulus exrex, &c.) that when I say this Doctor Synnick (whether partly or only and wholly to recover himself at Rome by this means, I leave others to judge) had wrought and got this first original Censure perfected and signed by those few other Doctors of the The∣ological Faculty (for all that Lovain Faculty consists nor (as Sorbone and Na∣varre in Paris of a great) but of a very small number) and then carried it himself to the foresaid Internuntio at Bruxels: the Internuncio indeed recei∣ved it with much pleasure; but told him withal, it was not so much to his present purpose as a short one against the Remonstrance in general, without descending to any particular clause, part, or proposition, and without giving any reason at all. That the Doctor replyed such not to be the stile or custom of Vniversities; but the contrary: because they had no power of authority but only of reason to lead others. That nevertheless the Internuncio pre∣vailed to get an other short one published in the name of the said Faculty, and suppressed that first long Original; I mean suppressed it so, as that from that time until this day, the Subscribers, nor any for them could ever have a sight or as much as any extract of it: if there was ever any such extract, as I doubt there was not. For Father Anthony Gearnon having gone of purpose from London to that Vniversity, and earnestly entreated the said Doctor Synnick to let him have at least a sight of it, could have no other answer but this: Mi∣simus Romam: placuit Pontifici: reservat in sua tempora. It seems the Inter∣nuncio and Roman Divines apprehended the Reasons were to weak, and the Faculty would loose its credit if they were published. But I am sure they had done much better if they had never published either the one or the other: since they must lye for ever under the reproach of both until they can solidly vindicate themselves by answering that learned worke of Father Carons Re∣monstrantia Hibernorum written against them and some Tramontans upon this occasion.

It is therefore this second short Censure of Lovain (published or dispersed in written copye only, for it was never printed otherwise then in that worke of Father Carons) I give here; being the former long one lyes dormant at Rome, and dares not expose it self to publick view; albeit we had (from some that saw it in agitation) the prime material heads. But in a matter of such consequence I think not fit to build upon any relation but that I have in black and white. Which is the reason I give only this second short one, so, as I have said, dispersed in all corners of this Kingdom, under the name of the Lovaine Theological Faculties Censure, against our Remonstrance. The Latin copy, which is the language of that University, is this.

Formula professionis obedientiae, & fidelitatis, sub nomine Cleri Romano Ca∣tholici Nationis Hibernicae, Serenissimo Regi Magnae Britanniae, & Hiber∣niae, per quosdam de eodem Clero nuper oblata & subscripta.

Agnoscimus, & confitemur, &c. Judicium Facultatis Theologicae Lovaniensis super eadem Formula, po∣stulatum à membris quibusdam primariis Cleri Hiberniae, aliis{que} in dignitate constitutis.

QVamvis Serenissimo Magnae Britanniae, at{que} Hiberniae Regi á Catholicis di∣tionum suarum incolis fidelitas, & obedientia debeatur, quam Catholicis olim ipsius Praedecessoribus subditi sui itidem Catholici de jure debuerunt, ac juxta Christianae disciplinae praescriptum impendere consueverant, quamque caeteris Regi∣bus, ac Principibus similiter Catholicis sui respective Vassalli vel olim debuerunt, vel etiamnum debent: Quia tamen supradicta Formula complectitur ampli••ris obedientiae promissionem, quam possint Principes saeculares à subditis suis Catholicis exigere, aut subditi ipsis praestare; & non nulla in super continet sincerae professi ni Catholieae Religionis repugnantia; idcirco pro illicita prorsus ac detestabili haben∣da est.

Qua propter quicum{que} praefatam professionis Formulam nondum signarunt, cohi∣bere se à signatura obligantur sub Sacrilegii reatu; quicum{que} autem signa∣runt refigere signaturas obstringuntur sub consimili rearu; incauta namque defi∣nitio salubriter dissolvenda est: nec ea dissolutio reputanda est praevaricatio, sed te∣meritatis emendatio.

Ita post maturam deliberationem aliqueties iteratam censuimus, ac decidimus, Lovanii in plena Facultatis Congregatione sub juramento indicta, ac servata, die 29. Decembris, gloriosi Pentificis Thomae Cantuarensis Angliae quondam Primatis, martirio consecrata, Anno Dominicae Incarnationis. 1662.

Sequebatur. Decanus, & Facultas Theologica Academiae Lovaniensis. (& inferius) Demandato Dominorum meorum, Decani, & Sacrae Facultatis. (erat signatura.)

Georgius Lipsius sacrae Facultatis Theologicae Bedellus, & Notarias Juratus

But the English of it this.

The Judgment given by the Lovaine Theological Faculty, upon the Form of the Protestation, or profession of Obedience and Fidelity, presented to His Majesty of Great Brittain, as from, or in the behalf of the Roman Catholick Clergy of Ireland, and subscribed by some of the same Clergy.

The said Form beginning thus, We acknowledge and confess, &c. Whereupon the said Theological Faculty being desired by some primary members of the same Irish Clergy, and by others placed in Ec∣clesiastical Dignity, to deliver their sense, give it as followeth.

ALbeit the same fidelity and obedience be due unto the most Serene King of Brittain and Ireland from the Catholick Inhabitants of his Dominions, which to his Catholick Predecessors hath been an∣ciently due by right from their Catholick Subjects also, and which according to the rule of Christian Discipline they were accustomed to observe, and which unto all other Catholick Kings and Princes hath ei∣ther been formerly, or is at this present due from their respective Vassals; yet forasmuch as the foresaid Form involves a promise of a more ample obedience then Secular Princes can exact from their Ca∣tholick Subjects, or their Subjects make unto them; and that more∣over, it contains some things repugnant to the sincere profession of Catholick Religion, therefore it must be held for wholly unlawful and detestable. Which is the reason, That whosoever have not yet subscribed the foresaid Form, are, under the guilt of sacriledge, obliged to hold themselves from subscribing; and that such as have already signed, are bound, under the same guilt, to revoke their Sig∣natures: for an unwary definition must be wholsomely dissolved: nor must such a dissolution be accounted any prevarication, but an amend∣mendment of rashness. Thus have we, after mature and frequent deliberation, determined and decided at Lovaine, in a full Con∣gregation of the Faculty, summon'd under Oath, and held the 29th. of December, consecrated to the Martyrdome of the most glorious Bishop, Thomas of Canterbury, sometime Primate of England, in the year of our Lords Incarnation, 1662.

(Subscribed) By the Deane and Faculty of Louaine. (The place of the Seale)

And after:

George Lipsius Bedel, and sworn Notary to the said Theological Faculty.

XLVIII.

The first considerable effect this Lovaine Censure had, was a citatory letter from the most reverend Father the Commissary General of the Franciscan or∣der and Belgick Nation, James de Riddere, a Brabantine, sent from Brula in Ger∣many

to Father Caron, then at London. The said Commissary being Ordinary Su∣perior of all the Franciscan Order in the Belgick Nation, and consequently of the Irish Franciscans as belonging to the same Belgick Nation, according to the division and Statutes of that Order (which divide all the Provinces thereof where-ever in the world, into six Nations, three Tramontaries, & three Cis∣montaines: of which Cismontane the Belgick Nation is one, & comprehends not only at the several Provinces of lower Germany, & most of those of the higher, but also those of Denmarke, Scotland, England and Ireland; which four last Kingdoms, or the Convents of Franciscans therein before the change of Reli∣gion, though very numerous, made but four Provinces of that Order.) So that by vertue of his Ordinary Superiour-ship General over the Franciscans in that Belgick Nation, though otherwise subject himself to the Minister Gene∣ral of the whole Order throughout the world, the said Commissary Gene∣ral, Iames de Riddere, cited Father Caron, and those others mean'd by him as involved in the business, to appear at Rome, or Bruxels. Yet having not par∣ticularly expressed the business or cause, and for some other essential defects in that manner of citation, Father Caron return'd the answer you have here; after that citatory Letter, which I give first.

A Letter written by the Commissary General of St. Francis Or∣der, in the Belgick, German, and Brittish Nation, and over those of the same Order in Ireland and Denmark, Father Iames de Riddere, a Brabantine, to Father Redmond Caron.

Reverend Father,

YOurs of the 15th. of March, were sent me by Father Augustine Niffo, and I received them on the 17th. of April, at Brule, in the Province of Cullen, being imployed in visiting. And wondred such great difficulties and dangers, in obeying the commands of Supe∣riours, alledged by you, who have so easily ingaged in a business full of difficulties and dangers, not only to your selves in particular, but the whole Order. Therefore be it known to your Reverence, be it known to all that have engaged themselves in the same affair, That our most holy Lord, whom, by a special ••ye of our Rule, we ought to obey, doth justly expect an account from you, & satisfaction from your Superiors. Whence it is, that by iterated commands from the most Reverend Fa∣ther General, I admonish your Reverences, and summon you to ap∣pear either before him at Rome, or me at Bruxels, to yield a more ample account of that act of yours, to the end we may satisfie the See Apostolick, be careful of the honour of the Order, and of your own particular honour, safety and comfort, which, out of a fatherly affe∣ction, is desired by

Your reverend Paternities most addicted Brother and Servant, Fr. Iames de Riddere.

Superscribed,

To the very reverend Father, Father Redmond Caron of the Order of the Friars Minors, and Province of Ireland, Reader Iubilate of sacred Theology.

As soon as Father Caron received this Letter, he called together such of the Irish Franciscan Subscribers as he could meet with at London, and with their consent, and in all their names return'd in Latin this answer you have here translated.

Father Carons Reply, signed by him and the rest of the Sub∣scribers of his Order and Province, of Ireland, then at London.

Most Reverend Father,

YOurs of the 18th. of April, given at Brule, we have seen, whereby you summon us that have engaged in that affair to Rome or Bruxels. We have sent a Copy thereof into Ireland, that your summons may be known to the rest, without whose answer we can∣not in a Cause common to us all, give that full satisfaction we intend. However, such as are here wonder that in your letter of Summons the cause of summoning them is not otherwise specified then by these words, who have engaged themselves in that affair. What affair? Nay, how so great a multitude, being at least of the very Franciscans forty in number, who with many others of the Secular and Regular Clergy, and some Bishops too, have signed that Remonstrance or Pro∣testation (if it, or those of your Order that signed it be meaned by you) may be summoned to Rome or Bruxels, without any regard, or consideration of either the old age of some, the sickness of many, and the poverty all, wanting means to bear their charges for so long a journey? And again, how are they cited to Rome or Bruxels, who by another mandate of the Right Reverend Father General (which mandat is now here at London) are commanded home to Ireland? Whatever may be said in answer to these expostulations, your most reverend Paternity may be pleased to understand the Laws of Eng∣land are, and of three hundred years standing, that no Subject may under pain of death, without the Kings licence, depart the Kingdom, in obedience to, or compliance with any citation from forreign parts, not even from Rome. And that whoever doth otherwise summon, or (if subject to the King) serues any such summons, or even obeys them, is in this Kingdom declared guilty of High Treason. All which His sacred Majesty that now raigns, hath confirmed of late, and under the same penalties commanded us to observe. We do not believe that your most Reverend Paternity is of opinion, that we ought with so great a hazzard of our selves, transgress those Laws, and that com∣mand of our King, to whom our bodies are subject by divine right. Yet if it shall please your most Reverend Paternity to do in this case what the Canons of the Church do appoint in any such, that is, to appoint here, or from elsewhere send unto us a Commissary or Dele∣gate to take cognizance of our fact (whatever it be) where it was done, to hear, examine, determine of, and judge it, we shall be very glad, and most willingly submit to correction, if we have swerved in any thing from the doctrine of all Antiquity, Scripture, or Fathers. Or if peradventure you be not pleased with this submissive offer, the

Custos of our Province, who by command of the late Middle Chap∣ter in Ireland prepares for his journey to the General Chapter at Rome, will more fully inform the Right Reverend Father General and your Paternity. More we cannot say for your satisfaction until we hear from Ireland. We pray therefore that all proceedings in this matter be charitable, religious, deliberate, and mature, to the end scandals and greater dangers may be prevented: protesting, that we are most ready, according to the Canons of the Church, and light of reason, to give Cesar what is Cesars due, and to God what is due to Him: and that, both duties observed entirely, your Paternity shall find us the children of obedience, who are

Your most Reverend Paternitie's most humble Servants Redmond Caron, And the rest of the Subscribers now at London.

XLIX.

Immediatly after, and in pursuance of his answer, he sent a copy thereof, and of the citation, to Father Peter Walsh, the Procurator, then in Ireland. Whereof the Procurator thought fit to take so much notice, out of that re∣spect due for himself also to the said Commissary General, as to return both in his own name, and in that of all other Subscribers of his Order at home in Ireland, this long letter that follows, rendred into English out of the La∣tin copie.

To the most Reverend Father James de Riddere, Commissary General of St. Franci's Order in the Belgick, Brittish, and other annexed Pro∣vinces, at Mechlin.

Most Reverend Father,

I have some twenty dayes past, seen a copy of the letter which your Pater∣nity gave the 18th of April from Brula to Father Caron at London, and his answer, both sent hether by the same Father. And though it may not be cer∣tainly gathered either out of that your most Reverend Paternities letter, or any other argument, that I am my self any way concern'd therein; yet because that Reverend Fathers conjecture, in his foresaid answer, seems not impro∣bable to some, that your Paternity intended by that very letter to summon to Rome or Brussels the Fathers of our Order and Province of Ireland who late∣ly made to the King, in a certain form or publick Instrument, a profession of their Allegiance, and subscribed the same; and yet notwithstanding, forasmuch

as there are on the other side many considerations of no little force to per∣swade it can be no way likely that most prudent and most learned men (such as, without any question, it is fit we should esteem the Minister General of the whole Order of St. Francis throughout the world, and his most worthy General Commissary of the Northern Provinces) should attempt or intend any thing against their own Sons upon the onely account of having complyed with all divine and humane laws, by professing to their lawful King that fide∣lity in all temporals which they are otherwise bound unto, and professing it also at such a time when doubtless it was both necessary and profitable to and the very interest of the Roman Catholick Church, and no kind of disadvan∣tage but a very great and known advantage to the true Orthodox Faith: therefore, and not in my own name onely, or from my self alone, but in all theirs too and from all of our Institute living now at home in the Province (and these indeed are many, both grave and sound men, besides some Bishops, and a considerable number of others amongst the inferiour Clergie, not onely secular but regular also of other Orders, learned, conscientious, and very zealous too for the Roman Faith and Papal Dignity) who have subscribed that late Protestation of our Allegiance in temporals (the rumour of which profession and subscription peradventure came to your hearing:) I very ear∣nestly beseech your most Reverend Paternity may be pleased to signify out of hand, whether you meaned them perhaps in that citatory letter sent Father Caron? or whether you mean'd not rather some others, accused peradventure of some kind of real faults, defects, or (which God forbid) of crimes? And if the former, that is the Subscribers, whether such onely of them as yet are in England or live at London? or even all those too residing at home dispersed in all parts of Ireland? (of all whose names or subscriptions the most Excel∣lent Vice-R••y the Duke of Ormond hath at present the Original Catalogue) as of such who have since my last arrival here subscribed the foresaid Instru∣ment or profession of Allegiance. Which about a year and a half since was first presented to His Majesty at London, read and favourably accepted by him; al∣beit then signed but by a very few hands, in respect of the numbers that since have subscribed here.) And your most your most Reverend Paternity may be further pleased to certifie these living so at home (as I have said now) dis∣persed throughout all Provinces and parts of this Kingdom, and certifie them by me, or whom els you please, what you think of the Reverend Father Carons exceptions, given in his answer, to the summons contained in that your Epistle (supposing I mean, that he hath so much as by guess understood aright your meaning) whether they ought to be reputed probable, lawful, or Canoni∣cal?

To me indeed, reading in Gratianus the Pontifical Canons or Decrees of the Provincial Councels of Carthage and Tarragona, it appears manifestly out of cap. Placuit. cap. Si Episcopus. cap. Si quis Episcoporum. d. 18. That not∣withstanding any summons (even I say the most legal and formal) the parties summoned are excused when either by age or sickness, or the Kings command to the contrary, or any other corporal necessity of moment, they are hindered from appearing. I speak nothing at present of other Constitutions, either of even the very Pontiffs of Rome, or of the greatest Councels too of the Ca∣tholick Church: those Canons (to witt) established by the authority of Synods (not Provincial onely, but) National of the whole Affrican Church, and Oecumenical of the whole earth, and by that also of the consent and accep∣tation or submission of all the faithful of both Churches, Greek and Latin, even then (I mean) when That was reputed Orthodox, and by that likewise of the concurrence of the chiefest and greatest Fathers, amongst whom St. Augustine, that light of Doctors, was one. Which Canons prescribe the judg∣ment or tryal of causes to be held where no danger can be of wanting wit∣nesses of either side; or only where the witnesses may conveniently appear. And therefore that judicial causes, or the parties accused, be not drawen or sum∣mond

to any place where they may not come within a very few days: not summond at all to appear without the bounds of the Province where they live: nor forced likewise beyond the Seas; whether commonly neither the accusers themselves nor the accused, much less the witnesses either will or can goe. For (say the Fathers of that Synod of Affrick, which is called Vniver∣sal, in their Synodical epistle to Pope Celestine, speaking of the Fathers of for∣mer times, specially of those who made the Canons of the great and first Councel of Nice) it was most prudently and justly determined by them that all judicial causes should have their decision where they had their rise. And verely whoever is of an other judgment, and will rather fix on a judicatory beyond the Seas, will scarce, or not even scarce, be able to answer that Affrican Sy∣nod, where those Fathers reprove the injustice of Celestine's demand of such transmarine judgments, in the case of Apiarius, requiring it to be transmitted out of Affrick to Rome, and reprove I say that injustice in these very words (which you may read in the now mentiond Synodical Epistle, a few lines after the former words) Or how can that kind of transmarine judgment be rational or legal, whereunto the persons of necessary witnesses cannot be brought, because either of their sex, or infirmities of old age, or of many other intervening impedi∣ments? But that neither within the limits of the same Province, nor even where the crossing of the Sea is unnecessary, the parties accused be drawn too farre from their dwelling places, and so molested too much by the Judges, on pretence of a judicatory, Innocent the Third has enacted, even in a Coun∣cel Oecomenical of the whole earth, cap. N••nnulli Extra de Rescriptis. But all this, and very many other passages to this purpose, I pass over at present, as I have said before.

I pass over likewise that exception which the Canons allow against the un∣safety of the place, to which the summons are: the unsafety of it, I say, if the nature of the controversy and present circumstances be considered. Especially if we call to mind what several Religious men, and of several Orders too, that, to clear themselves from calumnies in a Controversy not altogether unlike this, and being not even summond in that or any other cause whatsoe∣ver, nor convicted of any kind of crime (the Judges themselves confessing both) did venture hence to goe and appear at Rome or Madrit) have suffered in our own days, in our own late memory, and suffered too without so much as any kind of even the very external formality of law or canons observed towards them: and suffered so too most plainly against all the laws of God and nature. And if we call moreover to mind those inhumane plots contri∣ved in forraign Countries against the very lives of some even of our secular Nobility, that having been formerly engaged with us in the same controversy, were after in the ruine forced to shift abroad: plots layd by some of those very men that now again endeavour to embroyle all anew, commixe heaven and earth, put all things out of frame the second time into the most horrid confusion they can, of purpose partly to asperse and be revenged of us.

In fine I pass over the greatest exception of all, The quarrel against us, and the controversy in all parts, to be such as concerns the temporal rights of all supream, lawful Magistrates or Governours, Kings and States, Kingdoms and Common-wealths that acknowledge no dependency in temporals but from God alone, whether they be Christians or Pagans, Orthodox or Heterodox believers. And consequently such whereof the Minister general or Com∣missary National of St. Francis's Order is so farre wide from being judge (I mean as to any effect of being able, and I speake onely here of ability in point of conscience) to oblige their Inferiours to determine in any part against the right of Princes, or silence the truth of the Gospel of Christ in this matter, chiefly where the declaration of such truth is needful amongst Sectaries that are partly for want of such declaration made to them by Catholicks, known to continue their separation, walke in darkness, and have a most strange aver∣sion from the Church of Rome) that neither is the great and most blessed

Pontiff himself alone reputed a competent (much less infallible) Judge in this controversy, not I say reputed so even by most celebrious and most excellent Catholick Divines, though earnest, renowned Champions for the Roman Faith in all its tenets and latitude. Which manifestly, abundantly appears not onely out of the late Decree of the Theological Faculty of Paris, of the 8. of May, this present year 1663. and many other decisions not of that Fa∣culty of Paris alone, but of all other Vniversities of the Kingdom of France and of the Gallicane Church too in general, since the horrid murthers of Henry the Third, and Fourth, & even of National Councels of the Bishops of the same Church, against the several attempts of Boniface the Eight, and Juli∣us the Second; but also out of the carriadge, books, actions of the Divines and Prelats of the Venetian Republick and Church against Paul the Fift, in the year 1606. out of the sense and sentence of the Archbishops, Bishops, and Abbots of the Catholick Church of England, in the Raigns of Edward the Third, and Richard the Second, above 300. years since; Gregory the Ele∣venth, and Martin the Fift strugling to the contrary, but to no purpose, as you may read even in Polydore Virgil, in his life of Edward the Third: out of the German, Italian and other Churches truly Orthodox of several Nations of Europe, their Prelats and Clergie, who adhered to the Roman Emperours where the temporal rights were concernd, against Gregory the Seventh, and some other great Bishops of the Roman Sea: lastly, and yet more particular∣ly our of our own William Occam (in the cause of Lewis of Bauier) and out of I••••nnes Parisiensis, Gerson, Major, Almain, Cardinal Cusan, &c. most fa∣mous writers and Doctors too, both Catholick and Classick: nay (if any credit be given to Aventinus in his Seventh book of his Boiarian Annals, where he relates the Decree of the foresaid Emperour, Lewis of Bauier:) out of that General and celebrated Chapter of the whole very Order of St. Francis held at Perusia in Italy, or out I mean of the famous Appeal they all, that is their General, Provincials, and Doctors of Divinity made therein from Iohn the two and twentieth Pope of that name, to a future Oecumenical Council of Christendom (although I do not deny but the most immediate occasion of their appearing so (as is related in that History) against the Pope and appealing from him, was his condemning the Franciscans for teaching That neither Christ nor his Apostles had any temporal right or property in earthly goods; but onely simplicem usum facti. Whom therefore, in shew, but really for an other cause (that is for their siding against him, with the Emperour, and maintaining by their pens and Sermons the Emperours temporal rights) he tearmed foolish animals, pernicious foxes, that by a seeming strictness of religion, and hypocrisy, abused the world, and seduced the people: having first set forth those Extravagants, which you may read in the Canon law, against the Order it self.

All which, I say, and very much more of this kind, I pass over at present. Nor (least I exceed the measure of an epistle) do I at this time alledge ei∣ther those other arguments derived from the intrinsick nature, or (as they speak commonly) from the very bowels of the cause it self, or those which may be brought from, or out of Canonical Scriptures, or the monuments of holy Fathers, who in a continual succession for nine hundred years compleat, nay till the eleventh age of Christianity, delivered to following ages the true ••••••se of the Gospel, without contradiction from any in this matter. Nor do I alledge those others, which indeed are very many, out of the clear light of nature it self; the known principles or articles of Catholick Truths, mani∣festly revealed in the Gospel, being once supposed. For I have resolved to abstain in this letter from treating of the principal controversie.

What I say now is, That such of our Institution as have subscribed the foresaid Remonstrance are ready, according to their rule and regular vowes, according to the Statutes also of our Order, nay, and (if your most reverend Paternity please) not only according to the substantial course prescribed in

the Canons of the Roman Church for judicial proceedings, but even accor∣ding to the nicest puntillioes, formalities, and rigour too of them, to obey, that is, to answer and give account, or the reason or cause of our engage∣ment, or other proceedings, even in this very principal matter of our said Protestation; and that, not only to the most blessed Father Alexander the Seventh, chief Pastor of the Universal Church, but also to the Minister Gene∣ral of the Friars Minors, and his Commissary too of the Belgick Nation, your most reverend Paternity; provided only that you proceed not against us by violence, subreption, pre-occupation, or any other injurious manner, but in a regular lawful way, according to the Canons.

What I say also, is, That neither your most reverend Paternity, nor the Minister General may, according to those Canons of the Roman Church, in any manner summon so great a multitude of old, sickly, or indigent persons, from a Countrey so farr distant as Ireland, to undertake so long, so dange∣rous a journey, for so many hundred leagues, by sea and land, to appear at Rome or Bruxels: and this I say, whether the King countermand them or not. But with more confidence, I say it, where, or when, it is manifest, That not only the King forbids them positively, but the very law of the Land ex∣presly: a law in force in England from the very dayes of St. Anselme, when we find it enacted in the raign of William Rufus (a Roman Catholick King of England) about five hundred years since. Which law soon after enacted also in this Kingdom of Ireland, so many other after-laws of the following Catholick Princes, Edward the third, & Richard the Second, made likewise in, & for both Kingdoms (which laws go by name of Provision, or Praemuniri, as your Pater∣nity may likewise read in the same Italian of Vrbinum, Polidore Virgil, in his life of Edward the Third) have so extended, guarded, fenced with so many additions of rigour and penalties, that justly it is feared, as Polydore sayes, like that of death: whereas, besides manifold other punishments, one is, that the transgressor lose all his Goods, if he have any, and withal suffer all the evils of perpetual imprisonment. That your Paternity cannot, according to the Canons, give any such kind of summons or citations, I averr. Whereas the Canons are in the very letter of them clearly against you: and that be∣sides the Church is, according to the ordinary maxime, a Pious Mother: and consequently, that, even according to the general assertion of modern Di∣vines and Canonists, Her commands oblige none to undergo such grievous inconveniences, or any manifest hazzard of them, nor oblige even Regulars, notwithstanding any vows whatsoever made by them; if peradventure, you except not the Jesuits, Discalceat Carmelits, or such (if any such be, either these or any others) as vowed by a fourth kind of solemn vow, or some such special one, to be ready in all kind of contingencies whatsoever, even that of life or death, to obey. And whereas moreover, that passage of the Apostle is made use of by all Divines (for the deduction of many consequents, inferred thence, as out of a maxime doubtless of absolute certainty both in Faith & Reason) There is no power to destruction, but to edification: and that that other passage likewise of another Apostle, is no less clear and certain, We must obey God rather then men. And finally, that we cannot but see manifestly the positive, absolute command of God unto us for obeying in all tempo∣rals the King, next to God alone, or, which is the same thing, more then any other mortal, when he commands nothing against the law of God.

What I say moreover, and notwithstanding that I now immediatly said, is, That whensoever it shall appear legally, or certainly and authentickly, that in your Paternities foresaid letter to Father Caron, the Subscribers were intend∣ed, that is, admonished or summoned, or indeed shall be hereafter in any other way, or by any other paper: and that neither your Paternity, nor Ge∣neral Minister will be satisfied without some one appear for them, and in their name, on your side of the Sea: I will my self petition earnestly, and use all my best endeavours, that it may be lawful, for at least my self, & as well in my

own behalf as in that of all the rest of the Subscribers, to appear there, & give the best satisfaction I can. Though verily, what the reverend Father Caron, in his answer to your Paternity desired, seems without any question farr more equitable: to wit, that you would be pleased rather to send a Commissary to the Province it self, that is, to Ireland, where, according to the Canons, all debates and causes, or their merits, may be far better inquired into, and more uprightly judged. Which his either demand or counsel seems by so much the more reasonable by how much it cannot be unknown to your Pa∣ternity, that the third year of our Provincial is now very near; wherein your self ought, according to the Statutes of our Institution, to visit the Province, and view in person the several faces of those under your charge, and not by Delegates; at least not by such Delegates, who against all laws, and not so much out of custom, as corruption, and even to conceal from you the true state of things, are desired; and further, desired only for the con∣tinuing still a petty tyranny of some few persons; and yet further desired with the shame and loss of the Order; and who are, and have been (notwithstan∣ding the great evil of such a precedent, or the worse consequents of so evil an example) granted by you and your Predecessors now for fifty years, at least. And hence, Good Father, so many tears. But if your Paternity be resolved, or have any mind to send a fit Commissary, that is, a man worthy of that imployment, and a man too qualified according to our laws, one not of the same Province, but of some of the next adjoyning; or if, which would be yet more expedient, you intend in person yourself to visit now at last the Irish vineyard; as you must resolve on either: to what end a citation of so great a number, and of such persons, to appear out of Ireland on your side the Sea? Truly before even such of them as are young, strong, and healthy (if any such be amongst the Subscribers) can make themselves ready for the voy∣age, before they can fit themselves with necessaries for so long a journey, be∣fore they can get money to bear their charges, and Passes to save them harm∣less, the time will be wherein, according to our constitutions, the Commis∣sary Visitor must go about the Province at home in Circuit. And if so, where∣fore a journey so chargeable, tedious, and no less dangerous, specially of so great a multitude, and of persons too not convicted, nor confessed, nay, of persons never once heard to speak or write for themselves, never yet as much as once any way questioned, either by messenger or by letter, to this very day?

What I say further, is, That it would very well become your Paternity and the Minister General to consider seriously with your selves, what your selves would do, if your own condition, or case in the Dominions of Spain, Germa∣ny, Fran••e, Poland, Venice, or other States and Principalities of Italy, were like ours here? If banishment, proscription, treason, death it self, the worst of evils, and the vilest kind too of death were established by law where you live, against the maintainers of the great Pontiffs pretended power, either direct or indirect, for deposing your own King, and bereaving him of Crown and life together? If you had now your selves groan'd for some ages under the yoke of severest laws against your Religion, led the life of slaves in servi∣tude and bondage? if your Altars had been destroyed, your Churches pollu∣ted, your Holies contaminated, your Goods confiscated, and persons out-law∣ed. And that now at last, after so great and so long sufferings, you saw a beam of light discovering some comfort, some fair hopes of seeing in your own dayes, under a pious King, a cessation of your evils, end of your perse∣cutions, restitution of your people, liberty of religion intended for you, and nothing else expected from you by a good, lawful, and merciful Prince, your own natural Prince, I mean, but only that you would, under your hands-writing, renounce the late, bloody, horrid assertion of a Sermarine or Bellar∣mine, Comitolus or a Suarezius, a Gretzer, Becan, Lessius, or any other such, one or more Neotericks, whether Divines, or Canonists, or both: Assertions pub∣lickly

and frequently condemned heretofore, even by the most famous Uni∣versities, Prelates, Clergie, and people of the greatest Catholick Nations of Europe: and besides, that you would only profess (against assertions so strange∣ly enormous, pernicious, and scandalous, of such the foresaid few Divines, or Canonists) to be unalterably, undispensably faithful in temporals to your own Monarch, notwithstanding any attempts, or machinations whatsoever of any person, or power on earth, even that of the great Pontiff, to bereave your King of his temporal rights, Scepter, Crown, or Life. I say it would be∣come your Paternitie, and Minister General of the Order, to consider with your selves coolely, what you would think lawful to do in that case of your own: what to determine as Christian Divines, and what to declare, promise, and subscribe as faithful Subjects to your King. Likewise to consider with your selves what then you would think of Caron, Walsh, or any others of your own Order that subscribed our above mentioned Form, if, I mean, they in the now supposed case had the same power of, or superiority over you, which you indeed have over them, and they used (I say not, abused) it to estrange, to alienate you, and all other fellow Subjects from being so faithful to your King in his temporal Government: &, to this end proceeded against, troubled, molested you with illegal summons, and breach of Canons, and did so too with the manifest prejudice of Catholick Religion, and with the yet more special infamy, hatred, horrour of the Seraphick Institution amongst those are not of our Church▪ Certainly, prudent, wise, learned men, men so zea∣lous for Religion, Faith, and the service of God, would alledge, That there is no power given for destruction, but for edification: &, that we must rather obey God then any men whatsoever commanding against God, Faith, and Re∣ligion, against the publick good, or peace of a Catholick Nation, so strangely of late, and so many years together afflicted; then men men too (I say) proceed∣ing so, either out of a certain blind obedience that sees not God, or out of zeal that is not according to the knowledge of God, or lastly, and which is worst of all, out of a sinful awe they stand in of other men, who rule by power only, domineering amongst the Clergie against the Prince of the Clergies pre∣cepts of Faith, and examples of Life.

And what I finally say, is, That, however your most reverend Paternities would carry your selves in the supposed case, it concerns you in that wherein you are to be very careful and cautious, that (as the reverend Father Caron well adviseth) in this matter or controversie (if it be this indeed you intend∣ed in your Letter to the said Father) your Paternities proceed religiously, maturely, and charitably: or, which is the same thing, that without a just cause you proceed not to citations, censures, or any sentences whatsoever. For when the sentence is either notoriously null, by reason of an intollerable errour, or through want of matter, that is, of a lawful cause or sin; and this very sin to have a clear contumacy along with it: or when the sentence is otherwise unjust, by reason the substantial or essential form of judicial pro∣cedure, such as the Canons and reason prescribe, is not observed: and much more when both that and this are manifest: what fruit, what effect can you hope thereof? Certainly it appears out of the Canons and Doctors, that a sentence of this nature obliges not. Which you may see in cap. Venerabilibus. Parag. potest quo{que} de sent. Excom. in 6. & cap. per tuas. Parag. nos igitur. eod. tit. & in T••let. l. i. c. 10. and Gandidus. disquis. 22. & 24. dub. 3. de Censur. where he alledges S••tus d. 22. q. 1. a. 2. and Suarez. de Censur. disp. 6. sec. 7, n. 52. averring moreover, that when a censure is in this manner invalid, or null in both Courts, that is, the internal of conscience, and external of the Church, its unnecessary to have an absolution, as much as for caution (as they speak.) With whom Henriques too, l. 13. de Excommunicat. cap. 15. & Sayrus l. 1. de censur. cap. 16. go along. And, as to the generality of the sentence, all other Divines and Canonists. Nay, it appears out of that most learned, and most holy Chancellor of the School of Paris, Gerson, de Excom. conside∣ratione

5t••. tom. 2. that a farr greater and more sinful contempt of the keyes of the Church, is to be imputed to the Prelate or Ecclesiastical Judge, so (as is now said) abusing his power, then to the party censured, if there be any com∣parison at all in the abuse. Nay, it further appears out of this most famous Divine, that it may, and is sometimes both meritorious in it self, and honou∣rable to the Church (for these are the very words of Gerson) that such a Pre∣late in such proceedings be resisted to his face (provided it be done with that moderation which an unblameable defence requires) as Paul resisted Peter. For, as Origen sayes, on Joshua Hom. 22. where no sin is, we cannot eject any out of the Church, least, peradventure, endeavouring to root out the cockle, we root up also the very wheat. Which eradication of the wheat, St. Augustine in his 3d. book, 2 chap. against Parmenian. & post. Collator. c. 20. so desired the Prelates of the Church to beware, that he teaches there ex∣presly, the very cockle must be often let lye still; as often, to wit, as he that otherwise deserves to be so eradicated, hath a great multitude that go along with him in his delinquency. And teaches consequently, that to attempt the separation of such a person, or in this case, when the Prelates cannot without the loss or destruction of the wheat also, would be most grievous sacriledge▪ Whence it is, that many Catholick Writers, and those too most religious and learned, have thought, according to this rule of St. Augustine, that upon such account Gregory the VIII. Boniface the VII. Innocent the IV. Iulius the II. and many other great Pontiffs, who govern'd the See of Rome, after, and be∣twixt their several Popedomes, have been guilty of most horrid sacriledge, as such, that by their excommunications of Kings and Princes, their Inter∣dicts of Kingdoms and Republicks, have done nothing else but rend the Church into fatal Schismes. The blame and sin whereof those writers also think, ought to be charged upon those very Popes abusing so their power by unjust excommunications, and other censures; not on the Princes, defending justly themselves and their people. But, as for my self, and for all other true Catholick and knowing Patriots of Ireland, and not of Ireland only, but England too, it must seem to us, without doubt, very certain, that the great∣est evils of both Nations, and greatest miseries under which the professors of the Catholick Faith amongst them have so long groaned to this present, had first their very fatal origin from the sentences, censures and depositions pro∣nounced by Clement the VII. Pius the V. Sixtus the V. and some other great Pontiffs of the Roman See, & now again at last their very prodigious encrease from the more then temerarious Interdict and Excommunication of Iohan∣nes Baptista Rinuccini, late Nuncius Apostolick extraordinary from Innocent the X. in our our own dayes to the Catholicks of Ireland.

And these passages I give here so many, and so at large on this subject of caution, tha•• your most Reverend Paternity may the better perswade your self throughly that Father Carons either advice to you or desire from you hath been very prudent. For when your Paternity shall consider that to con∣demn a Protestation, Declaration, or promise of Allegiance in temporal affairs to the King, must be an intollerable errour: because expresly repugnant to the Gospel of Christ Matt. 22. and to the clear precepts also of the most blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, Rom. 13. and 1. of Peter 2.3. and 4. chap. when you must consequently judge there can be no sin at all to be proceeded against in such a necessary subscription: or if there should, according to the sentence of some few, seem to be any kind of transgression therein; yet in the judgment of others, even the greatest Doctors of the Catholick Church, there can be none, but rather a degree of merit, as the necessary concomitant of a lauda∣ble vertuous action (so farre is that Protestation from implying, in the judg∣ment of moderate Divines, any kind, or even smack of heresy or schysme;) when, however your Paternity think of this I said last, you must undoubtedly acknowledg the cause of those subscribers of your Order to be such as has a multitude involved therein, nor of those onely of the Seraphical Order, nor of

others too of the secular and regular Clergie alone, but of the lay people al∣so, of the Gentry and Nobility, the most honourable and most remarkable of the Kingdom, and those likewise in very great numbers, who questionless will assert that Doctrine, or the Sanctity, equity, and justice of that Protestation, or of that our Form (to which they also by a particular Instrument of their own have subscribed) and will assert it with their blood and life, as their pre∣decessors have before them done these 500. years, under the Kings of England; when lastly, whatever be the crime or cause which is either objected to or presumed of those the Subscribers of your Order (if indeed your Paterni∣ties quarrel be to them at all, or to that their subscription, or to that Form of theirs:) when I say your Paternity shall understand or consider that they are not as yet contumacious (and I hope they will never be) against the Church or against their Prelats, being they have not been ever yet called unto or summond to appear (for ought appears to them) not once, twice, thrice, nor peremptorily or by any one peremptory citation sufficing for three, nay not as much as once barely admonish'd in any wise; and when you therefore consider that a sentence pronounced against them, the case so standing with them, must be extreamly unjust, even for want of due procedure, according to the sub∣stantial or essential form of law and reason, albeit no intollerable errour, as to matter of right or fact, could be alleaged; when I say your most Reverend Paternity shall consider seriously all these particulars, I doubt not you will entertain a very serious thought also of the prudence and reasonableness of that of Father Carons either advice or desire, That you take good heed to carry your self with deliberation, matureness, and charity in this debate which our emulous Antagonists have raised against us: least otherwise more scandals and evils, and such as will draw long repentance after them, do follow, then may be hindered, taken away, or ended at any time by your Paternity, or by the Minister General and his perswaders, or indeed by any other.

And so most Reverend Father, I conclude this Epistle; which the shortness objected by your most Reverend Paternity to Father Carons former letters, which I have not yet seen, hath made thus prolix. For I am not without some apprehension that you will take the like exceptions to his later also, which I have seen. As for other passages which concern a yet more perfect account to be given by the Subscribers, specially by Father Caron, me, and the rest of our Institution, to the great Pontiff (to whom, next to God, accor∣ding to the Canons of the Catholick Church, and the rule moreover of our Seraphical Father St. Francis, which God willing we shall endeavour alwayes to observe, we profess all reverence and even absolute obedience in spiritual affairs due from us:) or as to passages yet wanting, if there be any such, that relate to the satisfaction expected from us by (as your Paternity sayes) and to be given to our Superiours, that they may give it likewise on our behalf to the most holy Father and Lord Presiding over the Vniversal Church: or as to the motives & scope, or the necessity or utility of any such Protestation so made: or as to the sense too of the words, if they seem to others in any part or clause of that our Form to be of dubious or ambiguous meaning (although to us they seem not such) and the reasons moreover and Theological grounds which evict all and every the several acknowledgments, assertions, and promi∣ses of the said Form to be consonant to the Orthodox Faith and even to that very Justice which Natural reason it self prescribes: the Subscribers will give at large to your Paternity and Minister General, or even to the most Blessed Pope himself, Alexander the VII. if your Paternity do but once declare plainly that your intention was in those your often mentiond citatory letters to Father Caron, to summon or admonish those of your Order that subscri∣bed the said Form: and that you signifie moreover your mind to be unalte∣red yet, either by Father Carons answer, or by this present letter. But what∣ever you intended first, or determine hereafter in this particular, I shall not cease to wish the descent of that holy Spirit on you, that very spirit of God

which teacheth all truth, and inspireth all piety and religion that is right: begging on bended knee the blessing of my most Reverend Father, and kissing his hands, Dublin the last before the Calends of Jul. MDCLXIII.

Your most Reverend Paternitie's Most humble Son and Servant Fr. Peter Walsh.

L.

These answers being at least so probable, as wholly grounded on the very Canons, besides the natural equity of the allegations, and being withal so positive, wrought so much on the said most reverend Commissary General, that he not only abstained from any further prosecution by himself against the Subscribers, but wholly remitted the matter from himself to the Minister General of the whole Order, Michael Angelus Sambuca. From whom not∣withstanding, as neither from his Successor, the other Minister General of the whole Order, who now is the most Reverend Ildephonsus Salizanes a Spani∣ard, there came no return, nothing at all against the said Subscribers, or any of them, nor even to this day. Nor could I understand of as much as their dislike of the Protestation, albeit they knew very well of the Censure of Lo∣vaine, and of the letters of Cardinal Barbarin, and the Internuncius at Brux∣els. Yet, I confess, I have lately understood of private Instructions given by the present Minister General Ildephonsus, to his Commissary delegated hither last year to bold the Provincial Chapter of the Franciscans, That he should by no means concurr to the election of Father Caron, or Father Walsh to the Provincial-ship. But for as much as the said Delegate, when here, did own no such Instructions, but expresly denied he had any such, or any at all against either of those two, or against the Remonstrants in general, or Re∣monstrance in it self: and because he did both see and approve the Remon∣strants generally instituted Local Superiours by the new Provincial Superi∣our: and expresly refused to confirm some of those were elected, against whom one of the grand exceptions was, that they would not sign: & moreover, that himself in full Chapter publickly, albeit not resolving to stay in the Kingdom, but return back to Spain to give the said Ildephonsus an account of his proceed∣ings, offered nevertheless for their sakes, & for their good, to sign & subscribe his own to the Remonstrance, if the Capitulars would all do the like: therefore I will not charge the Minister General with any such over-sight. And, that the Reader may not take my bare word for what I have said of the Belgick Com∣missary Generals ceasing to prosecute the above citation, & of his remitting the controversie to the Minister General of the whole Order: I give here the said Commissaries own return of the 6th. of April, 1664. from Lovaine (to a a second letter of the Procurators) wherein his resolution and said remissi∣on is notified: as likewise why he did not before say any thing to the long letter of the Procurator.

Admodum Venerando Patri,

P. Fratri Petro Valesio Ordinis Fratrum Minorum Provinciae nostrae Hiber∣niae, Sacrae Theologiae lectori, &c.

Adm. Venerande Pater.

V••••••as Idibus Februarii datas à paucis diebus recepi. Non recordor me ullam commissionem P. Br••dino vobiscum agendi dedisse. Praecedentes quarum fa∣ciunt

mentionem) non mihi visae sunt responsum exigere, cum potius responso∣riae essent, si non declinatoriae á mandatis Superiorum, quorum non est cum subditis disputare. Hinc me satisfecisse puto illas Reverendissimo Patri Generali, meo & vestro Superiori, transmittend••, cujus mandatis ut Commissarius ejus & subditus me ac∣comoda, sine ulla necessitudine vel dependentia (quam pudendam scribitis) à Secre∣tario ejus Heslenano. Ne{que} ut Successor Marchantii mortalem ullum vereor, absit ut prae Deo. Sed ••pto ut mecum omnes Deo quae Dei sunt, & ea quae Caesaris sunt, Caesari reddant, puro ab omni terrena labe oculo sanctam Dei voluntatem inqui∣rant & impleant, mansurus

Reverentiae Vestrae Addictissimus Frater & servus, Fr. Jacobus de Riddere, Commissarius Generalis.

Lovanii 6. Aprilis. 1664.

LI.

Yet I will not omit to tell, how notwithstanding his Remission so noti∣fied here, and his ceasing both then, and ever since, to prosecute his above citation, he thought fit next September following to get an Act pass in a National Congregation of all the Provincials subject to him (held at Ant∣werp) where he formally reserves a power to the General Superiours to pro∣ceed against the Subscribers in due time, or when it shal be convenient: as with∣al both he and others of that Congregation declare by the same Act the Sub∣scribers to be in so much no genuine Sons or Brethren, but schismatical against the holy See. Albeit neither this Act nor any as much as inckling of it (for they thought fit to keep it very secret) came to the Subscribers hearing until Ian. 64. according to the English computation (or 65. according to the Roman) when Father Gearnon (sent over to the said Commissary) by meer chance, and great favour and secrecy, got the copy of it from others; altogether un∣known to the Commissary himself. For he would be sorry any of the Subscri∣bers should hear on't till he found his own time. The copy is word by word thus.

INfra scripti in Congregatione nostra Nationali habita die 18. Septembris, anno 1663. anditis magno animorum nostrorum maerere, quibusdam attentatis Schij∣maticis aliquorum Patrum Hibernorum adversus sanctae sedis Apostolicae authorita∣tem & dignitatem, signanter certa Protestationis sive Iuramenti Formula Regi Mag∣nae Britanniae ab risdem nuper praesentata: Hujusce Scripti tenore, ex Regulae no∣strae praescripto, protestamur & profitemur nos esse humillimos & obedientissimos ejusdem sanctae Sedis filios & subditos, paratos{que} pro illius & Superiorum nostrorum authoritate animas penere. Adee{que} nos hujusmodi Schismatica attentata detestari, nec eorum authores vel fautores pro genuinis fratribus agnoscere. Quia tamen ex authentico testimonio Reverendorum Patrum Provincialis, & Exprovincialis Angliae, verbis & scriptis nobis exhibito, constat ulteriores processus contra hujusmodi re∣fractarios non solummodo in nullum b••num cessuros, sed etiam in grave praejudi••i∣um, persecutionem et perniciem Catholicorum in Anglia et Hibernia: hinc cense∣mus h••c tempore supersedendum ulteriori executioni, salva semper Superiorum au∣thoritate, quorum mandatis et ordinationibus cum omni humilitate et animorum promptitudine nos submittimus. Datum Antuerpiae, &c. Subsignatum erat ab omnibus. Qu••d test••r Frater Iac••bus de Riddere Commissarius Generalis German•• Belgious.

Extractum Lovanii, 4. Ianuarii, 1665. per me Fratrem B••naventuram Docharty.

Now to be more particularly and fully informed of the truth of this In∣strument or copy, as soon as I received it, I accoasted the then Provincial of the Franciscans in England, Father N. L. Croix, whom I know to have been a member of that Congregation. And he told all was true; but withal that himself refused to sign it.

Behold here another considerable effect of that Lovaine Censure. For albeit endeavours have been used to get the University of Salamanca in Spain, to conncurr in the like, or some other as bad censure, against the Re∣monstrance, and great expectations thereof, as appears out of the Dominican Provincial, Father John Harts letter, yet nothing could be done there, nor in any other University in the world, against it, only that of Lovaine excepted. To which, because some Anti-Remonstrants look so much on this Universi∣ty Censure to bear down the scales, the Subscribers oppose Sorbon, and Na∣varre, and all the eight Universities of France, and all those too in the State of Venice, besides the practice and doctrine of the whole Christian world out of the temporal Patrimony of the Pope, a small district of Italy: to say no∣thing of so vast a cloud of other yet more convincing testimonies and autho∣rities of Scriptures, Fathers, Doctrine and Practice of the whole primitive Church, and that also of all succeeding ages of the Christian Church, until Gregory the VII. who lived not until the eleventh age of Christianity; nor to say any thing too, of so many irrefragable arguments of reason, both Natural and Theological, which may be seen partly in my More Ample Account, and for the rest very learnedly at large in Father Carons Remonstrantiá Hiberno∣rum.

LII.

But the last and worst effect of all was, a kind of specious pretence for those more unlearned and more ignorant of the Irish Clergy in all places, both at home in Ireland, and abroad in other Countreys, and not for such only, but for the more knowing of the Dissenters or Opposers, to heighten their animosi∣ties, and strengthen their opposition, and even to except amongst the vul∣gar thence forward against the Remonstrance, not as unexpedient only, or un∣necessary, but as sacrilegious, schismatical and heretical, being it was in effect declared such by the Lovaine Divines.

Which is the reason I think it not amiss to give here what I know, or what I have heard from those very eye-witnesses of the chief grounds those Lovaine Doctors built upon to issue a Censure of so much temerity, falsity and folly. Father Brian Barry of St. Francis's Order, who was then at Lovaine, a learned understanding Gentleman, and Father Iohn Brady, the chief Agent for, and Sollicitour of this Censure, were they that gave me this account. For I have said before, the first and long censure of that University, wherein the propositions apart, and censure of each, and grounds of every censure are distinctly set, never came to publick view, nor could be seen by any of the Subscribers to this day. Therefore what I give here of that matter must be on the credit of those two Gentlemen. And 'tis like none will doubt at least the Agents relation that procured it, especially when they know he is a man that wants neither understanding nor memory, as I assure them he is.

First ground, That the Remonstrance bereaves the Pope and See Aposto∣lick of that humane right, or that even temporal, civil, and politick Supre∣macy, or Soveraignty which he hath, or pretends partly by donation, partly by submission, and partly too by prescription to the Kingdoms of England and Ireland. 2. That if not formally, at least virtually, and consequentially it bereaves the Pope of even a meer spiritual binding and loosing power of the Subscribers: as for example, in case he should make warr on the King of England of set and only meer purpose to recover the Church-lands of Ire∣land, & to restore them to the right proprietors, and apply them to those holy

uses they were at first design'd unto by the donors: and in such case should on pain of excommunication command all Irish Catholicks not to fight against his army landed in this Kingdom; but on the contrary to joyn heart and hand with it against the King; and moreover, to hold themselves really, truly, and conscientiously absolved by him from all Allegiance to his Majesty. 3. That it tyes Ghostly Fathers to reveal secrets heard in Sacramental Con∣fession, as when the penitents accuse themselves, or otherwise declare in the confessional seate, either directly or indirectly, any treason, plot, or conspira∣cy against the King. 4. That it subjects Clergy-men against ecclesiastical immunity, to the cognizance and punishment of the civil Magistrate.

And these were all the grounds which the said Agent, Father Brady told my self, upon his arrival at Dublin from Flanders, after procuring the said censure, which the Lovaine Divines had given of that Remonstrance, as be∣ing therefore sacrilegious, and against the sincerity of the Catholick Faith. Weak ones indeed, and partly most false, and partly too most unsignificant to prove either the one or the other.

LIII.

For in relation to the first ground, as the Procuratour then reason'd with the said Agent, Neither can that humane right or title of the Pope or See of Rome to England or Ireland be proved so, even as to its first Origine, much less as to the continuance of it in after ages, that any Divine may, even accord∣ing to the common rules or maximes of School Divinity, censure him that is in actual possession bona fide & his predecessors before him, for so many hundred years, to be either guilty of sacriledge or of doing any thing against the sincerity of Catholick Faith for defending his said possession and title thereof against all opposers: Nor consequently censure the Subscribers of a declaration which asserts that right unto him, to be guilty of either. The onely Original pretence of the Bishop or See Apostolick to Ireland is that re∣lation which Sir James Ware hath, of an Irish King, long before the English conquest (whether the story be true or false) to have gone to Rome out of devotion, and layd down or offered up his Crown at St. Peters shrine. Which if it had given a real title to the Pope or that See, it must follow that the Bishop and See of Winchester hath as much, great, just, certain and lawful to the Kingdoms of England, Denmarke, and all those others by inheritance or conquest belonging sometimes to Canutus. For this devout King did no less there, after he had checked the vain flattery of his Courtiers, when, upon a day sitting on the shore, and the tyde coming in, and they calling him Lord of Lands and Seas, he commanding the floud not to advance, and being not obeyed by the Waves, but wett to some purpose, presently and directly went to the Cathedral of Winchester, and there offered up to God his Crown, lay∣ing it on the high altar, with resolution never more to put it on his head, but acknowledg him the only Soveraign King of Sea and Land who commanded that little Wave to wet him. And the only Original pretence of the Popes or See Apostolique's human right to England, was the donation or submission of King Iohn to Innocent the thirds Legat at Dover, Cardinal Pandulphus. But who is so ignorant in Divinity, as to pretend a right acquired by such a donation or submission, were it absolutely certain; (as yet even Polidore Vir∣gil himself seems to think it not to be, forasmuch as he writes of it upon report onely.) Both law and reason tell us that a King cannot without consent of His Kingdom alien at the title thereof. And Histories tell us that King Iohn, who was an Usurper too (for a long time at least) made that donation or sub∣mission or whatever you call it, directly against the Kingdom: so farre he was from having the consent of his Peers, people, or Parliament. That Henry the 3d. & the Kingdom of England, soon after the troubles were appeased, expres∣ly protested against it, & protested so even by their express Embassadour to

that purpose, the Archbishop of Canterbury, & even before & in the presence of the General Councel of Lyons.* 31.1 That so many laws made by all the three estates in Parliament under Edward the third and Richard the second, which declare England to be an Empire, and the King thereof to acknowledg no other on Earth above him but God alone did protest against it. And the prescriptions of five entire ages confirm without all controule these protestations. So that the Lovain Divines could not on coole and sober reflection but Judge this first ground either as to the first Original or continuance of it, to be all composed of sand, either as to England or Ireland, or both. For the same arguments are equally of force against that pretended gift of the Irish Monarch: being that if we declined the likeness of it in all points, or as to his intention of a reverential true acknowledgment of Gods power only, or of a tye of him∣self and his Crown to be alwayes militant for the faith and confession of St. Peter, or of a donary only of his bare Crown (as to the materials of it) not of the politick rights and power signified thereby, to the Church of that ho∣ly Apostle; or if we granted, as we do not by any means, That this Irish Monarch intended absolutely as much as in him, to give up all the temporal Soveraignty of Ireland to that holy See; yet whereas it appears not by any kind of Allegation, History or Scroll, that he was commission'd by the Pro∣vincial Kings, or by the States of the Kingdom to do so, such intention of his, or such oblation, donation, or subjection, as proceeding thence, or made by him, amounts to a meer nothing. For no man gives that, so as thereby to transferre a right, which he is not empower'd by the laws to give. As for the Bull or Bulls granted by Adrian the IV. to Henry the second for either the Lordship or Kingship, for both were granted, or at least are pretended to have been granted, as may be seen in those copies extant in Baronius, they are to no purpose at all in this matter. Because if those we read in that great Annalist be true and not subreptitious or counter fit, it is manifest out of the very tenour of them, they are wholly grounded upon errour: because the only ground alleadg'd in them for the Popes right to dispose of Ireland, is That al Ilands on which the Sun of Justice, that is, Christian Religion did shine belonged to the See of Peter. But whence this title came, to the Ilands a lone more then to the continent, nothing at all is pretended in those Bulls nor by any for them, other then a meer forged imposture of donation by Constantine the great, who yet is known to have never had the least footing in Ireland.* 31.2 For to pretend as a ground of them or of such donation or the right to make it, Bellarmines indirect power in the Pope over the temporals of all Kings in ordine ad spiritualia; besides that the restriction in the said Bulls to the Ilands alone, and no extension to the Continent, ruines this pretence or allegation, it cannot be made use of by the Lovain Divines to justifie this first ground of their censure, which is only meer humane right: and that of Bel∣larmine is Divine, as derived or pretended to be derived from Christ himself immediately. But I confess the Lovain Divines were wary enough to decline this, least they should bring on themselves a more dangerous censure from their own King, and raise the power and just indignation of all Kings, States and people even of their own communion to punish their temerity.

LIV.

Nor can their next ground any whit more justifie their Censure. The power of binding and loosing which the Catholick Churches of the Roman communion throughout the world acknowledge in the Pope or Church, is that only which binds sinners in their sins, or in just Ecclesiastical and meerly spiritual censures, by denying them absolution from either, clave non errante: and that besides which enables them to lay binding commands or make bind∣ing laws Ecclesiastical and purely spiritual, not against the laws of God and Canons of the Vniversal Church, but conformable to both, for the suppression

of vice and furtherance of virtue. And is that only which looseth sinners by absolving them in due circumstances from both sins and censures: and further by dispensing with them sine prejudicio tertii in vowes or Oathes made to God alone, or in other Obligations arising from the Canons of the Church only, where a third person is not concern'd in point of justice, or such dis∣pensation may be given without manifest injury to a third, and besides where it is not repugnant to the law of God positive or natural. And all this bind∣ing and loosing power in the Pope, even in the whole Execution of it, accor∣ding to the Canons of the Vniversal Church, and as farre as these Canons al∣low it, as it is and will be religiously acknowledged and observed still by the Subscribers in all occasions: so it is left wholly untouch'd, unspoken of, un∣medled with, but supposed still by the Remonstrance, as a most Sacred Right not to be controverted, much less denyed the Pope by any Catholick, nor even to other Bishops of the Church, for the portion belonging to them by the self same Canons. But what hath this to do with the Lovain pretence of a power in the Pope to bind people by the Popes own peculiar laws, Canons, precepts or censures, by Bulls or otherwise to do that which according to plain Scriptures, practise of the primitive Church and Churches following for XI. entire ages, and according to the interpretation or sense delivered by Holy Fathers of those very Scriptures, and according to the very first and clearest reflections also of natural reason, must be vitious, wicked and even most enormously wicked transgressions of those laws of God wherein neither Pope nor Vniversal Church have any power to dispense? what to do with a pretended power in any, to absolve from Subjection, or command the Rebellion of Subjects against Soveraign Princes, who are accountable to none for their temporals but to God? Or what to do with binding or loosing to the prejudice and manifest injury not of one third person alone, but of so many millions of third persons, as there are people in a Kingdom or State? This loosing is not of sin, or of the penalties of sin, but of virtue, of Christian duties, and divine injunctions. Nor is such binding, a binding to Holy righteousness, but to Horrible depra∣vedness. And therefore both such binding and such loosing must be from no true power Divine or Humane, from no Gospel of Jesus Christ or Canons of the Catholick Church, nor from those Holy Keyes of knowledge or jurisdi∣ction given St. Peter to open Heaven to penitents, or shut it to impenitents, nor from any Keyes at all but very false and errant Keyes; if not right or true Keyes in this sense, and to this purpose only, that they set open the Gates of Hell first to receive all such unhappy Soules as make use of them, and then to lock them in for ever.

Yet, now that the Pope is, and while he is or shall be continued a Sove∣raign temporal Prince, in some part of Italy (for the time hath been for many ages of Christianity, even since Christian Religion was by law esta∣blished, when the Pope had no such not only Soveraign or supream, but not even any inferiour subordinate temporal Princely power; and may be so again, for ought any man knows) the Subscribers will freely grant the Lovain Di∣vines, That upon just grounds, when truely such are, or shall be, the Pope may in the capacity of a temporal Prince, but not of a Christian Bishop, and may, I say (without any breach of the law of God) declare and make Warr against the King of England, always provided that he observe in all particu∣lars what the law of God, Nations, and Nature require from him in the de∣claration or prosecution thereof. And may do so with as much right as any other Soveraign Prince meerly temporal can; but with no more certainly. And further that the grounds of warr may possibly or in some extraordinary case be such on the Popes side, as not only in the unerrable judgement of God, but in the opinion of all men that shall know the grounds of both sides truely and sincerely stated, the Warr may be just on the Popes side and unjust on the Kings. The Subscribers do freely grant the Lovain Divines all this: and all the advantages they can derive hence. But what then? must it follow that

the subscribers have therefore sacrilegiously or against the sincerity of Catho∣lick Religion declared in general or promised in their Remonstrance that they are ready to stand by the King and loose their lives in defence of his Person, Rights or Crown, or of his Kingdom, State and people against all invaders whatsoever Papal or Princely, spiritual or temporal &c. forraign or domestick? Or must this follow albeit we grant also the said promise or De∣claration (of standing so by the King) to extend it self to or comprehend that very extraordinary case or contingency of our certain evident knowledg of the injustice of the Warr on the Kings side, and clear Justice on the Popes? Certainly neither the one nor other follows. For albeit the case or suppositi∣on be rather metaphysically then morally possible, that the generality of Sub∣jects of either of the Princes or States in Warr together may evidently know or certainly assure themselves of the cleer Justice of the affailants fide, at least so as to have no such kind of probability of any Justice on the defendants part, and forasmuch as he is a Defendant; yet admitting the case were morally possible, who knows not that natural reason tells us, and Divines and Lawyers teach, that however the Prince both rashly and unjustly brings a Warr on him∣self and people, yet both he and they are bound to hazard their lives, each for others mutual defence, that is, for the defence of the Crown, Kingdom, State and Republick, and for the lives, liberties, goods and fortunes of all that compose it, though not for defence of any rashness or injustice? So that although it be granted that both Prince and people are to quit all kind of un∣just pretences; yet their own natural defence, or that of their goods, lives and liberties, as it comes not under that notion, so it is unseparable from their taking armes in their own mutual defence in a meere defensive Warr, or even that which happens after to be offensive before a good or Just peace can be ob∣tained: and is so I mean unseparable notwithstanding any injustice whatsoever done at first by Prince or people that brought the Warr upon themselves. Be it therefore so that the Pope in such temporal capacity would make Warr on the King of England: and be it granted for the present, what otherwise in it self is very doubtful at least, if not manifestly false, That for the only unjust laws, or only unjust execution of such, or only other misgovernment or op∣pressions whatsoever of one King or Prince of his own proper natural un∣doubted Subjects, without any injury done thereby to forraigners, or any o∣ther forraign Kings Subjects, or Prince or State, such forraign Monarch or Common-wealth may justly declare and make Warr against him; as for exam∣ple the French or Spanish King, and by the same reason the Pope also in his said temporal capacity, against the King of England: and be it clear and evident likewise that the 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 Ar∣my'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 dis∣inable him to do otherwise, and having put all things into such order, to with∣draw 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 in∣tervene 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 re∣velation; 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 uncon∣troverted passage of Holy Scripture, and allowed uncontroverted sense there∣of, 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 him∣self, 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 go∣vernment 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 what∣soever, 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 say∣ing 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 Catho∣lick 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 Remon∣strance 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 in∣different, and where the law of God, or the law of the Land doth not com∣mand 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 in∣flict 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 however apprehended by us to be so. Now for the Lovaine Divines to say, that to assert or acknowledge either of these two kinds of obedience, or both, as due by the law of God to the su∣pream temporal Prince, is as much as to deny the Popes, or other Bishops or Priests either binding or loosing power (which yet the Catholick Church ne∣ver yet believed to be other then a purely spiritual power, and to have no other then purely spiritual effects, and a purely spiritual execution, or means of execution, and no corporal, temporal or civil coercion, or power of such coercion annexed, if not that only which is added at some times and some places, by the free pleasure of the supream, civil Magistrate, and by his proper Power and laws, and is taken away again at his pleasure:) I say, that for the Lovaine Divines to ground their Censure of sacriledge, or unsincerity of Catholick Faith upon so unconsequent a supposition, as if either such active or passive obedience, or both together acknowledged by the Remonstrance, did inferr the denyal of a binding or loosing power of the Church; is to ground a very false and most injurious and erroneous Position upon a no less false and hereti∣cal supposition: and is further to conclude them either bad Logicians, or bad Theologians, if not both.

For to object here that out of such active and passive obedience of Ca∣tholick Subjects, notwithstanding the Popes excommunication to the contrary, and out of their taking arms to defend their protestant King and his protestant Subjects, as well as themselves in their lives and fortunes, and out of his great power by Land and by Sea, against the supposed invasion of a Catholick Army, and from Catholick Princes, the Pope himself being head of the Ligue, must follow that, if our King and his army prevail, the Protestant Religion will be more and more established by him, and perhaps too propagated into Catholick Countryes, if he should make his Assailants a return by carrying the Warr back to their own doors, or sending a formida∣ble victorious Fleet of English Protestants to Civita Vecchia: and consequently an apparant danger of destroying both Pope and Church and Religion, at least amongst millions of people: All which being evils of the first magnitude, that whence they follow must be such: I say, that to object such conditional contingencies of extraordinary evils or possibilities, to hinder an ordinary virtuous duty, and of such evils too as have no connexion at all by nature or by design with such duty, becomes very ill such Masters in Israel as the Do∣ctors of Lovain. For as it is an approved maxime in Divinity, That evil is not to be done for any good that may thence arise, though such good were foreseen to follow most certainly, and without any kind of doubt: so is it a no less approved maxime, That duties enjoyned by the laws of God and man are not to be omitted, and the quite contrary acted, for fear of evils which by an extraordinary chance the malice or ignorance or other passion soever of other unjust men may thence derive, and the anger of a just God may permit to be thence derived.

But if the Lovaine Doctors will deny the above active and passive obe∣dience of Catholicks to be vertuous duties in the case, and give no other reason then such as we have seen, as indeed they do not for ought I saw or know, and am very positive they cannot: and if upon so weak a ground they have fram'd a Censure so erroneous and injurious both, as they have most certainly, then I have no more to say to this ground which is their second, but that they have carryed themselves more prudentially in suppres∣sing it so soon then conscientiously in alleadging it at any time.

LV.

As for that alledged in the third place, or as a third ground of the Cen∣sure, I must confess I have not admiration enough to consider that men (not only Doctors of Lovaine, but Divines of a much inferiour degree, whether of Lovaine or any other place) esteemed either wise or honest, should appear so weak, or so malicious, or both, as to alledge it for a ground of any Cen∣sure at all; and much more of one so severe. Good God! Because the Re∣monstrance declares the Subscribers ready to discover any treason, plot or conspi∣racy against his Majesties person, &c. that shall come to their hearing, and yet not as much as promises that they will discover, &c. but only their being ready, the Doctors of Lovaine must censure it as both sacrilegious, and containing somewhat against the sincerity of Catholick Faith. On precence forsooth that in relation to Confessors and Priests that hear confessions, and subscrib'd, or shall subscribe it, it in some cases binds them to reveal secret sins heard only in the confessional seat, and reveal such, I mean, without any licence from the penitent that confesseth such in that so holy, secret, and sacramental Con∣sistory. How much better had it become Doctors of Divinity, and of so grave and judicious a Faculty as that of Lovaine should be to consider,

LVI.

1. That all kind of Oathes of Allegiance or Fidelity, in what form so∣ever, and to whom soever, have alwayes either formally, or virtually, and, for the most part, even formally, or in express words, engaged the Swearer (as indeed all such Oathes should) to reveal all treasons, plots, conspiracies, against the life, estate or dignity, of him to whom, or for whom such Oathes were made? And yet such expression was never interpreted in any age or Countrey, by any Divines, until of late by those byassed, ill grounded Wri∣ters against the English Oath of Allegiance in King James's Statute, to ex∣tend by any rational consequence to any kind of the least imaginable, either direct or indirect breach of that which is now commonly called the Seal of Sa∣cramental Confession. Or, which in effect is the same thing, to extend to the revelation of the sin of such an individual penitent (without his own leave) as of such a penitent individually, or determinatly, or of him even as of one inderminatly of such or such a Society, or body, or corporation whatsoever, nay, or as of him too as of one of such a Countrey, if (I mean by such revelati∣on, how indeterminat soever as to the individual person, yet sufficiently de∣terminat as to the Society or Countrey) any prejudice might arise to any such Corporation or Nation,* 31.3 though not to the individual person of the peni∣tent. For never yet amongst Christians, where sacramental auricular con∣fession is, or was in use, hath the knowledge had by the Confessor in that secret penitential Court been esteemed to fall under the general expression, or notion of knowledge, or of our knowledge, as to any use to be made thereof out of the confessional Seat, but what the penitent is expresly con∣senting unto. Nor hath any Priest or Bishop, whereof thousands upon occa∣sion have in former ages taken such Oathes, or Oathes containing such gene∣ral clauses, have ever before been thought, or as much as once lightly su∣spected by any to have thought to bind himself by such Oath to make any use

of the knowledge had only in the confessional seat, or only from the sacra∣mental auricular confession of a penitent. And the reason is; because this knowledge comes to the Priest, not as he is a man, but as he is in the place of God at such time. So that until God himself, whose Delegate only the Priest is in that place, reveal those secrets brought thither, as they reflect on that penitent, for in so much only they are secrets, and in so much only brought thither in such a way, and further, until God himself commission the Priest to reveal them as brought by such a penitent, he is to be for ever silent, and repute his knowledge of them to be not his, but Gods. And therefore such knowledge not to be comprehended under the general notion of our knowledge. And moreover, that he cannot intend, nor can be justly thought to intend, by such a general expression (as neither is it lawful for him by any special to intend) to oblige himself to a revelation of such secrets, or such as he knows only by such a special extraordinary (and even, in some sense, di∣vine manner of) knowledge. Now what either Divine or Canonist will so much betray his own ignorance, or his own malice, as to charge any person with obliging himself beyond his intention, even by any general words what∣soever, which may have a good and just sense, and even to the purpose too without such intention?

Supersunt expendenda ultima verba hujus paragraphi, in quibus petitur juramentum spe∣cialis promissionis revelandi omnem proditionem his verbis. Omnem{que} operam impendam revelare, et Majestati Suae, Haeredibus et Successoribus suis, manifestum facere omnes proditiones, et proditorias conspirationes, quae contra illum, aut aliquos illorum ad notitiam, vel auditum meum pervenerint. Circa hanc ergo promissionem adverto, si ver∣ba ejus in simplici, ac proprio sensu sumantur honestam esse, nihil{que} continere, quod vel fideli∣tatem civilem excedat, vel sanae doctrinae repugnet. Proditio enim gravissimum crimen contra Principem, vel rempublicam laesae Majestatis significat, quod vulgari sermone Trayci∣on vocatur. Hujusmodi ergo proditiones, et proditoriae conspirationes, etiam seclusa speciali promissione tenentur subditi revelare Regibus suis legitimis, tum ex lege charitatis, et pieta∣tis, ac observantiae erga illos, et rempublicam; tum etiam ex titulo subjectionis, et fidelitatis, quam ex ipsa lege naturae ratione illius subjectionis suo Principi debent. Ideo{que} hanc obligatio∣nem promissione, et juramento firmare, et angere, honestum, et sanctum est. Oportet autem, ut verba illa, quae ad notitiam vel auditum meum pervenerint, sano modo intelligantur de notitia mere humana, et quae per Sacramentalem confessionem comparata non sit: nam confessionis s••gillum in nullo casu revelare licet, ut mox dicam. Et quidem si verba hujus promissionis simpliciter (ut dixi) acciperentur, de se illam declarationem, et limitationem includunt, quia (inter Christianos et Catholicos presertim) illa verba juxta communem eo∣rum sensum generaliter, seu indefinitè prolata non alium sensum referunt, nec majorem obli∣gationem inducunt. Franciscus Suarez. Defens. Fidei Cathol. l. 6. cap. 3. de form Juram Fidel. n. 7.

2. That although such foolish malicious objections have been made three∣score years since, by several inconsiderate writers of the Roman Communion, against the Oath of Allegiance of King Iames, they have been likewise through∣ly, satisfactorily, & even more then abundantly as often over and over again answer'd in all points, and as to all kind of scruples, by the several Catholick sticklers for, and defenders of the lawfulness and Catholickness of that very Oath: as may be seen particularly in the several no less learned and accurat then modest Works of Widdrington, or of those two excellent professors of Divinity, and of St. Benedicts Order, Father Preston, and Father Green. Whereof it were a great shame to these late Doctors of Lovaine to be igno∣rant, when they debated the same controversie again: especially being it is well enough known that so famous a Professor and Writer of Divinity as Lessi∣us was in their University, and Colledge of the Jesuits there, had formerly and so deeply engaged himself against that very Oath by writing, and been no less shamefully baffled in every particular all along by Widdrington.

3. That it is no breach of the seal of even Sacramental Confession to re∣veal reasons, plots, or conspiracies hatch't against the King or State, nay,

nor any whatsoever, though undertaken only against the life, estate, fortunes, or just rights of any, even the most private person, or to reveal such to the parties concern'd to prevent them. Provided the penitent be not directly or indirectly discovered without his own express consent. And therefore that such revelation may, and ought to be made by the Subscribers, and even by virtue of their subscription, as by the law of charity and justice to all people, they are bound thereunto without any subscription at all, if they judge they may thereby hinder any evil to be done others: and more particularly yet, by virtue of their natural bond of subjection, and faith to their King and Countrey, they are bound to the publick, wherein every individual person is, or ought to be concern'd by the laws of God and man.

Quod vero ad jus pertinet, seu ad doctrinam asserentem, rem in confessione auditam posse ad ingens detrimentum vitandum, non revalata persona, indicari, dicimus, illam quidem absolutè veram esse, et a Jesuitis nunquam negatam fuisse: nam Bellarminus in sua Apolo∣gia illam ingenue admittit ca. 13. Et ego in tom. 4. de Poenit. disp. 33. Secretum confessio∣nis, et praeceptum ejus ex professo declarans in sect. 3. num. 8. exposui, secretum illud intel∣ligendum esse eum relatione ad personam peccatoris, et ideo propter utilitatem posse Confessorem loqui de re ipsa tacendo personam, quod in sect. 7. iterum confirmavi, et declaravi. Ne{que} Rex p••terit authorem Societatis ostendere, qui contrariam dectrinam docuerit. Idem Francis∣cus Suarez eod. lib. et cap. ut supra. num. xi.

4. That such discovery made by a Priest, is no discovery of the sin com∣mitted, and as such told in sacramental confession; but of that which is to be committed, and as such told unsacramentally: or of that which is not brought to the Confessor to be absolved from as an evil done heretofore by a now penitent; but of that which is vainly told as an evil to be committed hereafter by a yet impenitent wicked sinner: sacramental absolution, or the power of a Priest to absolve, extending only, as indeed sacramental confession it self, to sins already committed in thought, word or deed, and as such de∣clared to be absolved from. For 1. in the case, some person kneels, as to con∣fess his own sins penitently, and with purpose to quit them for evermore, and then by way of accusation of himself tells the Confessor he hath had a hand by acting, or consenting, or by knowing only, and concealing such a wicked plot, treason or conspiracy: or he tells him this by way of consultation only, to know whether he hath sinned or not by so demeaning himself in such a matter, but still nevertheless consequently with purpose to be led to repen∣tance, and receive pennance, and make satisfaction, or do all his own duty hereafter, as the Confessor shall instruct and injoyn him. And this penitent withal tells this plot only depends of himself alone, or of himself with others, who have a share in it already, and can execute it whether he will or no, if he do not reveal it. Or 2. in the case another comes in shew only to sacramental confession, layes himself down at the Confessors feet (and it matters not with what design, whether that of consulting about the manner of engageing others, or whatever else you please) tells him of such a plot, but withal shews mani∣festly to the Priest that he comes without any purpose to quit or reveal it, though he should be enjoyn'd by him to reveal it, and however the sinfulness and horrour of it be represented to him by his instructions. Or thirdly, in the case, another, or the same person comes to a Confessor, or to any Priest, and without putting himself in posture to confess his sins or sign of any such pur∣pose, tells him he hath somewhat of concern to both, or either, or some others, to communicate to him, so he would promise to receive it under the seal of confession. The Priest promises: and this person discloses the treason. In this last case it is too too manifest that if the Priest reveal the treasons, there is no discovery, nor can be of any sin told in sacramental confession, nor conse∣quently a breach of any sacramental secrecy or seal, not even in case the matter discovered were no treason at all, nor other wickedness whatsoever. Nay, nor although it were such even of its own nature as ought to be kept secret, and which could not be to the prejudice of any to be kept so. For as the seal of

sacramental confession depends not of the will of men, but of the nature of the Sacrament, and the law of reason, and Canons of the Church, which so strictly forbid Confessors to render sacramental confession odious by reveal∣ing the sins and the sinner, or rather (at any time, or upon any occasion ever) the sinner himself without his own consent: so it is to no purpose to look for such discovery or such breach where there is no such confession. And for the same reason it is no less manifest, that if in the second case the Confessor re∣veal the treason, there is neither such discovery, nor such breach. For, and forasmuch as relates to, or depends of this other seeming penitent (if indeed at all as much as seeming such) what he doth is so farr from a sacramental confession, that it is most certainly the most execrable profanation of sacred rites, can be: as for no other end, which a man not perfectly frantick could fix upon, then to involve the Confessor himself, and by him others in the same horrid enterprizes. The first case therefore only remains to be considered. But who sees not, that scarce ever there can possibly be any such need in this case, to engage the Confessor to reveal any matter at all, if he discharge his own duty towards the penitent? For in this true penitents case, whether by way of consultation, or by that of confession only, he reveal such treason to him: the confessor is bound to tell his said penitent that his sins cannot be forgiven by the Keys of the Church, nor the Sacrament of pennance be intire as to him, before he actually and by himself or some other discover the treason to those concern'd to know it: being it is a Catholick verity, this Sacrament consists of three essential or integral parts of the penitents side, contrition, confession, and satisfaction, as the duties necessarily antecedent, concomitant and subsequent to the absolution given by the Priest: and being the penitent cannot possibly be a true penitent, that is, any way fitted for or capable of ab∣solution from the Priest unless he be really and truly resolved to observe all the laws of God, and all those too of man, which are not against those of God: and therefore not capable of such absolution unless he hath either actu∣ally and already done his duty to the Prince or State, or even to any other particular person (if and when the conspiracy is only against such particular person) by revealing to such as he ought by the laws of charity and justice what he should reveal and concerns them so neerly and highly to be revealed to them; or unless he hath at least such a present real, true, positive, & effectual preparation or disposition of mind to reveal it immediately before there can be any danger: and being this actual past discharge of his duty, or this present effectual preparation of his mind must be known with as much certainty as may be to the Confessor. And therefore too, if the Confessor be discreet or wise & conscientious, and if the danger be very great, and if he see any strong rational grounds, which he can scarce ever see in this our first case, to suspect a new tentation to come on the penitent (if once absolved) that may draw him back from his present resolution to reveal such intended wickedness: the same Confessor is bound to tell the Penitent, that he ought and must give him leave to discover what he knows from him, I mean what is of absolute neces∣sity to be discovered for preventing the evil. And the Penitent, as he is questionless bound to give him this leave, so he will give it actually and im∣mediately and even without any peradventure, if we do not alter the case. So that neither in this first case there can be any danger of the Confessors re∣vealing any thing at all heard in Sacramental confession, and revealing it I mean against the Seal of that Sacramental confession, whether sin already com∣mitted by the Penitent himself and subjected by him to the Keys of the Church to be both absolved from, and kept secret, or whether any thing els not so committed, or not so subjected by him to be absolved from or so kept secret.

5. That no good and gracious, no solid or conscientious Catholick Di∣vine in the world can say or justifie a meer fiction of a Sacramental Seal of Secrecy where there is no Seal, where none can be at all, I mean about so

wicked a consultation, or so impertinent and frantick a relation, though amongst or together with some other acts (not of a holy Sacramental but) of a truly horrid, not Sacramental confession, as in the second case or any can be supposed, where the seeming penitent so indeed sacrilegiously abuses the confessional Seat and all the rites of Sacramental confession, and mocks at the Sacrament it self, and God himself who instituted the Sacrament, not for any such end certainly as to conceal such enormous evils to come; not evils perpetrated already and as such confess'd penitently, but to be hereafter per∣petrated without any remorse at all of pennance or conscience.

And that our Lovain Divines may see, if they please, this saying or this doctrine of mine, is so far from being mine alone that it hath for Patrons their own most approved classick Authors treating of this matter in hand of the Seal of con∣fession. Innocent W. in cap. omnis utrius{que} sexus. Abbas, ibid. Alens. part. 4. q. 78. m. 2. artic. 2 Sylvest. verb. confessio 3. q. 5. who all and each of them, and the first no less himself then a Pope, taught this doctrine constantly in the above places, without retractation in any other, That a discovery of a future sin, made in confession, doth not fall under the Seal of confession. Because in such a case the Priest is not to the penitent a Minister of God, or of that Sacrament of confession, but a meer natural Friend, Councellor or Adviser: and there∣fore is not bound to conceal the evil to be committed, but rather bound to discover so much as may and will suffice to hinder it. Or because such detecti∣on of future crimes belongs not to that penitential Divine Court of this Sa∣crament of confession. And may further see, if they please, what Dominions Soto hath, Relect. de Ratione regendi Secreti. m. 8. q. 4. conclus. 2. to confirm this very Doctrine, where he treats of, or brings for example some wicked persons, who had conspired against the Pope: and affirms that Secrets, or sins of this nature must not be concealed but discovered presently.

Out of all which Catholick & Classick writers & their reasons, our Lovain Do∣ctors may conclude the rashness of their own Censure, as to this point we now handle. Because they may see in them there is no true sacramental seal of secrecy in our case; but a meer fiction of such: nor other kind of Seal, but that which is meerly natural and ordinary of keeping secret what is told us under secrecy, and of keeping such and for that part only which ought to be kept so. And further see in them that this natural or ordinary Seal of secrecy, ought not to seal any persons mouth when the matter is of a design for the future of such horrid consequence as is for example the unjust taking away an other mans life, or the unjust ruining of him in all his fortune, or that either which is more pretious to him then his goods or fortunes: or (whatever be said of such designs against particulars or private persons) ought not to do so when the matter is of such both incomparably and universally more fatal and more deplorable consequence, as must be a treasonable conspiracy against the King or State, if not prevented timely.

Nay and that this, which I now say, is most certain in it self with∣out any dependence of the extrinsick authority of such Catholick and Classick writers; our Lovain Divines must allow unquestionably, if they can produce no positive law of God, nor Canon of the Church, nor evident or convincing dictat of natural reason in the case, or against such revelation (of such a treasonable conspiracy) to be made by the Con∣fessor, albeit the seeming penitent did not, or even would not give him leave at all to reveal it. For if no such argument can be alleadged by them against it, who sees not but the Confessor not only may with a safe conscience, but ought if he will not have a most unsafe and most wicked conscience, dis∣cover what he knows to be necessary for preventing a mischief so fatal, horrible and general? the evil which will be prevented by discovery of such a se∣cret, is infinitely greater then any can be prevented by keeping it still a secret, or by not discovering it. And of two evils the least is to be chosen, that is to be suffered to follow, especially when the least is the natural or consequential

punishment of mens own malicious designs. And therefore, that by the very law of nature, the pretended obligation of keeping secrecy in that case yields and gives place to a higher obligation, or to that which cannot in any right reason be controverted at all or questiond to be higher. But so it is now, that I am abso∣lutely certain the Lovain Divines cannot alleadge any such argument, or produce any one positive law of God, or any one Canon of the Church, or any one evi∣dent or convincing dictate of natural reason, in the case, or against such revela∣tion by the Confessor; and am so absolutely certain hereof that I dare defie them or any for them to instance as much as one of all.

What they can alleadg, but yet to very smale purpose, or rather to none at all, is, 1. That Papal Canon attributed to the 4th. Councel of Lateran, (though only framed at first by the Pope himself, who was Innocent the III. however debated after by the Fathers; but, for any thing known certainly, not made a conciliary act or canon of that Council. As may be said also of all the rest of those other 60. Canons, or Sexaginta Capitula attributed like∣wise to that fourth Lateran Councel. I say that what they can alleadg is first that Canon) inserted in the Decretals by Gregory the IX. extra. de Paenit. et Re∣mis. in cap. Omnis utriusque sexus. Where the Pope, or that Council, or both (if you please) admonish the confessor and under most grievous penalties, enjoyn him not to reveal by word or sign the sinner, or the sin as relating to him and confess'd by him privately or auricularly for absolution. The words of the Canon are these. Caveat autem omnina, ne verbo vel signo, vel alio quo∣vis m••do prodat aliquatenus peccatorem. Sed si prudentiorum consilio indigverii, illud abs{que} ulla expressione personae cautè requirat. Quoniam qui peccatum in paeni∣tentiali judicio sibi detectum praesumpserit revelare, non solum a sacerdotali officio dep••nendum decernimus, verum etiam ad agendam perpetuam penitentiam in arctum monasterium detrudendum. Let him (the Confessor) in any wise beware that neither by word, or sign, or any other manner soever, he discover in any sort the sinner. But if he want counsel of the more prudent, let him warily seek it without any expressi∣on of the (penitents) person. For we decree that whoever shall presume to reveal a son discovered to him in penitential judgment, shall not only be deposed from the sa∣caerdotal office, but also thrust into a strict monastery to do perpetual pennance. But nothing is concluded hence or may be against our case; but on the contrary much for it, as (I mean) to a lawful discovery of the sin or treason, if such it be, without discovering the sin, or him that in his confession tells that in∣tended treason. For it licences the Confessors to consult in some cases with others, telling them of the sins, without revealing the sinner. But for the rest it reflects not at all on the case of the Confessors discovery of an evil intended or plotted by others that never confess'd unto him such evil or such plot, albeit the confessor knew it by or in the Sacramental confession of one of the very plotters, or of some other that had no further hand in it then that of ba••e knowledg. Much less doth this Canon any way touch the case of a only seeming confitent, or of such as is wickedly & obstinately still impenitent, however discovering such conspiracy in the confessional Seat. And as little doth it say that either this kind of confession is any way Sacramental, or the Seal or Obligation to keep it secret, more then what is meerly natural, or would be in case the party told it without any seeming formalities of a seem∣ing Sacramental (though truly known to the Confessor to be a very unsacra∣mental) confession. Besides who knows not the general doctrine of Catho∣lick Divines, in relation to the Canons of the Church, as such Canons only? That they never bind, nor intend to bind, nor indeed can bind any (not even I mean where they are received: as this Canon is generally and ought to be: not even where they seem in express words to come home to the case, & all the particular circumstances of it; as this Canon doth not in any respect) that I say such Canons neither do nor can bind any against the Law of God positive or natural. Nay which is more, that as barely such, or as Canons of the Church only, they bind not the faithful to observance, where and when the observer

must thereby suffer of loss of life, or limb, or estate, or liberty, or any other no∣table great and heavy inconvenience or evil, which may be declined by the non observance of them. For it is a known maxime of Divines in such cases, that the Church is a pious indulgent mother. But would she be so, or not rather appear a cruel step-mother, if she were supposed to make a Canon for concealing the intended ruine of King and Countrey, and of an infinite num∣ber of Innocents, nay and of her self too, as may be well supposed in the case, and concealing this also, when the discovery so made by a confessor might prevent the whole mischief? Its cruelty, and inhumanity, and want of piety and charity, and religion, and learning, and reason too, that would make any think she would be so impious.

And, secondly, what they can alleadg, is, That by the divine law natural (as tis called by them: for positive law divine they have none, nor pre∣tend any from Scripture or Tradition) all Confessors must so behave them∣selves towards their penitents (or confitents too, let them say if they please) as not to render the Sacrament of pennance odious. And that a lawfulness once allowed in any case for the Confessor to reveal a thing or matter, what∣ever it be, told him in the confessional Seat, and to reveal it (I mean) with∣out his consent, would render this holy Rite very odious, and give oc∣casion to many sinners not to declare their sins entirely, but wholly to estrange themselves from confession for ever. But if this argument concluded any thing to the purpose, it would also conclude that Confessors must not discharg the duty they are confessedly, and without contradiction of any side, bound unto by all the laws of Reason, and by all the Canons of the Fathers. They would not enjoyn so many restitutions of lands, and goods and same, so ex∣treamly grievous very often to penitents. Nor would enjoyn so many other heavy pennances either medicinal or satisfactory, no less painful then shameful too in many cases. And who can deny but such injunctions render confession odious to nature? Nay who can deny but the very duty it self of bare con∣fession, as it is prescribed by the Canons and Councils of the Church, and by all Divines of the Roman Communion taught as necessary, and as it is requi∣red to be exactly of all particular mortal sins, of word, deed, or even inward consent alone, and both of their number, as farre as one can remember or conjecture after sufficient examination, and of all kind of circumstances too that change the species (as they speak) must be very odious to nature, especi∣ally when the sins are unnatural or shameful? But if it be answered that such is the duty of the Confessor, enjoyn'd him by the positive laws of the Church and by those natural laws also of Reason, being he is Judge in that holy tri∣bunal, in the place of God: and that such too is the doctrine of the Church and Catholick Faith, where no liberty is left to Divines for teaching other∣wise: even so I answer to this allegation or objection of the Sacrament of confession to be rendred odious, if the Confessor may be free in any case to make use of notices had therein, without the Confitents permission. It may indeed render it odious in such a case. But to whom? To a wicked impeni∣tent, or to a most unreasonable man. To none truly rational and penitent, to no such person making a true Sacramental confession, or to none that is resol∣ved at any time to confess holily, will the confessors discharging his own duty render such a holy confession odious. A duty whereunto and whereby in such case he is bound even by all the very laws of God, as well positive as natural (as may be easily demonstrated if at any time reqvired) to hinder and pre∣vent timely (even by such a revelation) such deplorable general and other∣wise irremediable evils as would in all kind of moral certainty follow his not revealing the design communicated so in confession; and let us always sup∣pose the confitents denyal of consent to such revelation. Though (as I have noted before) such denyal can hardly (if at all) be supposed in a true peni∣tential confitent, or in a true Sacramental confession, unless we suppose withal the penitent to be some strange meer natural blockhead, that is not capable of

understanding his own obligation in such a case, or the ghostly Fathers in∣structions in it. Which yet is very like an impossible supposition.

6. That our Masters of Lovain will find it a very hard, if not absolutely impossible task, To perswade a knowing pious man, that either any dictate of natural reason, or any ordinance of human Canons, much less any article of Christian Faith or Catholick Religion, hetherto delivered us either formally or virtually by Scripture or by tradition tye Confessors (I do not say not to re∣veal such fatal plots, conspiracies or treasons (without revealing the Confitent himself) against the person of the Prince, and the whole fabrick of the Com∣monwealth, and by consequence ordinarily against so many millions of inno∣cent harmless people, without possibility or at least moral probability of see∣ing 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 e∣ver be such, that the design cannot by human industry be otherwise preven∣ted. 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 Tra∣dition.

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 Coun∣cils, 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 ima∣gination 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 o•• 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 coun∣try 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 Ro∣man 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 in∣comparably 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 ••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 re∣venge, 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 ••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 ••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 man∣ner 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 per∣swaded 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 consi∣der 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 Di∣vines think of their doctrine that maintain in such a case the lawfulness of quitting utterly all these duties, or of reputing them no duties at all, and on the contrary establish a meer fiction of a duty, or that which cannot be thought a duty unless God himself expresly and clerely declare it such with his own mouth, or had, by such means as he did his Gospel, declared it so? And yet too endeavour to establish such a fiction, without as much as any appearance of either text of Scripture, or conveyance by Tradition, or sense of the Fathers, or Canon of the Churches, or any principle of natural reason, but that is voyd of all reason and false to boot?

Beati qu••••um remissae sunt iniquitates, & quorum tecta sunt peccata, Psal. 31. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are hidden, say some of these excellent Moralists, out of King Davids one and thirtieth Psalm. ••••••nium ini••u••tatem ejus non recordabor. Ezek. 18. I will not remem∣ber all or any of his iniquities, sayes another, out of Ezekiels eighteenth Chapter, where God himself speaks these words. It hath been the custom of the Church, or of Priests in all ages of Christianity not to reveal the peni∣tents, sayes a third. Gregory the Great, and the old Canon out of him, in

Gratian de Paenitentia d. 6. cap. Sacerdos, enjoyn'd perpetual peregrinations, or pilgrimages during life to the Priest revealing confession, that is, revealing to as the penitent might be known without his consent: and cap. omnis utrius{que} sexus de Poenitentiis & Remissionibus. above cited out of the IV. Council of Lateran, chang'd that punishment into another yet more severe, into a per∣petual deposition, and perpetual imprisonment in a cloister'd life; sayes a ••o••rth. The Priest in the confessional seat is the Vicar of God, and hath no other knowledge of what is told him there, but what is proper to God, and God for his part conceals his own knowledge, & therefore so should the Priest; sayes a fifth of them. What is told auricularly to the Priest in the confessio∣nal seat, at least with other sins, whereof one accuses himself in order to ab∣solution, is told under a natural bond of the greatest secrecie imaginable, un∣til the penitent or confitent dispense in it; sayes a sixt. To hold it lawful for a Confessor to reveal in any kind of contingency the sin and sinner both, or the matter confess'd, and him that confesses it, would render the Sacrament of confession odious, and divert those from it who otherwise would frequent it; sayes a seventh. Finally, say the rest, it is the received common doctrine of the Schools, and the undoubted constant opinion of all people generally, whe∣ther Schoolmen or not, that it is not lawful to reveal confession directly, or indirectly, as that of such or such a one by name, or by any kind of ex∣pression, mark, or token, whereby he may be known. And here is all they do or can alledge.

But O weakness of such Casuists! O vanity of such Theologues! who la∣bour to establish the most pernicious maxime can be upon such feeble grounds. Who alledge Scripture, to conclude from the staff to the cor∣ner. A holy custom, to prove that which is impossible to be known as ever yet once either holily or unholily accustom'd. General and wholsome Ca∣nons, to resolve against a particular case whereof the Fathers never dreamed, which never yet was comprehended, nor could be in any Canons. The Priests vicariat office and vicariat knowledge of God, and Gods making no revenging use any more of his own knowledge of sins that are duly subjected to the keyes of the Church, or declared penitently in a true sacramental confession; to make the Confessor as wicked as the most wicked Confitent on earth that confesses not sacramentally but sacrilegiously, but impenitently and impiously, as in actual defiance of God, and confesses not a sin past and retracted, but a present resolution of future sin, and even of the most enormous could be perpetrated. A horrible abuse of the Confessors ear, and confessional seat, and either a divelish or foolish accusation, without any possible true order to sacramental absolution, and a meer chymera of a bond of nature; to bind a Priest against all true bonds both of Grace and Nature. An odium or aversion which hath never yet been, which will never be, nor can be in any man or woman resolved to confess holily, penitently or sacramentally; and an edium or aversion therefore which can have no other being but a false be∣ing, or that of a false imagination only in the brain of the Alledgers; and all this, to further a most damnable conspiracy, and as damnable secrecie of it which in effect would bring on such a confitent, and such a Confessor, all the real odium and aversion of God and Man, and Angels too, and even of the very devils themselves, however the first Suggesters of such either con∣spiracy or secrecy. Finally, the common received doctrine of the Schools, and the undoubted constant opinion of all people generally, whether School∣men or not, for the sacramental seal of sacramental or penitential con∣fession of sins committed; to conclude thence what cannot be con∣cluded thence by any inference of Logick, or by any topicks of either natu∣ral or divine reason: such a seal where no such confession is, nor can be in our case; but certainly both an impenitent, and impertinent, hypocritical, insacra∣mental discovery of sins resolved on to be hereafter committed

But to leave our metaphisical, or morally impossible case, and to instance no more any that hath never been, not is like ever to be, nor at all can be, morally speaking; and to instance this doctrine in such cases as may very well be, and have been already, of a divilish infernal conspiracy to ruine the State, Church, and Christian People of some one particular Nation, to be revenged on the King thereof, and to sacrifice both King and People, how Catholick soever, to the Swords of Mahumetan Moores: as it happened some eight or nine hundred years since to Spain, under King Roderick, by the horrible and revengful treachery of C••unt Julian, for the rape committed ••n his Daughter by that unhappy King: and to suppose, for example, that that very C••unt Julian, or any other of those eight thousand traytors who conspired with him, had in such an impenitent or impertinent manner revealed to a Spanish Confessor that his fatal design: it is plain, the very self same reasons prove evidently that Confessors tye of conscience to discover the very person of such a fained penitent (even without, and against his own consent, I mean) there being no possibility of preventing the design otherwise, as is supposed in the case. And that the same too might, and ought to be said in the case of the Powder-plot-reason or of F. H. G. Provincial of the English Jesuits his having had knowledge of it in the confessional seat, if the said plot could not have been otherwise prevented: the very same reasons do most evidently con∣vince any rational man For as it is most certain that (magis & minus non 〈…〉〈…〉) the minority or majority of those real cases (that have alrea∣•••• happened, or which may yet, without any stress of moral impossibility, happen hereafter in other, or the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 same Nations, having the like generati∣on 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 meta∣physical or morally impossible contingency: so it is no less certain, that the Kings or States being Protestant, or Catholick, doth not alter a jot a∣•••• our present purpose, the nature of such confession, or of the seal conse∣quent, 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 ••ogy, and Christian Doctrine ought to be reputed to ••e; however the great Divine Suarez, in his Work against King James, l. 6.•• 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 G•••••••••• 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 pre••e••∣ded of such knowledge had by him in the confessional seat only were true) had he not been himself a••••••••••ed, or at least not been not disaffected to that horrid conspiracy, or had he not reputed it an attempt in point of consci∣ence lawful, just, and me••••t••••••ious too before God; to wit, grounding him∣self 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 cal∣ling, 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 sacramen∣tal 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 ne∣cessity to discover so his person, for prevention of such a future damnable treason, 〈…〉〈…〉 even f•••••• prevention of the death or destruction of any one

other even the most private person whatsoever in the world, though no fur∣ther 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 con∣fession 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 cauti∣ous 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 ••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 pub∣lick 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 re∣veal 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 in∣human 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 re∣veal (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, pro∣vided still that he reveal nothing of any sin already committed, and sacramen∣tally confess'd, nor any more of the person of such the foresaid unsacramen∣tal 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 neces∣sary 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; be∣ing 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 in∣doctrinated by them. Otherwise they must pardon me if I tell them they are no less erroneous than censorious masters, and no christian Doctors at all in this point, as neither in any other that relates to either of their Censures (their first and long, and their last and short one) of our Remonstrance. For

I am sure there is no Divine, no knowing christian, no man of reason in the world that knows what christian Religion is, will say there can be other con∣vincing proof of a Theological assertion or censure, either in the affirmative or negative, but one of those I offer them to prove theirs by.

And yet I know there may be vitious customs in the Church, though not therefore imputable to the Church, as approving, but only at most to the Superiors, or some or the chief of those Superiors, as not correcting them. And confess too there may be amongst either the old or late canons of those which are commonly stiled amongst us the Canons of the Church, some con∣cerning discipline only which conclude no man (not even any Roman Ca∣tholick) necessarily so as to render it uncatholick or unlawful in point of conscience for him to swerve from them either in a good opinion of them or moral practice by them in all cases, times or Countries. On which Sub∣ject and to which purpose Canus the Dominican learned Bishop of the Canaries, one of the Trent Fathers, may be consulted with, in his work de Locis Theologicis. But the rejection in so many Catho∣lick Diocesses and countries of those very Canons of Discipline in our most famous Tridentine Council (though, generally amongst all of the Ro∣man Communion, held for Oecumenical) besides many others of like nature, and several other Councils too even uncontrovertedly general, of elder standing, may be more seriously considered. All which notwithstanding, or notwithstanding that what I have now observed of such customs or canons be a consideration of great importance; yet I wave it freely as to my present dispute with the Divines of Lovaine about the seal of confession, or the Con∣fessors obligation to reveal both the treason and person, in our case of such damnable confession or consultation in the confessional seat and when the evil cannot be otherwise prevented.

LVIII.

But to the end the Readers may see, if they please, I am not more single or singular in this very case of revealing so the very person of such a Confitent, when of absolute necessity for preventing of such evil than I was in that other of revealing the evil only or treason it self to prevent it: the very self same Catholick and Classick Authors (especially Sylvester, verb. Confessio. 3. Quaesito quarto et quinto) quoted by me above in my fift consideration, will sufficiently prove: being themselves of the same opinion, and upon the self same grounds maintaining it, that is, not only the lawfulness of such revelati∣on, but an obligation too on the confessor to discharge himself so when he may without danger to himself. For although Sylvester does not in those places querie or even resolve in express tearms about revealing the very per∣son of such a Confitent; yet it is as clear as the Sun, he both means and reaches it both in his Queries and Resolves. First because in his first Querie of that Chapter or title, where he demands quid cadat sub sigillo Confessionis? he resolving that those sins only fall under that seal which directly fall under Sacramental confession, and all things els which indirectly, or out of which any third person might come to knowledge of any such sin, not simply in it self, but relatively to the person that confess'd it, ex quibus deveniri potest in notitiam peccati non simpliciter sed relative ad personam quae illud confessa est, re∣solves consequently as well in that very place or in answer to that first Querie as in an other place after, or amongst his answers to the 4th. Querie, and re∣solves too with all truth and Divinity and with Scotus and the common Do∣ctrine of Divines against Pan••rmitan, That no sins confess'd fall under that seal as simply sins or simply confess'd, but only as having relation to this or that person. Secondly because that after having layd this ground in that first Querie, he demands in his fourth, Vtrum aliquo casu liceat sacerdoti confessio∣nem revelare contra dictum sigillum, propter aliquod damnum aut peccatum, vel periculum vitandum? whether it be lawfull for the Priest in any case to reveal

confession against the said seal, for prevention of any hurt, sin, or danger? And in his fifth, Quibus casibus andita in confessione dici aut manifestari possint sine fractione dicti sigilli? In what cases the Confessor may without breach of that seal, reveal what he knew in confession? And thirdly because his re∣solves to the said fourth and fift Queries, and his Instances, and the reasons he gives for such resolves and instances evict plainly this truth. For having first answered negatively that fourth Querie, according to the common do∣ctrine of St. Thomas and others, he restraines and limits (immediately after) that general resolution by a specifical exception of such cases wherein there is not a true sacramental confession, but a meer fiction of such, for other evil ends, as those for example of engageing the Confessor himself, or of getting his advice, or other help to execute a sinful design. And gives for a reason, that such a fained Penitent or Confitent opens not such matters to the Priest as to the Minister of God, nor as in sacramental confession. As the Reader may see here in his own words and language. Quarto utrum aliquo casu liceat sacerdoti confessionem revelare contra dictum sigillum propter aliquod damnum, aut peceatum, vel periculum vit andum? Et dico secundum S. T. et Pe. et communem omnium, quod non. Quod limita secundum Rai. et gl. in tit. de paen. et re. quando quis vere confitetur. Secus quando ficté, ad impetrandum a confessore auxilium vel ••••nsilium super aliquo peccato. Hoc enim non est confessio, etiam si dicatur, hoc tibi dico in confessione; sed confessionis destructio. Et consentit Innoc. in dicto capite omnis, dicens non esse verum, quod tales dicant in paenitentia, vel Dei Ministro, cum ani∣mae consilium non requirant. And having answer'd the fift Querie affirmative∣ly, or that in many cases the sin heard in confession may be revealed by the Confessor without any breach of that Seal, he instances in the third place or case, one that tells in Confession, he hath still a real fixed purpose to commit some evil, as for example to murder some body: and in this third case resolves with Innocentius and Panormitan, 1. That such confession is no confession at all belonging to the penitential or sacramental Court; nor the Confessor bound to conceal it: as being not of a sin already committed, but hereafter to be com∣mitted, and consequently of a sin by no means told in the sacrament, or under the Seal of the sacrament, or capable of either. 2. That the Confessor in such case is bound to protest that he neither receives, nor is bound to receive such a matter under the Seal of confessional secrecy: unless perhaps he fear a grea∣ter evil from such protestation to himself or others, than would be the scan∣dalizing of such a Confitent by revealing (without such protestation made) the mischief so confess'd by him. And thirdly in plain tearms, that he is not only licenced but obliged to reveal it, so he may conveniently without danger to himself. But let us here Sylvester speak his own language. Quinto queritur ••uibus casibus audita in confessione dici aut manifestari possint sine fractione dicti si∣••illi? Et dico hoc fieri posse in casibus multis. Primo si penitens &c. Secundo si s••••erdos &c. Tertio si quis confitetur se velle facere aliquod malum, puta homicidium; quia secundum Innoc. & sequitur Panorm. d. cap. omnis. istud non est dictum in peni∣tentiali foro: nec sacerdos illud celare tenetur: quia peccatum non commissum sed committendum, non est dictum in penitentià. Quod limita, in quantum est commit∣tendum secus, inquit Panorm. si poeniteret de voluntate praeterita: quia tunc est com∣missum respectu voluntatis. Quod tamen dictum est sacerdotem ad hujus celationem non teneri: intellige primo quando adest firmum propositum committendi; secus se∣cundum Mon. si quis confitatur super aliquo tentari, et aliquando consentire, ali∣••uando vero dissentire, revelare non debet. Et si adest dictum propositum firmum se∣cundum eundem, debet sacerdos protestari, quod tale quid nec recipit, nec recipere te∣netur sub sigillo confessionis ad scandalum evitandum. quod intellige nisi ex tali pro∣testatione sequeretur malum majus scandalo paenitentis, puta homicidum. Intellige se∣cundo, quando illud peccatum committendum vergeret in periculum vel damnum communitatis, vel etiam privatae personae. Quo casu non solum non tenetur celare, sed tenetur manifestare, si id potest commodè sine damno suo, et cum proximi utilitate, etiam peccantis. secus est ubi quis confitetur se non posse ab aliquo abstinere, nulti nisi sibi no••ituro &c.

Now this being the doctrine, those being the Queries, Resolves, Instances, and reasons of Sylvester in express words and sense, can it be denyed to be as clear as the Sun, that he both means and reacheth in his grand Resolve of our case, the revealing of the very individual person of the Confitent without his own consent? (For of the lawfulness or obligation of revealing him with his own consent, no man ever yet disputed: as neither of that of revealing the sin or treason, without revealing the person of the Confitent or penitent either directly or indirectly, is there any controversy at all not even with Sua∣rez or Bellarmine; for what concerns properly the sacramental Seal as such even of a true sacramental confession; though upon other unwarrantable grounds these two great Divines restraine the Confessor from declaring so the treason it self to an Heretick Prince, or one esteemed by them such. But whatever the doctrine of Suarez or Bellarmine be or be not in this matter) It is evident that what I say of Sylvester (and the same must be of Abbas, Innocentius, and other Divines, Canonists, Summists or Casuists who taught before or after him the same things) must be as intellectually clear to the eye of any rational man that reads him, as the visible Sun in the most serene day is to the corporal eye of such as have this organ perfect.

For whoever expresly teaches that there are no sins, nor other appendages or circumstantials whatsoever of any sins, as time, place, complices, &c. (or what∣ever els you please under what name soever) fall under the Seal of confession, but only sins already committed, and as already committed, and as such con∣fess'd, not however, but sacramentally (that is in true order to the sacrament of pennance with hope of pardon, and without a purpose to continue them hereafter:) and, besides such sins so confess'd, nothing els; and yet that neither any such sins nor any their such appendages or circumstantials simply as such, or simply too as so confess'd, fall under that Seal, but relatively or only as they relate to the Confitent, or as the sins of such a person who confess'd them: and, besides this, expresly and consequently teaches that a future sin, or present fixed purpose or design of a sin to be committed hereafter (either by the Confitent himself or by any other) cannot for what is future (as neither for what is present or past of such purpose, and is not yet retracted) be at all sacramentally confessed: and moreover expresly instanceth for example of such a truly unsacramental confession, or Confitent one that tells the Priest in the confessional chayre, or in a seeming way of sacramental confession, that he is fixedly resolved to kill such a man; and teaches too expresly, that such confession is not sacramental: and further yet expresly teacheth in this case, that the confessor is so farre from being bound by any Seal of either sacra∣mental or unsacramental secrecy, that it is not only lawful for him to reveal all that he knows so, and is necessary for prevention, but is obliged to do so; and yet much more obliged if the wickedness tend to the destruction of a community or commonwealth: and lastly and expresly also gives for reasons of such resolves and Instances, that whoever confesses and in as much as he confesses such things and in such manner, doth not confess to the Priest as to the Minister of God, nor with hope of pardon, nor with a true order to the sacrament, nor any matter at all belonging to the sacrament, or subject to the Keys of the Church, & consequently nothing capable of the Sacred Seal of the Church, or of confession appointed by God and the Church: Whoever I say teaches expresly all this, it cannot be rationally denyed to be as clear as the Sun that he both means and reacheth in his grand Resolve herein the lawful∣ness for & obligation too on the Confessor to reveal even the very individual person of such a 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 to be otherwise prevented, and that he may reveal him without danger to himself. But Sylvester teaches ex∣presly all this; that is, teacheth expresly that there are no sins, nor other ap∣pendages or circumstantials whatsoever, &c. Ergo it cannot be rationally de∣nied

to be as clear as the Sun, that Silvester both means and reaches in his grand Resolve herein the lawfulness for and obligation too, &c. The conclusi∣on follows necessarily the Premisses if Aristotle 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 obli∣gation 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 con∣fession. 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 sacramen∣tal 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 evi∣dent, 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 ac∣knowledges 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 ratio∣nally 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 mo∣dern 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 Silveste•• 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 Rea∣der my only design by so long a discourse of Silvester was no other but to con∣found the more those Lovaine Divines by the very Authors, who are so fami∣liar 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 Mag••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 af∣ter 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 o••••en 〈◊〉〈◊〉 wide one from another as Heaven and Earth.

LIX.

Bu•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 p••••••venture some may yet object the passion of Father 〈…〉〈…〉 (〈…〉〈…〉 a••••••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 ••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 re∣maining, but pitiful presence of a meer made scruple.

1. That his passion, or death suffered by him, was not to bear testi∣mony 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 as much as a thought of pardoning him, or offering him his life, on condition he would renounce the contrary opinion: some man can aver certainly, or truly, or as much as probably that what he alledg∣ed for himself of having only known the plot in confession (either sacramen∣tal or not sacramental) was true.

2. That in case it had been true, his own very Order, that is, all the Writers of his own Society, if we may believe Suarez, condemn his opinion of the seal, for as much as he pretended, it was therefore he would not re∣veal the plot, because he had only heard it in confession, and consequently seal'd up from any discovery by him. For Suarez defies the King of Great Brittain, 'gainst whom he writ (even King Iames himself) to produce as much as one Jesuit Writer that ever held it to be against the seal of confession, o•• any way unlawful, to reveal the treason so as the Penitent or Confitent him∣self were neither directly or indirectly revealed. And yet it is very certain, that Father Garnet not only not did so (whereas he might safely have done so, even without any kind of danger to himself, and might have done so by a hundred wayes, and without as much as discovering himself) but also preten∣ded

that he ought not to have done so, or to have revealed the treason, albe∣it there could be no danger thereby of revealing either directly or indirectly him that told it in confession.

3. That hence it appears this objection, whatever it be, good or bad, is not properly or peculiarly against the doctrine of this sixt consideration; but more directly against that of the third and fourth. where the Doctors of Lo∣vaine and their ignorant sticklers may see other Catholick and Classick Doctors crying shame on them, & condemning it. To which Doctors, there quoted, I now add Alexander Hales part 4. q. 78. memb. 2. art. 2. S. Thomas. 4. distinct. 21. q. 3. ar. 1. ad 1. Scotus in 4. dist. 21. q. 2. Hadrianus Papa. 4. dist. ubi de Sacram. C••nf. edit. Paris. 1530. pag. 289. Navar. in Enchirid. c. 8. Ioseph Angles in Florib. part. 1. pag. 247. edit. Antuerp. Petrus Soto Lect. 11. de Confess. Suarez. Tom. 4. in 3. part. D. Thomae. disp. 33. paragraph. 3. Greg. de Valentia. Tom. 4. disp. 7. q. 13. punct. 3. who all teach (what I have in my said third and fourth consideration) the lawfulness of disclosing the treason without disclosing the Penitent.

4. That its no way probable that a man so versed in (at least not so igno∣rant of) the doctrine of his own School (or wherein he was bred with Father Suarez, his old companion in Spain) the doctrine of extrinsick probability, as we must suppose a Provincial of the Society to have been, should have made conscience of revealing the treason without revealing the Confitent: being we cannot by any means presume that he was so extreamly ignorant as not to know this kind of revealing was taught by so many famous and pious even Classick Divines.

5. That we may rather certainly and groundedly perswade our selves, That (being himself in other Instances confessed he knew of that wicked plott by other means also, or out of confession, as well from Father Greenwell as from Mr. Catesby) it was no pretence of a Confessional Seal, or any such opinion of the being of such a Seal in the case, that hindered him from discovering ei∣ther the treason it self or the traytors; but that other more damnable opi∣nion which he learned of so many other (in this, licentious and impious) writers, That no faith no allegiance is due from any Catholick Subjects to an excommunicate heretick Prince, nor sinful treason can be committed against him or his laws, or his people who support him.

6. That be it so, or be it otherwise, nay granting all the objection pre∣tends to, or that it were true, certain, and notoriously known that Father Garnet had suffered only and meerly (and when he could otherwise choose) for that opinion of the unlawfulness for such a Confessor to reveal the very individual person of such a Conficent as we have supposed in our case; and had suffered death for refusing to retract when he might have had life & pardon for retracting; yet all this amounts to no more then to an argument of the inward opinion of one single man, or of his not pretending outwardly in word what he had not inwardly in thought. But perswades no rational man there∣fore, that his opinion was true, or his perswasion right, or his zeal according to knowledg; much less that his martyrdom was Christian or glorious. We know there are martyrs of errour as well as of truth: and these to be the martyrs of Christ: and those the martyrs of the Adversary of Christ. We know what death and how willingly the Donatists and Circumcellions,* 31.4 and twenty other sorts of Sectaries in all ages to this present suffered often for their false opinions. And we know whose saying it is, that Non paena, sed causa martyrem facit. And we know moreover how pertinently, that indeed great and holy Pope St. Gregory the Great applyed this passage of Cyprian with so many other excellent sentences of his own reproving those ancient Bishops of Ireland a 1000 years since for their sufferance of persecution in so bad a cause, and upon account only of so bad a cause as their opinion was of the Tria Capi∣tula.

7. And lastly, that being it is on the contrary certain that Father Garnet ap∣proved not so his (at any time) inward perswasion by such outward testimo∣ny of his blood spilt or life lost to confirm it, much less his constancy in it: and being therefore that all can be concluded from his allegation or his suffe∣ring amounts to no more than to a bare outward pretence of his own having followed once such an opinion in such an unhappy and unholy matter of fact, and this pretence also taken only, or made use of (& that unconstantly & con∣tradictorily too) for to excuse himself in part, that is, to lessen his guilt of that horrid conspiracy: nay being in very deed, and by Father Garnets own confession, that he had other knowledg of that plott then what he had onely in confession, and consequently being that he could pretend no more truly to excuse himself then a meer natural secrecy without any kind of relation to a sacramental secrecy:

* 31.5The objectors will give me leave to mind them of as pious and religious a Father, that Millanese Father Honorio of the Cappucchins Institute, who farre more fortunately, discreetly, piously, and conscientiously practised according to the quite contrary (& even home, or at least as home upon one side as Father Garnet may be justly said to have done on t'other) to our case, by discovering to Henry le Grand of France the very individual person that was to assassinat this great Prince. And so we are at least throughly quitt even for matter of example.

And so I have also done with my sixth and last of all those considerations, or of all those points, on which I have said before in the beginning of my ani∣madversions of, or answers to the third ground of the Censure, it had much better become our masters of Lovaine (Doctors of Divinity, and of so grave and so judicious a Faculty as that of Lovaine should be) to reflect seriously before they had precipitated so temerariously and injuriously (and even erroneously to boot) to censure that Remonstrance of 61. on this ground of its preten∣ded promise or tye on Confessors to break the Sacred Seal of Confession. The nullity and falsity of which pretence or ground, although I knew that my ve∣ry first consideration of all the six had sufficiently evinced; yet I would ex su∣perabundanti and to clear this matter in all particulars, and to instruct others more fully, give all the rest (albeit unnecessary amongst men of reason) to vin∣dicate in this behalf or any other that Remonstrance.

LX.

I onely, to end all whatever I intended to say on this occasion, further add (& it is a confirmation of what I have said before in my first consideration) that if our sticklers at home for the Lovaine Censure in this behalf, or if the op∣posers of the said Remonstrance of 61. on account (of obliging Confessors to break the Sacred Seal of Confession) will continue still their malicious cla∣mours against it on this account, finding all other accounts to stand them in no stead (though I be sure they find this very same to stand them in as little as any of all:) they must confess themselves consequently obliged to clamour no less, nay more against the Remonstrance of 66. (whereof hereafter I will treat at large) even that of the Dublin Congregation of that year, even that of the general Representatives of the whole Clergie of Ireland, even that of their Archbishops, Bishops, Provincials, Vicars general, Divines, altogether. For if the former of 61. be quarreld at for expressing onely the readiness of the subscribers of it to reveal &c. and for expressing such readiness without any express engagement or any at all in other express tearms then these two words being ready (words of their own proper strict signification not engage∣ing at all the subscribers to reveal, or that they will discover actually, but at most a present preparation or disposition of mind to discover &c:) certainly this passage of the Remonstrance of 66. wherein there is an express engage∣ment, or one in express words, that they will or shall discover &c. must be in reason as much at least if not more quarreld at on that account. Wherefore

pursuant &c. we do engage our selves to discover unto your Majesty, or some of your Ministers any attempt of that kind, rebellion or conspiracy against your Majesties per∣son, Crown or Royal authority, that comes to our knowledge. For here is the same general notion of knowledge without any express distinction of it, without any express reservation or exception of that knowledge which is had in con∣fession (as indeed there should not be any either express or tacit thereof) more then is in the former Remonstrance of 61.

LXI.

To the fourth and last ground of that Censure of Lovaine against this Re∣monstrance of 61, their pretence of its renouncing Ecclesiastical Immunity, or of subjecting Clergiemen, against Ecclesiastical Immunity, to the cognizance and punish∣ment of the civil Magistrate, The Procurator and other subscribers answer'd.

1. That there is not a syllable in that Remonstrance, which may seem to any man of reason to say, either formally or virtually, expresly or tacitly, That Churchmen have not, or ought not to have either by the laws of man, civil or Ecclesiastical, or by the laws of God, positive or natural, any such im∣munity or exemption, either for their goods or persons, from the cognizance or punishment of the subordinate inferiour civil Courts, Magistrates or Jud∣ges; I mean any such immunity or exemption as the Catholick Faith or Ca∣tholick Church teacheth as out of Scripture or out of Tradition, or even as by virtue of any canon or custome obliging as much as the very Churchmen to assert or maintain it, or not to renounce or disacknowledge it, not even in some cases or some Countreys, where the civil or municipal laws are contrary to such canon or such custome, as (for example) England and Ireland: where this last century of years, the laws and customs are known to be so much al∣tered from that they perhaps have formerly been in this matter.

That the acknowledgment of the King to be our King, and our supream Lord too, or the acknowledgment of his absolute independent supremacy in all temporals within his own Dominions concluds neither formally nor virtually a disacknowledgment or even the least renunciation of any kind of real, true, pro-per, Ecclesiastical Immunity, acknowledg'd by other parts or people or Churches or Churchmen in the world, even in the most Catholick Countries. No more certainly then doth the like acknowledgment known to be made by word and by writing, by all Catholick French, Spanish, Venetian, German, &c Clergiemen to their own respective Kings, Emperours, States, conclude that they disacknowledg or renounce thereby, or by any other means, that which they call or acknowledg to be Ecclesiastical Immunity or Exemption amongst themselves.

That as little doth the acknowledging our selves bound under pain of sin to obey His Majesty in all civil and temporal affairs as much as any other of His Ma∣jesties Subjects, and as the laws and rules of Government in this Kingdom require at our hands, that (I say) as little doth this acknowledging such obligation draw along with it, by either formal or virtual consequence, our disacknow∣ledging or renouncing our right or pretence to any true, real, or proper Ec∣clesiastical Immunity or Exemption (If we have indeed or can have, or ought to have any such right or pretence of right in the case.) For such obligation, and such acknowledgment of it, can and does very well consist evermore with a challenge or claim to all kinds of true and proper Ecclesiastical Immunity or exemption (whether that challenge or claim be well or ill grounded in the case) being it is very well known that other His Majesties Subjects are not bound under pain of sin to obey His Majesty by an active obedience always, not even in all civil and temporal affairs; but either by an active, or passive only. And being it is no less known that the laws and rules of Government

in this Kingdom require no more at their hands even in all civil and temporal affairs then to be so obedient, as either to do that freely which they prescribe, or patiently and without resistance to abide the penalties of the same laws, and of His majesties pleasure. And being moreover it is evident of it self that a Priest can without making any resistance, patiently, christianly, nay and meritoriously too, abide the sentence of death, even in prima instantia, from a Judge of Assize, according to the laws of England, or Ireland, or both, and the Execution of it, and even at the same time acknowledge himself bound under pain of sin to abide this sentence and this execution patiently and chri∣stianly without resistance, and yet at the same time also challenge the priviledge of the Canons, or at least not renounce the priviledge of the Canons, and even of such as he really conceives to be obliging Canons (whether ground∣edly or ungroundedly, he conceives or alledges such Canons, it matters not to our purpose:) or that he may at the same time also alledge, and the case may be such, that he may truly too alleadge that he is proceeded against unjustly both by the Inferiour & supream Judge, & both against the legally established, received, unrepealed, obliging Canons of the Church, and the uncontroverted, clear, just, and wholsome laws of the State. And therefore it is no less evi∣dent that there can be no inconsistency, no contradiction at all betwixt a Priests acknowledging the duty of such an obedience, and his challenging alwaye nevertheless a right not to be proceeded against by such a sentence.

That our further declaring in the said Remonstrance, That notwithstanding any sentence of excommunication, deposition, &c. we will alwayes be true obedient faithful Subjects to the King; that we renounce all forreign power, spiritual or temporal, in as much as it may seem able, or shall pretend to absolve us from us Allegiance, or dispense with us therein, or give us leave to raise tumults, bear arms, &c. against his Majesty or Laws: That we bold the doctrine impious, and renounce ••t as such, which teacheth that any Subject may murder the anointed of God his Prince, though of a different Religion from his: That we acknowledge all supream temporal Princes to be Gods Lieutenants on earth, or in their Dominions, and obedience due to them respectively in all civil and temporal affairs by their own Subjects: That finally, we protest against all contrary doctrines and practices: That, I say, our further declaring any, or all these particulars together, doth not either formally or virtually, or expresly, or tacitly draw with it our declaring against, or our disacknowledging, renouncing, declining, or quitting the Exemption or Ecclesiastical immunity of Clerks, either as to their Persons, or as much as to their Goods: if by this Exemption or Immunity that be understood (as it ought certainly) which all Catholick States, Kingdoms, Nations, Coun∣cils, Parliaments, People, Divines, Universities, Bishops, Clerks, and con∣sequently Churches do understand in France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Venice, Poland, &c. For the truth of all, and every such declaration and obligation consequent, may, and doth very well stand in their opinion, and, according to their practice, with such Exemption: being they all hold this Exemption to be not independently from the soveraign power of the Princes or States, or of their Laws, but (with dependance alway, in relation to that soveraignty, or supream Majesty) from the inferiour Judicatures, and in such cases only whether civil or criminal, as are priviledged, and only too in prima in∣stantia; or at most in so many other instances as will not require manifestly, or by manifest necessity, an appeal, or recourse to the Prince or State (civil or pollitick) â gravamine, or the interposition of the Prince's or States su∣pream power in the case, without any such appeal, or recourse of either Plantiff or Defendant, but ex officio, where the Prince or State see a manifest necessity of such interposition: as the case may be very well (as it hath often been) that the Ecclesiastical Judges are themselves involved in the same crime (for example, in treason or sedition) and therefore will not punish the crimi∣nals accused before them, but rather encourage them as much as they dare.

That moreover, as it appears manifestly out of all the foresaid passages,

either separatly or collectively taken, there is not from the first word to the last of the said Act of Recognition, or Declaration of Allegiance, not I say, any passage at all, any word or syllable in that whole Declaration (be∣ing these I have given are all it contains of any matter soever) that may be formally or virtually, expresly or tacitly, directly or indirectly, understood by any rational impartial man to dis-acknowledge, or declare against Immu∣nity Ecclesiastical, or the Exemption of Clergy-mens either Persons or Goods, as this Exemption is allowed, or approved by the Catholick World or Church, or as by either understood: so it appears no less manifestly, that in the petitionary address, which immediatly follows the said Act of Recog∣nition, or Declaration of Allegiance and of principles belonging to such Allegiance, there is neither as much as one word, which may import to an impartial understanding Reader (or to any that is not clouded by ignorance, or byassed by malice) any such dis-acknowledgment of, or declaration against such immunity or exemption. And that if in this petitionary address there be nothing to this purpose, or any such dis-acknowledgment of, or declarati∣on against such Ecclesiastical Immunity or Exemption, it must be, and is confess'd by the very most scrupulous, or most invidious Adversaries there can be none at all in all or any part of that Remonstrance, or in that whole Instrument, entituled, The humble Remonstrance, Acknowledgment, Protesta∣tion, and Petition of the Roman Catholick Clergy of Ireland. To prove this last conditional assertion, I need not add any thing more to what I have said already, or observed in considering all the several distinct parts of the Act of Recognition in it self, and other declarations following therein, and to what moreover I have presently hinted of the confession of our most carping Ad∣versaries, but only this one advertisement more to the Reader (whereof him∣self by reading only over that whole Instrument, can be Judge) that nothing else is contained in the paper but a bare Remonstrance of grievances, perse∣cution, odium, &c. which no man ever yet quarrel'd against, as pretending therein a ground for this fourth Exception, or any other whatsoever.

What remains therefore to be cleared, is the petitionary address of that paper, as that indeed against which (for ought I heard from the Dissentors themselves, or any of them) all their quarrel is on this pretence of quitting Ecclesiasti∣cal Immunity, and subjecting Clergy-men to Lay Judicatories, or to Secular Courts in criminal causes. But how justly or unjustly, be you Judge, good Reader, when you have considered the words, sense, and scope of that Peti∣tion, so often returned for answer to this invidious Exception. The words and whole tenor of that perclosing Address, are these, and no other. These being the tenets of our Religion in point of Loyalty, and submission to your Maje∣sties commands, and our dependance of the See of Rome, no way intrenching on that perfect obedience, which by our birth, by all laws divine and humane, we are bound to pay to your Majesty our natural and lawful Soveraign, we humbly beg, prostrate at your Majesties feet, that you would be pleased to protect us from the se∣vere persecution we suffer meerly for our profession in Religion: leaving those that are or hereafter shall be guilty of other crimes (and there have been such in all times, as well by their pens as by their actions) to the punishment prescribed by the law.

Against these very last lines of this Petition, or against this final perclose of of all, leaving those that are, or hereafter shall be guilty of other crimes, &c. to the punishment prescribed by the law, our Adversaries labour so mightily to except as unlawful to be owned, or subscribed, at least by Catholick Priests, or as acknowledging Clergy-men subject to the Secular Court, and consequently as either disacknowledging, or at least renouncing the priviledge of their Order, whereby they are for their persons, especially in criminal causes, wholy exempt from the jurisdiction of Lay Judges, let the crimes be never so hainous, until they be first judged in the Ecclesiastick Court before their own proper, competent Ecclesiastick Superiours, or spiritual Judges, and be∣fore

they be further condemned by such, and after all degraded, or at least delivered over also by such, to the Secular Court, or Lay Judges.

But who sees not the vanity and nullity of this objection, or of this con∣secution? Who sees not the Objectors were resolved to seek here a knot in the bul-rush? Clergy-men of the Romish Communion living in a Country where all the laws are against their very profession, where all the prejudices imaginable were, and with much ground too against the very persons of many, as enemies to the Crown and State, and where as yet no endeauours had been used by them to secure the State of as much as their Allegiance only for the very future, and in a Countrey also where no such priviledge, at least as to them, is, or hath been owned by the Kings Laws, Magistrates or Judges, for a whole century of years: such Clergy-men, I say (and such of them too I mean as find themselves not guilty of other crime, then that which accord∣ing to the law of God is no crime at all) addressing themselves to a just and merciful Prince, but a Prince nevertheless that is not of their communion, nor doth acknowledge, or admit of such their Exemption, and attempting by a declaration and promise of their future Allegiance to free themselves from a severe persecution raised against them, cannot such Clergy-men as ob∣serve strictly and religiously that precept in particular of St. Peter to all Christians in general, whether Lay-men or Clergy-men, Nemo autem vestrum patiatur ut homicida, aut fur, aut maledicus, aut alienorum appetitor, let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as a rayler, or as a coveter of other mens Goods, 1 Pet. 4. Cannot such Clergy-men, I say, and cannot they too according to all the rules of prudence and conscience intreat and im∣plore the Princes compassionat regard of their innocent profession, and harm∣less behaviour in the pure exercise of a holy Religion, and humbly beg his protection of them from suffering on that account only? and, for a further inducement of such Princes favouring them on that account, remonstrate also unto him (what should, and ought to be consequent in the case) that they are not Supplyants for any of their function, who is, or shall be hereafter, guil∣ty of any true crimes, as theft, murder, sedition, rebellion, &c. but only for such as are, or shall be charged with such matters as only, in the presumpti∣on of the present laws of the Land are crimes, and only too (even by such presumption) religious crimes? Or cannot they in such a Countrey, and circumstances prudently and lawfully too, for what concerns conscience, do so, and remonstrate so (especially in such discreet, wary, general terms as these, leaving those that are, or shall be hereafter guilty of other crimes, &c. to the punishment prescribed by the law) without dis-acknowledging, or even renoun∣cing (even as much as to themselves alone where they can choose) the privi∣ledge or pretence of priviledge of Clergy-men for being exempt? Or must it follow that they acknowledge that priviledge whatever it be, or how ever expounded or extended by some, not due to them by any law divine or hu∣mane, civil or ecclesiastical? Or must it follow, that they do absolutely re∣nounce it either for themselves or others, if it be probable or possible they may to any real purpose challenge the benefit thereof? Or rather is it not manifest, and as clear as the Sun, that no such consequence follows out of such Remonstrance, or such words, or such leaving, in the circumstances, or cases, but at most, and at worst, a conditional resignation of their own souls, or conditional renuntiation of such priviledge, or pretence there∣of, and as to themselves alone, and in such circumstances only, or while the laws of the Land are such, and the Prince and People observant of such laws, and that Romish Clergy-men must, will they nill they, be judged by and according to such laws? And consequently too, as clear as the Sun, that those words above, leaving, &c. (which end that petition, and whole paper of that of 61. and which are the only pretended ground of that objection) can∣not be justly taxed (at least in the case or circumstances) with other meaning or sense then can be justly derived from this other expression which might be

of it in these other words, we do not beg your Majesty to protect us from any perse∣cution can be against us upon account of Theft, Murder, Treason, Rebellion, or any other of those true crimes, crimes which are otherwise stiled in the Canons lay-crimes; nor we intercede or supplicate for any persons guilty of or in as much as they shall be charged with any such true crime; but, for what concerns us, resolve to let all such answer for themselves, and stand or fall according to law? Now it is plain that all this imports no more then a greater detestation of such crimes in Clergiemen, and of the persons of Clergiemen as guilty of such. And further, and at most and worst, but a resolution not to be concern'd in such, nor to petition the King in their behalf, nor to interpose at all twixt them and the law (though meaning without any peradventure that which is by His Majesty un∣derstood the law. For they exclude above expresly all equivocation.) And yet the Divines of Lovaine and sticklers for them in Ireland must needs censure so harmless so prudent and so necessary a petition or expression, and censure it as renouncing or declaring against Ecclesiastical Immunity, and further censure it as even sacrilegious and containing somewhat against the sincerity of Catho∣lick Faith. Certainly if so, or if they be not abused by misinformation or mis∣representation of their grounds of censure: I cannot otherwise judge of them but that they have been wilfully blind even in this particular we now handle. And so I have done with the Procurators first answer to their fourth ground.

LXII.

His second answer to this same 4. ground was, That granting the Remon∣strance had either in that perclose or some other part, even formally and by express words declared against all pretences whatsoever of any such thing as Ecclesiastical Immunity or Exemption of the persons of Clergiemen from the supream civil or temporal coercive power of the Prince or Magistrate (pro∣vided still it did not declare, as verily it does not, against that which is indeed the real, true, and well grounded exemption of Clergiemen from inferiour civil Judicatories, according to the respective civil laws or customs of several Kingdoms, and as farre as the respective laws or customs do allow such exemp∣tion from such inferiour Judicatories:) yet neither the Divines of Lovaine, nor any other could justly censure it therefore. And the Procuratours reason for this second answer, which he gave ex superabundanti, was first in general, that he defied those of Lovaine or any other Divine or Canonist in the world to shew any law Divine, either positive or natural, or any law human, either civil or ecclesiastical, for such exemption: or, which is the same thing, to shew any one text of holy Scripture, or any one tenet of Apostolick tradition, or any Canon at all of the Catholique Church, or even as much as any kind of passage out of the civil law of Emperours, nay as much as any one convincing or even probable argument of natural reason to prove a power in the Pope or Church to exempt Clergiemen from the cognizance and coercion of the supream civil Prince or laws under which they live as Citizens or Subjects, or live as at least reputed Citizens or Subjects. And secondly his reason also in general for it was, that on the contrary he durst undertake against the Divines of Lovaine to prove there is no such exemption, nor can be: and with much evidence to prove this even by clear express texts of holy Scripture, in that sense the holy Fathers generally understood such texts even for a whole thousand of years. But not content with these two general reasons given for that his second answer to the fourth ground of the Lovaine censure, the Procuratour descended often to particular proofs of each. Which I think not unworthy my pains, and your patience, good Reader, to give at length here. Protesting neverthe∣less that I have no design at all to lessen the priviledges, Immunity, or Exemp∣tion of the Sacred Ministers of God; but onely to oppose the unlawful ex∣tension of it and erroneous doctrine of some Divines in this point, or that which they teach of Ecclesiastical Immunity or Exemption from the supream civil coercive power, against all the known laws of God.

LXIII.

And therefore, and for what concerns any Divine law positive, or command of God, expresly, & either formally or virtually delivered us by Revelation, and this Revelation made known unto us either by holy Scripture or by Tradition (for such command it is that all Divines call the Positive law of God, as it is di∣stinguish'd from that other which they also call, in opposition to this, the law di∣vine natural, or, as others call it, the law of nature only, without further ad∣dition; being nothing els but one of those commanding dictats of meer natu∣ral reason, which natural reason, & consequently such dictats thereof, God hath given the Soul & every man generally from his birth, & by the very condition of his being a man, and of having his organs rightly disposed, and therefore is called the law divine natural) I say, that for what concerns any positive law of God, revealed in holy Scripture, the case is clear enough, even by the concessi∣on of Bellarmine himself De Clericis. l. 1. cap. 28. where he confesses plainly (in the proofs of his fift Proposition) That there is not in holy Scriptures any precept or command, properly such, for the exemption of Clergiemen, either as to their goods or as to their persons, in publick matters (that is in temporal, civil, or worldly affairs) from the civil Magistrate. And he means too by the civil Magistrate here, not onely the supream civil Magistrate, but even all subordinate inferiour Magistrates. And confesses further (though even for the matter) in plain contradiction to his own Thesis immediately before, that is, to his said fift proposition) there are onely in the old Testament some testimonies or some examples, out of which per quandam similitudinem (as he speaks) by some kind of similitude one may deduce the exemption of Clergie∣men as of Divine Right, or that God is pleased they should be so exempted: labouring by this vain explication to reconcile the Catholick Divines, and the Canonists: those maintaining very truly and learnedly that the exemption of Clerks, such as it is, is onely by meer humane right or law; and these no less falsely and ungroundedly that it is de jure divin••.

And I say, That whether Bellarmine had so confessed or no, the case is clear enough still, if we but consider those very testimonies and examples of Bel∣larmine, or by him or others alleadged either out of the old Testament or out of the new. The first of those Testimonies or examples out of the old Testament, is that in 40. of Genesis. 22. and 26. verse, wherein we find that in the general famine, and sale which by occasion thereof was made by all the people of Egypt, and of all their lands, cattle, and even bodies for ever to Pharao, and for bread to relieve themselves, Ioseph exempted those Idolatrous Priests of Egypt from that slavery of either bodies or lands: gave them corn gratis out of the Royal granaries: and would not after subject as much as their lands to the condition of others, which was, to pay the King a fift part for ever of the encrease or fruit of their lands. The second example is out of 1. Esdras. cap. 7. verse 24. where it is read that King Artaxerxes commanded his Treasurers beyond the river (as before 21. verse) not to sess the Priests or other Ministers of the Temple at Ierusalem with any taxes &c. We do you also to understand concerning all the Priests and Levites, and the singers, and the porters, the Nathineits, and Ministers of the house of this God, that you have no authority to put tole and tribute and yearly rents upon them. The third example or testimony is out of Leviticus, 3. chap. where God himself commands Moyses to bestow on Aaron the high Priest and on his Sons the other Priests, and to give them as a gift for ever all the Levits or children of Levy. And God himself fur∣ther expresly declares twice (verse the 12. and 45,) that the Levits were and should be his own, mei sunt: and, mei erunt. And these are all that Bellarmine alleadges out of the old Testament, though he troubles not himself so much as to deduce them at length, as I have done here; but only quotes the books and chapters especially for the two former. Which yet is not his custom

when he finds the places home to his purpose. As for that no less unconclud∣ing (and that too but onely one) out of the new Testament, you have it in the 17th of Matthew, verse 23.24.25. and 26. where it is related that our Saviour being at Capern••••m, and the tribute gatherers demanding of Peter, whether his Master would pay the tribute money or didrachma? and Peter having answered, yes: our Saviour presently knowing of the matter, and preventing Peter, and questioning him in this manner, what thinkest thou Simon? of whom do the Kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children or of strangers? and Peter answering, of strangers: our Saviour inferr'd instantly, Ergo liberi sunt filij. Then are the children free. Adding further thus: notwith∣standing, least we should offend them, or give them cause to be scandalized at us, go thou to the Sea, and cast a hook, and take that fish which shall first come up, and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a stater: that take, and give it them for me and thee.

Of all these examples and places of Scripture, Bellarmine frames his first proof to inferre his foresaid Thesis or fift proposition; which is, That the ex∣emption of Clerks in all politick or civil affairs, and as well of their persons as of their goods from all even the most supream temporal Magistrate (for that too he means all along) was introduced (amongst Christians: for this also was and must have been his purpose) both by divine and humane law. And for humane law, he supposed that proved before: as himself notes, and alleadges these Scripture examples and passages to prove onely that his fift proposition for what concerns divine right or divine law.

Notwithstanding all which I say the case is clear enough still, if we but consi∣der these very testimonies & passages either out of the old or out of the new or out of both Testaments. For, whatever may be alleadged, pretended, or inferr'd, though nothing can be but with very little colour, out of any or even all these places taken together, for the exemption of the lands, goods, or persons of Clergiemen from paying tribute, customs, polemony, or other taxes whatso∣ever; yet I am perswaded that no rational man, (much less any consciencious able Divine) can be so blind as not to see the unsignificancy of these Scrip∣ture testimonies or examples to prove the persons of Clergiemen exempt in criminal causes by divine right, and by the positive law of God, from the su∣pream civil coercive power. Which onely is that I dispute here with Cardinal Bellarmine, or rather with his disciples or defenders in this particular contro∣versy, the Divines of Lovain. And I am perswaded so 1. Because that of the Egyptian Priests signifies no kind of exemption of their persons from laye Indicatories, not even from such as are inferiour and subordinate onely, nor in any causes whatsoever, either criminal or civil, or mixt of both. Nor sig∣nifies as much as the exemption of their lands or goods from all kind of tax∣••••, or from any at all; but onely from the forfeiture or sale of their lands, or from paying a fift part of the increase. And this exemption too from such forfeiture, sale, or fift part, not to have been made by any positive law of God, but by the laws of man, that is, of Ioseph or Pharao. 2. Because, That of Artaxerxes concerning the Mosaycal Clergie at Ierusalem, signifies no more but that Kings command to his own inferiour officers, not to laye any imposi∣tion of toll, taxes, &c. on them; but not a word that himself had no power to taxe them; much less any syllable which might import that those Ministers of that holy Temple were exempt either in other civil or criminal causes from his own cognizance or punishment, or even from that of his inferiour subordinate civil Judges, or from the Lieutenant that govern'd Palestine under him. Besides we know the positive law of Artaxerxes cannot be said to be the positive law of God. 3. Because that of Leviticus (though confessedly sometime the positive law of God) signifies no more also but that the whole tribe of Le∣vi were put under the subordinate care and jurisdiction of Aaron and of his Sons the Priests and of their successors, and onely as to the Ministery of the Tabernacle, whereof he had charge, according to what was expresly decreed

in all such particulars by God himself in the law given by him to Moyses and rest of Israels descendants. Not a word at all exempting either Levits or Priests, or as much as the High Priest himself in other affairs, or in either cri∣minal or civil matters, from the supream civil Temporal or politick Iurisdiction of Moyses, or other succeeding Generals, Judges, or Kings; nor as much as ex∣empting them from tribute or taxe, or other imposition, if at any time the necessities of their countrey or people or weal publick or kingdom, were such as the supream civil Governours should judge it necessary to taxe them pro∣portionably, for the publick good or safety as well of themselves as of all the other tribes. It is true that although not here, yet elswhere God left the tribe of Levi exempted from being bound to be listed for War. Nay expresly or∣dained Numb. 1.49. that they should not be listed so, but should be exempted from that charge or duty: as being there appointed for and applyed wholly to an other special duty that is to carry still and serve and keep and watch the tabernacle which could not well consist, nor at all with that of warfaring. But what hath this particular exemption from one onely duty to do with a ge∣neral exemption from all other civil duties whatsoever, and from the very supream power it self which was to take care that this duty also as well as o∣thers should be discharged? Those amongst the Romans, who by the laws were priviledged not to serve in the warrs, were they exempted therefore in all other matters from the supream power of the state or Empire, or exempted general∣ly from the supream Coercive power in criminal causes? or must Bellarmine abuse his Reader with such quotations, and such implyed, but unconcluding arguments? Nor certainly does that iterated expression of God in that place of Leviticus, or elswhere, mei sunt, they are mine, import any more then a speci∣al designation of that tribe, for that most special Service of His about the ta∣bernacle. For he hath often elswhere in holy Scripture said of all the twelve tribes together that they were his own chosen peculiar people. And yet ne∣ver mean'd to exempt them thereby nor by any other expression from the power of their earthly either supream or subordinate Governours, or ex∣empt them at all from such power, in either civil or criminal matters, or in any whatsoever but in such religious matters onely as himself expresly had reserved for the cognizance of the Priests alone. As appears sufficiently by the contrary practice of their being taxed and punished by their civil Magi∣strats all along from that time forward while their Commonwealth State or Kingdom was in being. So that none of all these examples out of the old Testament alleadged by Bellarmine prove as much as per quamdam similitudinem, by some kind of similitude (as he speaks) that Christian Clerks are by the posi∣tive law of God, or should be exempt from either the supream or not supream coercive power of the civil Magistrate, in criminal causes or any causes what∣soever: nay nor that they are exempt by such as much as from taxes, if the supream Magistrate shall find it necessary to impose taxes on them; which is a farre less priviledge. Nor yet as much as prove that any Priests or Clerks whatsoever in any age or amongst any people have ever yet been so exempt by any kind of meer human law from such supream coercive power in criminal causes.

And as for that onely place which he produces out of the new Testament Mat. 17. these words of our Saviour, Then are the Children free: and, least we scandalize them &c, give it them for thee and me: who sees not further that it is as impertinent as any of those of the old Testament, and yet more impertinent then some of them, to inferre our present controversy, or to inferre that as much as per quandam similitudinem (by the positive law of God) Clerks are ex∣empt from the cognizance and punishment of the supream civil Magistrate? or even to inferre their exemption from the very most inferiour civil Judica∣tories in any civil or temporal cause whatsoever, though it were not criminal any way? Our Saviour according to the exposition of St. Hilary intimats onely his own freedom or exemption as he was the natural Son of God, from

that imposition laid by his Father in Exodus 30. on all the children of Israel of a sicle to the holy Temple or Tabernacle; which was yearly paid by the Israe∣lits, none at all excepted, not as much as those very Levits or Priests. What hath this to do with the exemption of others that were not the natural Sons of God? or what to do with the exemption of such others from the civil Judicatories in other causes, or from the supream coercive power of the Prince in criminal causes? Or if we admit the exposition of those who say this Didrachma was a tribute layd by Caesar to be payed to himself; not that sicle which by the law of Moyses was to be payed to the Temple or tabernacle: how doth our Saviour intimating that himself was Son to a King infinitely above all Caesars, and therefore in that respect not bound to pay it if he pleased, and that onely to avoyd scandal he would pay it, for as much as he was not yet known to others to be the natural Son of that onely supream King of all Kings and Caesars, and for that he came on earth in that form he appeared in, not to break the laws of God or man, but to fulfil the former in all points and to observe the later too wherein they were not against the former: how I say doth such intimation made, by our Saviour in that passage of Matthew, any way or even as much as per quandam similitudinem inferre this conclusion, There∣fore by the positive law of God all Christian Clerks are in criminal causes exempt from the supream civil coercive power of Princes or Magistrats. Yes, very well, sayes Bellarmine. Because all such are of the peculiar family of Christ: they are his special servants and Ministers. And we know that the children of Kings being exempt from tribute and taxes, it is not their own persons onely are so exempt, but all their servants and Domestick family. Excellent. But are not all Catholicks, or at least are not all holy and truly vertuous and sanctified Ca∣tholicks, both men and women, and as well those of them as are meer laye persons and have no other relation to Churchmen but that of the Catholick communion or Faith, are not I say such of the special family of Christ, his es∣pecial servants and Ministers, as well at least as some Clergiemen; or as at least the laye servants of some Clergiemen, or as their maid-servants and men-ser∣vants, their Porters, Gardners, Brewers, Cooks and Scullions? And doth not Bel∣larmine & all those of his way extend Ecclesiastical Immunity, & even that very self-same Immunity, which he would per quandam similitudinem (as he speaks) maintain to be de jure divino positivo, doth not he (I say) at least for some part ex∣tend that even to all such laye servants, even Landresses, Cooks, and Scullions of Clergiemen? Certainly himself, elswhere confesses (de Concil. Author. l. 2. c. 17.) & avers also, as much to his purpose, That all Christian Catholicks, men and women, as well of the Layety as Clergie of the whole earth, are of one and self-same family of Christ, and fellow servants of the same house under the great Steward, and Major domo of Christ, the Bishop of Rome. And to prove that all are of the same family and house of Christ under the same Steward, brings that quaerie of Christ himself in St. Luke, 12. chap. Quis est fidelis dis∣pensator et prudens, quem constituit Dominis super familiam suam &c. But whe∣ther he will confess or no that they are equally of Christs household, it mat∣ters not: being it is evident of it self, (the principles of Christian Religion being supposed) that such vertuous holy and sanctified laye persons, who are no way obliged to Churchmen, nor their domestical servants at all, are more truly and properly and excellently of the family of Christ, and more truly, properly, and excellently his servants and Ministers too in general (though not by particular designation to that is the special Ministery or function of Clerks) then even very many Clerks themselves, not to speak of the domestick laye servants of any Clerks whatsoever. Besides, I demand of any that will answer for this eminent Cardinal, whether all that believe in Christ as they should by a living Faith, are not not onely called children of light in several places of Scripture, are not not onely called servants of Christ and Domesticks of God, but also have not the power given them to be the very Sons of God, as Iohn the Evangelist sayes Jo. 1. dedit eis potestatem filius Dei fieri? and not

onely to be called so but really to be so, as Paul in an other place, ut filij De∣nominemur et simus; to wit by adoption and sanctification? And being it must be answered, they are so called, they have such power given them, they are so indeed, and not by name onely: I farther demand then where is the strength of Bellarmine's argument grounded on our Saviour's intimating in this place of Mat. that himself was free, and on the example of Earthly Princes, and of their children freed by them from tribute, and of the Domestick family of such Princes or their children free also from paying tribute, and lastly on our Saviours bidding Peter to pay for them both, least people should be scandalized, as if (sayes Bellarmine) our Saviour himself had thereby declared or said that both himself and his family, whose Prefect Peter was, should be free from all tribute: quasi diceret, et se et familiam suam, cujus Prefectus erat Petrus, liberos esse debere? where (I say) now is the strength of this argument, to prove that by the positive law of God, as much as per quandam similitudinem, all Cler∣giemen of the world are exempt more then others both as to their goods and persons from the supream civil power? or even to prove they are by such law exempt more then others as much as from tribute? All Christians are of the family, and as such Peter is Prefect of them all. And certainly Bellarmine him∣self hath strugled much in his books de Rom. Pont. and more singularly yet in his others against Barelay and Widdrington, to prove that Peter was so in his own days, and after his days that other succeeding Bishops of Rome are so like∣wise even over all the goods and lands and bodies too of Christians: and not onely over those of Christians, but over all those of the Heathen also. For so at last Bellarmine found himself constrain'd to say, by the arguments of Wid∣drington and Barclay, to which he could find no other answer.

But however this be, or whether by any kind of similitude it may be conclu∣ded out of this passage of Matthew that Clergiemen (as being in one certaine sense more especially of the Household, or Domestick family of Christ, either as he was the natural Son of God, or as he was a man) should be more exempt from paying tribute or taxes then others of his even holy believers and sancti∣fied family who are not in that certain sense or in that special manner, that is, by such a special function of his family: whether I say this follow or no p•••• quamdam similitudinem out of that passage of Matthew; yet no man of never so little reason can alleadge for Bellarmine, That our Saviour's instance there in his Querie to Peter, about the Kings of the Earth, and his pronouncing, and concluding (out of Peters answer) Ergo liberi sunt fily, must inferre that Clerks should therefore be exempt in criminal causes from the supream coercive power of the civil Magistrate, or of any supream earthly King. For it is well known that earthly Kings do not exempt (not even) the most special do∣mesticks of their children from their own Royal supream coercive power, or from that of their laws, in criminal causes, albeit they give them exemption from tributs or taxes, and many other priviledges. And no less known too, That they exempt not from that power and in such causes (not even) their very children themselves. Nay nor in civil causes either so but that they may be sued even before the subordinate inferiour Judges in the Kings Courts of Justice. And for criminal causes, the Cronicles of England and Histories of Spain can shew us Instances. These of a Prince of Spain put to death by his Father, King Phillip the Second, for some intelligence (as some do say) with the Turk. And those of a Prince of England, proceeded against even by an Inferiour Judge, for some misdemeanour committed or authorized by him; and even proceeded so against, without any special warrant from the King, but that which the Judge had in the laws of the Kingdom. All which being so, how can it follow out of that our Saviour's illation from the answer of Peter concerning the practice of Earthly Kings in the case of not exacting tribute or taxes from their own children, That, by the positive law of God in this place of Matthew, Clerks are absolutely exempt from the supream civil coercive power, in criminal causes? Or how indeed (I say) doth that con∣sequence

follow as much as per quandam similitudinem? And follow yet upon this account, that Clerks are in such a special manner of the family of the Prince, or even of the Kings Heir apparant?

If he shall answer by quitting our Saviours illation implied in the word Erge, and that of the similitude from the practice of earthly Kings, as to the matter of coercion, and by insisting only on these words, liberi sunt filii, as upon a positive declaration made by our Saviour of the exemption of Clergy-men from all Kings of the Earth, and in all matters whatsoever, and conse∣quently also by appropriating so the word filii here to Clergy-men alone, that not only all other Christians, because Lay-persons, but even our Saviour him∣self be not thereby understood in the quality of the natural Son of God: I say, that if any shall answer by such a systeme of suppositions; the Reply is clear and convincing enough. 1. That they are all either very false, or at least very vain, because without any proof or colour of proof 2. That such a positive Declaration by these words, Ergo liberi sunt filii, is contradicted by Bellarmine himself, who expresly acknowledges no divine precept properly such of the positive law of God, either in this place, or any other of holy Scripture for the exemption of Clergymen either from taxes, or judicial proceedings of the civil Magistrate. And I am sure both he, and all other Divines will confess, that a positive Declaration made by Christ in holy Scrip∣ture, is to all Christians a divine precept, and properly such of the positive law of God. 3. That if these words were such a positive Declaration, nei∣ther Bellarmine nor others needed their per quandam similitudinem; nor any further going about the bush. 4. And lastly, that if they were such, then certainly St. Paul had been much out of the way, when he declared the con∣trary, Rom. 13. and all the holy Fathers expounding him there, even for a whole thousand years, and all the Christian Church consequently until our new Interpreters and Sophisters came in these latter ages to tell us what Christ declared: as will appear evidently in one of the following Sections, where I treat of that command of St. Paul, or of God rather by St. Paul, 13 Rom. Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit, &c.

Let the judicious Reader himself be now judge whether the case for what concerns any positive law of God in holy Scripture, be not clear enough on my side, what ever Bellarmine say, or whether he confess, that there is no precept properly such of God, or of such law in holy Scripture: be∣ing our Adversaries alledge no other places either out of the old or new Testament, but these I have now considered; as the only of all which to∣gether Bellarmine frames, but to no purpose, his first argument to prove, that Clergymen are even by the positive law of God free, or exempt from even the supream, civil coercive power of all earthly Princes, and in all criminal causes whatsoever.

LXIV.

And let the Reader be also himself Judge betwixt me and this most emi∣nent 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. Im∣munitas Ecclesiastica vetustissima res est, jure pariter divino et humano introducta, quae in duobus potissimum sita est: Primum ut Clerici, eorum{que} possessiones à vecti∣galibus 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 Ecclesi∣siasticos 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 Im∣perator. dist. 96. Non a legibus publicis, non a potestatibus siculi sed a Pontifici∣bus et sacerdotibus omnipotens Deus Christianae Religionis Clericos et sacerdotes voluit ordinari et discuti. That Symmachus with his whole third Roman Sy∣nod (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 parti∣cular 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 cal∣led 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 consequent∣ly in these places they dog in general terms speak of that exemption in gene∣ral 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 par∣ticular 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 Scrip∣ture, or Tradition, hold with him in this point; but whom therefore all other sound and great Divines, who examine the matter throughly and strict∣ly, 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 ob∣serve 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 commis∣sa 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 immedi∣atly, 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 pre∣tend 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 argu∣ments 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 con∣scientious 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 Di∣vines 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 di∣vinum, ordinatio divina, voluntas omnipotentis, cura a Deo commissa, these Coun∣cils 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 contradi∣ction. 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 speak∣ing 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 ad∣mitted to have been that of such General Councils. And the reason is obvi∣ous enough, vz, That in canons of Reformation, Discipline or manners (as it is generally allowed and certain) the Fathers deliver not, nor intend, nor pre∣tend 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 Bellar∣mine himself teaches l. 2. de Concilior. Authoritate. c. 12. expresly and purpose∣ly, and in these very words. Deni{que} in ipsis Decretis de fide non verba, sed sensu•• 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 de∣cretum formatum, ut cum in Concilio Niceno decreverunt recipiendam vocem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 et in Ephesino vocem 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Where you see that he exempts onely from this ge∣neral 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 b••mousion or consubstantial, against Arrius; and the Council of Ephesus did for the word Deotocon, or Godbearing, against Nesto∣rius. 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 eve•• Bellarmine himself again in the same book and chapter) in the Acts of Gene∣ral 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 been delivered (and declared unanimou∣sly by the Fathers therein) from the beginning as of divine Faith, or as the do∣ctrine of Christ, or of the Apostles as received from Christ, or that the contrary is heretical, &c. Non enim sunt de fide (sayes Bellarmine, ubi supra) disputationes quae praemittuntur, ne{que} rationes quae adduntur, ne{que} ea quae ad explicandum et illu∣strandum adferuntur, sed tantum ipsa nuda Decreta, et ea non omnia, sed tontum quae proponuntur tamquam de fide. Interdum enim concilia aliquid definiunt non

ut certum, sed ut probabile, &c, Quando autem decretum proponatur tamquam de fide, facile cognoscitur ex verbis Concilij: semper enim dicere solent, se explicare fi∣dem Catholicam, vel Haereticos habendos qui contrarium sentiunt, vel, quod est com∣munissimum, dicunt anathema, & ab Ecclesia excludunt eos qui contrarium sentiunt. Quando autem nihil borum dicunt non est certum rem esse de fide. Whence it must follow evidently, and even by an argument a majori ad minus, that neither the words or epithets used even by the most general Council may be, in their decrees of Discipline, Reformation or manners, nor the suppositions or praevi∣ous or concomitant bare opinions which occasion'd the use of such words or epithets in such decrees, bind any at all to beleeve such words or epithets were rightly used or fitly applyed, or that those opinions were well grounded, or certain truths at all. Whereof the reason too is no less evident and obvious. To wit, that the Fathers, or Council had not examined or discussed this matter: & it was not at all their business to determine it, nor did they determine it. And that we know laws of Reformation, and even the very most substantial parts of such Canons are grounded often on, or do proceed from meer probable perswasi∣ons, or such as onely seem probable, nay & sometimes from the meer pleasure of such law makers.

All which being uncontrovertedly true, where is the strength of Bellarmines grand or second argument framed of such bare words or epi∣thets, did we grant his sense, even in the whole latitude of it, were that of these Popes and Councils? Or how will he seek to establish a maxime of such consequence, or of so much prejudice to all supream civil Governours, and even to the peace of the world, to all mankind it self, and a maxime for so much (or for what hath reference to the exemption of Clerks as to their per∣sons in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power) so clearly (as will be seen hereafter in some of the following Sections) against express and clear passages of holy Scripture, and against the universal Tradition for a 1000. years at least? how will he I say have the confidence to endeavour the establish∣ing of such a maxime upon so weak a foundation, which every man can over∣throw at pleasure, or deny with reason to be a foundation at all for that or any other maxime, as (I mean) asserted to be declared such in the positive law of God, either in holy Scripture or in undoubted Tradition? For the positive law of God appears not to us but by either of these two wayes of the written or unwritten word of God himself.

4. And lastly, that besides all said in these three answers to this second ar∣gument of Bellarmine, if we please to examine further what the places al∣leadg'd import, we shall find that whatever the private or peculiar but indis∣cussed opinion of these Popes or Councils was or was not concerning our pre∣sent dispute of the exemption of Clerks, and that by the positive law of God, as to their persons in criminal causes from the supream civil or temporal coercive power, nay or whatever such words as jus diuinum, ordinatio Dei, voluntas om∣nipotentis &c. abstractedly taken may import; yet the places alleadged, or these words or epithets used in them by these Fathers, must not by any means be thought therefore to have comprehended our present case, or extended to it at all. And the reason is 1. That all Divines and Canonists agree that all ex∣pressions, words or epithets in any law whatsoever must be understood secun∣dum subjectam materiam, or must be expounded by and according as the mat∣ter which is in debate or is intended, requires: and further so as no errour, inconvenience, or mischief follow; and yet the law and words thereof main∣tain'd still in a good sense and to some good use, especially according to for∣mer wholesome laws. 2. That the matter unto which there was any reference in these places or authorities quoted so by Bellarmine, was either Ecclesiastical Immunity in the most generical sense, abstracting from the several underkinds true or false or pretended onely of it, or was it in a less generical sense taken for that of their persons; but still abstracting (for any thing appears out of these places quoted) from that pretended species of exemption of Clerks, as to their persons, from the supream civil coercive power in criminal causes, espe∣cially

when the crimes are high, and so high too as they are subversive of the very State it self, and are besides in meer temporal matters, and no remedy at all from the spiritual superiours.

And in truth for what concerns the Council of Trent (which as of greatest authority amongst us, as being the very last celebrated of those we esteem ge∣neral Councils, Bellarmine places in the front) 1. it is clear enough, to any that will please to read the whole tenour of that twentieth chapter, Ses. 25. de Re∣formatione, which he quotes, That that Council did even there so much abstract from this matter, or so little intended it, that on the contrary, the Fathers much rather seem to speak onely there of the Ecclesiastical exemption of Clerks as to their persons, from onely inferiour secular Judicatories, or onely from the inferiour Courts, Judges and Officers of Princes; but not at all from the Princes themselves, or from their supream civil power or that of their laws. Which I am very much deceived, if this entire passage (whereof Bel∣larmine gives us but a few words) do not sufficiently demonstrate. Cupient sancta synodus Ecclesiasticam disciplinam in Christiano populo non solum restitui, sed etiam perpetuo sartam tectam a quibuscum{que} impedimentis conservari, praeter ea quae de Ecclesiasticis personis constituit, saeculares quoque Principes officij sui admonendes esse censuit; confidens eos, ut Catholicos, quos Deus sanctae fidei Ecclesiae{que} protect∣res esse voluit, jus suum Ecclesiae restitui, non tantum esse concessuros, sed etiam su•• di∣tos suos omnes ad debitam erga Clerum, Parcchos et superiores ordines reverentiam revecaturos; ne•• perm••ssuros, ut officiales, aut inferiores magistratus, Ecclesiae et per∣sonarum Ecclesiastisarum immunitatem, Dei ordinatione, et Canonicis sanctionibus constitutam, aliquo cupiditatis studio, seu inconsideratione aliqua violent; sed una cum ipsis Principibus debitam sacris summorum Pontificum, et Conciliorum constitu∣tionibus observ antiam praestent. Decernit ita{que} &c. 2. It is also clear enough these words ordinatione divina, or the Councils saying that Ecclesiastical Immu∣nity was constituted by divine ordination, imports no more of necessity then, that it was Gods good pleasure and special providence and care of the Church and Churchmen, that disposed affairs so and moved the hearts of Princes and people to give such exemptions to the Church and Churchmen as they indeed have. For so we say that by Gods ordination, or divine ordination, this or that is as it is. Which yet argues no positive law of God, nor any law at all of God for it to be as it is.

As for that of Colen, besides that it is but a smale Provincial Synod, never yet canonized by any general Synod, nor even by any Pope, and therefore in Bellarmine's own principles, of no authority out of that Province, not even were the Decree in a matter of Faith, as it is not certainly: it is manifest enough the Fathers there or in that ch. par. 9. quoted by him, speake not a word pro or ••••n of our present dispute; or, if they do any way indirectly or by consequence, that all is against Bellarmine, forasmuch as they determine Ec∣clesiastical Immunity to consist chiefly in two things. The one, that Clerks and their possessions are free of all imports, tributs, and other lay duties. The other, that criminals flying to Churches be not forced thence. Now where is a word here of Clerks being exempt, even from the supream civil coercive power in all criminal causes and even the most haynous crimes imaginable, and commit∣ted too in meer temporal things? These Fathers of Colen did not as much as dream of any such matter. At least no rational Divine is to judge, or con∣clude out of their words or expression here that they did. For the onely word here whence any such thing might be any way pretended, are these, aliis{que} ma∣neribus laicis. But who sees not there are other lay duties, besides customs, o•• taxes, from which by the civil constitutions of the Roman Emperours at first, and after by that of other Kings who succeeded them, Clerks are and have been exempted? nay that their exemption from other lay duties, was the first exemption they had, and even that which above all other was most convenient they should have? as for example from all civil offices of Collectors, Bayliffs, Constables; from the Militia, &c. Why then should any Divine be so unrea∣sonable

as to derive from a position so general, so proper, and so true, of those Fathers of Colen, a conclusion so particular, so improper, and so false, as Bellarmine doth in our present case? As for those other words of this of Colen, jure pariter divino & humano, I have already said what we must rationally think they understood by jus divinum, though only applied here to other ex∣emptions, then that from the supream civil power.

For both the Lateran Councils, I confess Bellarmine, and some others with him, give them both equally the name of General. But I am sure with∣al, that according to all truth, the latter (which he considers first) or that under Leo the X. does not merit as much as the name of a General Council truly such, nor even of an Occidental Council truly such: and that Bellarmine himsel•• elsewhere confesses it is not esteemed as such by many great Catho∣licks: and that moreover whatsoever he thinks, the whole Gallican Church, & many others reject it, as not esteeming it such for many reasons, which I shall give hereafter in this book, upon another occasion. As I am sure also, that all the Canons of discipline reported to be of the IV. Council of Lateran, or of that under Innocent the Third (which Bellarmine quotes here in the next place) are doubtful; though for the present it matters not much whether these Canons be, or be not genuine? or whether this which is called the great Council of Lateran, Concilium Magnum Laterananse, was, or was not, a gene∣ral Council, truly such? or whether only a very great Occidental Council, but not for all that a Council oecumenical or General, properly and truly such of the universal Church? As the same, for the point of being truly oecumenical, or General of the whole Church, is disputed by some, con∣cerning the Tridentine Synod; albeit now of greatest authority with us of all General Councils, truly, and unconvertedly such. Neither doth it mat∣ter any more one jot whether the other Lateran, under Leo the X. be admit∣ted, or not, for a General Council, truly such. For albeit this latter, in the IX. Session, and decreeing somewhat of Ecclesiastical Discipline, sayes in ge∣neral, and by way of supposition, that by divine and humane law, there is no power attributed to Lay-men over Clerks, &c. and the former under Innocent, cap. 24. say that some Laicks endeavour to usurp too much of divine right, when they compel Church-men that receive no temporal benefit from them to swear Allegiance, or take oathes of fidelity to them: yet no understanding person, no good Divine or Canonist, may therefore conclude, that certainly these Councils intended thereby to signifie as much as it to be their own bare opinion (much less to declare it as the Catholick Faith: which indeed is not pretended of them by Bellarmine himself, or any other) That Clerks are by a p••sitive law of God exempt even in all criminal causes whatsoever from the supream, civil, coercive power of temporal Princes. And my reasons are, 1. Because it is a maxime of both Divines and Canonists, that priviledges, and laws that speak of priviledges, are stricti juris, or strictae interpretationis, when the priviledges are to the prejudice of any third's right: as also when out of any other kind of more ample interpretation, some either absurdity or falsity, or any great inconvenience, or any errour, and gross mistake attri∣buted to the laws, or Law-makers, or givers of such priviledge, must follow. 2. Because it is a maxime too, very well known and granted, that where a Law or Canon dwells in Generals only, we must not understand particulars, or such specialties as are not specially express'd, and whereof there is, or may be a grand controversie, whether the power of the Canon-makers could reach unto them, and which moreover are such, that it is not likely the Law or Canon-makers would comprehend them, if expresly thought upon, and specially debated. 3. Because it is manifest this position of Bellarmine con∣cerning the exemption of Clergy-men in all criminal causes whatsoever, &c. is such a specialty, and such a priviledge. And therefore it must follow, that whereas these Councils of Lateran do not in specifical express terms, discend to it, no Divine or Canonist may in reason conclude they mean'd it. But on

the contrary, ought rather to expound them in any other probable and ratio∣nal way: as by saying they understood not by divine, that which is properly and strictly divine, but that only which is in a large, though somewhat im∣proper acception such: and by lay-persons understand only such inferior Lay-persons, Judges or Governours, as in certain cases, haue not from the supream power, and civil laws, any cognizance of Church-men. Which indeed is the on∣ly rational, and natural exposition of these authorities, without any errone∣ous absurdity, falsity, inconvenience, or prejudice: as the very Canon alledged above by me at large, out of the Tridentine Synod, seems expresly to intimate: for as much as it expresly, and signally desires, or confides (for so it speaks) that Emperours, Kings and Princes, will not suffer that their Officials, or inferi∣or Magistrats or Judges, violat the Immunities of the Church or Church-men, out of any covetousness, or inconsiderancy: confidens, &c. nec permissuros ut offici∣ales aut inferiores Magistratus, Ecclesiae & personarum Ecclesiasticarum immuni∣tatem, Dei ordinatione & can••nicis sanctionibus constitutam, aliquo cupiditatis stu∣dio seu inconsideratione aliqua violent.

Besides, the Reader is to observe two things for that of the fourth Lateran. 1. That where 'tis said there, that Laicks usurp too much of divine right, &c. by divine right, here we ought not (nor indeed can, if we will not make the Fa∣thers to speak improperly) understand the law of God, but only the right belonging to God; whether that right be derived immediatly from the law of God, or law of man. 2. That it cannot be truly said, that any Clerks receive no temporal thing or benefit from the supream civil Magistrate: whereas all Clerks, receive from them temporal protection at least. And therefore in reason owe Allegiance to such their protectors.

For Boniface the VIII., although his authority or judgment alone without a Council, be, amongst very Catholick Nations or Universities, of no great value or esteem in this, or any other which concerns the difference or contro∣versie: For we know well enough how his extravagant unam sanctam. de Ma∣jorit. & obed. is reputed in the Gallican Church; and what his Letter, Brief, or Bull was to a King of France, where he declared them all Hereticks that would not acknowledge himself to be supream in that Kingdom, and as well in all temporals as in spirituals (and that the same esteem indeed, and as to our main purpose may be, and also truly, and groundedly may be entertain'd of Innocent the Third, no judicious Divine that will read (in Sponda••u••s Con∣tin.) his proceedings against most of all the Christian Kings, not in Europe only, but in Asia, will deny:) I say neverthess, that, for what concerns only our present purpose of the exemption of Clergymens persons in criminal cau∣ses, from the supream, civil, coactive power, under which they live, and are protected, our learned Cardinal alledges this very Boniface to no purpose: albeit he alledge him in cap. Quamquam. de Censibus. in 6. Where indeed there is no such thing. For in that place, as it is manifest enough out of the whole chapter, and purpose, or matter treated therein (which was only of, and against Guidagia, that is, a kind of toll, custome, or exaction to be paid for the safeguard of High-wayes) and out of the very words (which Bellarmine would not quote, because not to his general purpose, or to that of proving generally all the parts of his Fifth Proposition) Cum igitur Ecclesiae Ecclesiasti∣cae{que} pers••nae ac res ipsarum non solum jure humano, quin etiam & divino à saecula∣rium personarum exactionibus sint immunes: it is, I say, very manifest hence, that Boniface in that place (and no other is alledged out of him) doth not as much as touch upon our controversie, or say, as Bellarmine imposes on him, that Clerks, and their goods are exempt from the secular power. For be it well, or ill said of Boniface here, that as well by divine right, or law, as by humane, Churches and Churchmen are free, or exempt from all publick exactions of secular persons; whereas by such exactions all Divines and Ca∣nonists understand only tributes, tolls, customes, or taxes whatsoever of mo∣ney, or other things imposed, as payable to the publick; and whereas the very matter treated of, and determined by Boniface in that Chapter, is only

that of guidagia, or pedagia, which was a duty (as it seems) payable then in Italy by all travellers, and for their safe convoy, or safe travelling: whereas he commands only there, that (in prosecution of a certain decree made by Alexander the IV. his Predecessor) Church-men pay no such guidagia, or pedagia, for their own Persons, or Goods which they carry along, or cause to be carried, or sent, non causa negotiandi: who sees not it is a very great in∣consequence, and meer abuse of the Reader, to conclude, that therefore Bo∣niface the VIII. supposed generally, nay says it to be de jure divino positivo (ta∣king this jus divinum strictly and properly) that Clerks are wholy exempt in all criminal causes, and all matters whatsoever, from the supream, civil co∣ercive power of Lay-Princes? Certainly neither doth Boniface teach any such matter there; nor must any such follow out of what he either supposes, or de∣determines there. Because it is clear enough, that certain persons, even meer lay-persons, may have a priviledge from all kind of taxes; and yet be subject in other causes and other matters, both criminal and civil, to such as impose taxes.

For Iohn the VIII. That who ever please to consider that whole chapter, Si Imperator. quoted by Bellarmine, will be convinced this Pope intends no more, but that as it is fitting the Emperour himself should for what concerns Religion, learn from, and not teach the Church: so in Ecclesiastical matters it was Gods pleasure that Clerks should be ordered and examined, and if they chanced to fall into an errour, should be also reconciled on their return, not by the Lay-powers, but by the Pontiffs and Priests. Which these words (omit∣ted by the Cardinal) recipi{que} de errore remeantes do sufficiently insinuat. Be∣sides, that any man knows it is a very weak and sensless argument of a positive law of God for any thing, or any duty, or any priviledge, that either Iohn the VIII. or any other, even a whole General Council should speak in this manner, Omnipotens Deus voluit, it was the will of God; unless they had withal, and on the debate or controversie it self, made of purpose an express Canon, declaring that thereby, or by such manner, or by these words (it is or it was the will of the omnipotent God) they mean'd to signifie, not the gene∣ral or special providence of God, or his good will or pleasure, known only to us (for example, in the present matter of Exemption) because we see the Clerks, as to many things, are exempted so by the laws of Princes, and that we know this could never have been done by Princes, if God had not moved their hearts to do so. For it is ordinary with all kind of people to speak so of all things happened to themselves, or others (sin only excepted) God will have it so: or, God hath ordained so. And yet no man will be so foolish as to gather out of such expressions, that people mean to say there was a positive law of God, or law of his known to us for the doing, or being of things so, or so. Otherwise, what a numberless infinity of positive laws of God must we assert, which the world never yet heard of, and such as never any one of all have been yet in Scripture or Tradition?

For Symmachus finally; that which is alledged out of him, or his Roman Synod, concerns not the present dispute; and at most, and at best, signifies no more then the sense of that Provincial Council speaking to Symmachus, and their sense too delivered only in an ordinary way of speech (not in any Ca∣non) and even this very speech against only the pretence of the Praetorian Praefect of Odoacer to make a law (yet without the consent of the Church-men, or of the Bishops and other Priests, though with a good intention) for the preservation of the Church-lands, and Revenues, and Goods, or to hin∣der any Sale, or Mortage of them by the very Bishops of Rome it self, even for what concern'd them, or their own peculiar See in that City. In this case it was the Fathers of that Council spoke thus (after they had caused the Instrument, or Law of the said Praetorian Praefect, or of Basilius to be read by Hormisda the Deacon) Licet secundum prosecutio∣nem venetabilium fratrum nostrorum Laurentii, Eulalii, Cresconii, Maximi, vel

Stephani, nec apud nos incertum habetur hanc ipsam scripturam nullius esse mo∣menti: verum tamen etiamsi aliqua posset ratione subsistere, modis omnibus in Sin∣dali Conventu provida Beatudinis Vestrae sententia enervari conveniebat, & in ir∣ritum deduci: ne in exemplum remaneret, praesumendi quibuslibet Laicis quamvis religiosis vel p••tentibus in quacunque ciuitate, quolibet modo aliquid decernere de Ecclesiasticis facultatibus, quarum solis sacerdotibus disponendi indiscusse a Deo cura commissa decetur. Where it is plain 1. That nothing is said, or mean'd of the exemption of the persons of Church-men from the supream temporal power. 2. That they neither signifie as much as their Goods or Lands to be exempt from that same power supream; but only, secundum subjectam materiam, to be exempt so far from the subordinat Magistrate, that no disposition could be made of the Church-lands or Goods, or no provision either for the Church, by such inferiour Magistrates, how powerful, or even religious, and well meaning soever, without the consent of the Bishops and Priests themselves.

3. That much less do the Fathers of this Council signifie their lands or goods not to be subject to any publick taxes; or (which is it I mean) do not signifie, that God hath appointed their lands or goods should be exempt from all publick taxes, tributes, customs, &c. For the disposing of the Revenues, or other goods of the Church to be indistinctly committed by God to Priests, and that Priests should be notwithstanding lyable to publick contributions out of such Revenues or Goods, for the publick necessities of the common∣wealth, are things very compatible in reason. And here is nothing said by these Fathers to the contrary.

Besides we know, that whatever may be said of that law, so published by Basilius the Pretor: or, whether by the express command of Odoacer? no man will deny, that both the Pope and other Italian Bishops, had reasons sufficient to move them not to regard it much, as being made either by an Usurper, or an enemy to the Emperour, and who yet dared not take on himself the name of Emperour: and moreover, forasmuch as at that time that very same Usurper or Enemy Odoacer, with whose authority it was made or published by Basilius, was devested by Theodorick, nay dead, when the Fa∣thers held that Synod: and forasmuch too as, in the same law, that same Od••∣acer would have usurped also the election of the Pope to himself: as Baro∣nius and Spondanus have, ad annum Christi. 457.

But however this be, or be not, it is evident here is not a s••llable for the exemption of Church-men, or Clerks, as to their persons, and in criminal cause (and that too by the positive law of God) from the supream, civil, or coercive power. And it is no less evident (although my present purpose re∣quire not my animadaversion hereof) That meer Lay-men, Kings, and Lords and Knights, and Burgesses, and Squires, and Boores, and even all masters of Families whatsoever, in such contreys as have the laws of property, might in a like, or unlike controversie, 'twixt themselves and the Clergy, if the Clergy alone should attempt to make laws for disposing of their estates with∣out their own consent, might, I say, with very much right & truth answer the Clergy, as the Fathers did the Layety here: or thus (I mean, mutatis mutan∣dis) verum tamen etiamsi aliqua &c. provida Majestatis vestrae sententia eneruari conveniebat & in i••ritum deduci: ne in exemplum remaneret quibuslibet Ecclesiasti∣cis &c. aliquid decernere de laicis facultatibus, quarum solis laicis disponendi in∣discussè a De•• cura commissa d••cetur.

And yet none of them would be therefore constrained, or necessitated in point of reason to prove, or to suppose a positive law of God for their own exemption, as much as to their goods from the Clergy. The civil, or munici∣pal laws, or customs of men (and which indeed are those only that make meum and tuum in the world) in such a case would be ground enough for them to say, that God committed the disposing of their own estates to themselves alone, and not to the Clergy. To wit, for as much as by his gene∣ral, or special providence he had such, or such civil laws made: and for as

much as he commands generally in holy Scripture, as natural reason also tells us, we must observe all kind of humane Ordinances of the supream, civil, Power, and States we live in, which imply no sin.

Therefore Symmachus and his Council, are as vainly alledged by Bellarmine for a positive law of God for the exemption of Clergymen, &c. as any of those other Popes or Councils.

And therefore too, from first to last, I conclude against this most eminent Cardinal, that indeed there is not any such positive law of God, at least in our case, that is, for the exemption of the persons of Clergymen, in criminal causes, from the supream, civil, coercive power of supream temporal Prin∣ces: no such positive, I say, as yet revealed unto us, either by holy Scrip∣ture, or by any Tradition. For these arguments which I now have so answered, are all he doth, or can pretend for such a positive law of God from either; albeit I confess he speaks not expresly of Tradition, nor also virtually pre∣tends 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 say∣ings, or any other whatsoever of such late Councils, either Provincial or Ge∣neral, 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 observati∣on 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 ob∣servation 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 in∣tended 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 pro∣position 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 proposi∣tion, or conclusion either, which is necessary of natural reason (to all which the Schoolmen give the name, or title of the law divine natural; be∣cause, or forasmuch as at our creation, imprinted in our souls by God him∣self, the Author of nature, but still without any supernatural infusion; being the condition of a reasonable soul requires it, even without any order to im∣mortality.) 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 un∣discerning

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 what∣soever, 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, im∣mediatly after he had stated, or demanded the question, An exemptio Clerico∣rum 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 Ec∣clesiastico. 3. De jure divino positivo.) It must be, I say, to this end of impo∣sing 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 ex∣emption 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 al∣lay, that he dares not stand to it stiffely in a proper true sense of a law of na∣ture, 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 final∣ly 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 judici∣ous 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 rea∣son) may be yourself a discretionary Judg (for authoritative judgment nei∣ther 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 evi∣dent, and necessary consequence, and so too that no discipline, no art is requisit, but onely that simple or natural ratiocination or discourse which all men can have. Such, for example (sayes he thirdly) are all the precepts of the Decalogue. For out of that first principle imprinted in the hearts of all men, That God is to be worshipped, must follow, that Idols ought not to be worshipped, and that we ought not to swear God in vaine. As likewise out of that other first prin∣ciple, what you would not have done to your self you must not do to an other, must follow, that you must not kill, you must not commit adultery, you must not

steal, &c. It is true indeed (sayes our learned Cardinal: and perhaps truly too in so much) that some such precepts, as these of the second degree, or some such conclusions have been sometimes and in some nations blotted out of the hearts of men, by too great a blindness, which did seize their understanding faculty: as appears out of Caesar lib. 6. de Bello Gallico. where we read that amongst the Germans theft was esteemed no vice; but a vertue: and out of St. Hierom l. 2. in Iovinianum. and of Theodoret l. 9. ad Gracos. who relate many vices against nature, which have been approved as lawful in some countries, not onely by the people but by their laws and law-makers. And yet notwithstand∣ing this ignorance or blindness of some concerning the precepts of nature in such matters, it is also and alway true, that such precepts do truly and proper∣ly belong to the law divine natural, as St. Thomas of Aquin teaches 1. 2. q. 94. art. 5. & q. 100. art. 8. where he holds that no dispensation can take place or be given at all in the precepts of the Decalogue, or in such as we commonly call the ten commandements: because these are properly of divine natural right or law. The third degree of natural precepts is of such others as are deduced indeed from the principles of the law of nature, but not by a consequence absolutely necessary, nor altogether or any way evident: and therefore do want humane institution. And these are they which the Divines properly referre to jus gentium, the law of nations.

This being the doctrine of this great Cardinal, and his division or distincti∣on of the several degrees of the law divine natural: and his Resolve of the above Quere being that which a little after he gives in these words, His ita ex∣plicatis, dicendum videtur, Exemptionem Ecclesiasticorum non pertinere ad primum vel secundum gradum naturalium praeceptorum, nec tamen esse juris tantum positivi, sive canonici, sive civilis, sed referendam esse ad tertium gradum praeceptorum juris naturae, seu quod idem est, ad jus gentium, that the Exemption of Ecclesiasticks belongs not to the first or second degree of natural praecepts, and yet is not from any law positive onely, either canonical or civil, but must be referr'd to the third of those are praecepts of the law of nature, or, which is the same thing (sayes he) to the law of nations: I leave it now to the judgment of all judicious men whether he do not abuse the name of the law of nature, or law divine natural, and of precepts of such a law, and consequently his undis∣cerning Reader by attributing that name to those dictats which are not indeed any such law or any precepts at all of such law, not even (I say) according to his own doctrine here? For a law divine natural, hoc ipso that it is such a law, or indeed any true law at all, and precepts of the law divine, hoc ipso that they are such precepts, or even any true preceps of any true law, must be of necessity binding: this property or quality of binding, as it is confessed of all sides, being essential to a true law and true precept of such law: I mean still accord∣ing to that proper sense wherein I must be understood to speak here of laws and precepts, that is, as they are distinguished from other free unobliging rules of direction, council, or advice, which not a superiour onely but every con∣scientious and knowing Inferiour also may give. And yet Bellarmine here con∣fesses in effect, that the Exemption of Ecclesiasticks was not obliging any, nor binding by the sole vertue of any pure dictate of natural reason, or not at all antecedently to an institution made by man; forasmuch as it is onely of the third degree, and therefore positive, and consequently not a conclusion that follows any way at all evidently or necessarily out of any evident or certainly true principle of natural reason. And what is this els but the dictat thereof not to be binding at all by natural reason? and therefore consequently no law, no precept of that same reason. For if we see it doth not follow certainly out of any evident or allowed principle, as our natural reason will not suffer us to be bound by it upon the bare account of such an uncertain false illation: so will not our natural reason suffer us to esteem it upon that same bare account a law of meer natural reason, and consequently nor a law divine natural.

Whence also it must be evident enough that Bellarmine seeks without any sufficient ground to impose again on his Readers credulity, where he sayes in his said Resolve, that this Exemption is not onely juris positivi, sive canonici, sive civilis. For if it was not at all, as his own doctrine here confesses it was not, before the institution or determination of men (however this determination was made, by custome onely, or otherwise) how can it be true that it is not onely from or by a positive law, institution, or determination of men, and this law ei∣ther civil or canonical, or both, being there is no other way of a positive deter∣mination? Behold the reason partly wherefore this learned Cardinal (seeing well enough his doctrine, and Resolve, or both together could not but argue him of absolute contradiction, if he would be understood so as to speak pro∣perly, or even to speak sense at all) flyes immediatly from the name or title of law divine natural to that of a law onely of Nations, or rather confounds both together, that is, the law of nations and his third degree of the laws divine natural. But so he might have without any authority to impose new names confounded together, and comprehended under the self-same appellation heat and cold, and vice and vertue, or at least as many different species's of qualities as have no contrariety in the same subject.

However, allowing him this priviledge, or passing by this shifting of names or appellations, and his attributing in some sense (though an improper abusive sense) the titles of a law of nature, and of a law of nations, to the exemption of Clergiemen, in his own greatest height extent or latitude of this exempti∣on, or as it imports even that exemption which he maintains to be of the per∣sons also of Clergiemen, and even in all temporal causes whatsoever civil and criminal, and not from the inferiour laye Magistrats onely, but from the very supream (which of persons, and in relation to the supream coercive power, is that onely which is my present purpose to examine and oppose:) let us now see how well he maintains by his arguments what he so undertakes or asserts here: and see whether any of the four proofs he frames, or all together can perswade any man of reason that his said Exemption of Clergiemen is in any sense at all de jure positivo naturali, of law divine natural, or even as much as de jure Genti∣um, of the law of nations?

Onely you are first to take notice, that Bellarmine himself hath transiently discovered his own principal design or end in strugling so much for this title or name, either of a law divine natural, or law of nations, nay of both, and attributing both to that which might establish the Exemption of Ecclesiasticks in the height and latitude he asserts it for their lands, goods, Churches, Houses, Persons, &c. from all kind of laye power, subordinate or supream. That end I give in his own words and corrollaries, which you may read in himself a little before his proofs c. 29. l. 1. de Cleric. Rursus sequi∣tur ut ea quae sunt de jure gentium, quia sunt aliquo modo naturalia, non possint a Principibus vel Magistratibus abrogari vel immutari: contra autem quae sunt de jure civili, quia sunt p••rro positiva, sicut a Principe vel Magistratu constituuntur, ita posse a Principe vel Magistratu abrogari. And a little beneath (where he, though all in vain, endeavours to reconcile Driedo and some Canonists to the Divines, especially to Victoria and S••to and to St. Thomas himself: those asserting the Ex∣emption to be of the law of nature or law divine natural; and these that it is onely of positive human law) Et ideo addunt (sayes he, meaning Victoria and S••tus) in hanc Exemptionem c••nsensisse omnes gentes, ac pretterea non posse mutari, vel abrogari a Regibus et Principibus, etiamsi omnes simul coniuncti eam abrogare conentur. Where you see plainly, his end is no other in pleading either a law divine natural or a law of nations for his Exemption of Ecclesiasticks, but that his Reader might go away with this perswasion That in case either can have any colour out of his arguments, then it must be further concluded that no power on earth can at any time hereafter pretend to change or lessen this Exemption. And so the Pope alone must be for ever the onely absolute supream Monarch even in all temporals of all Clergiemen wherever in the world: and even his

temporal kingdom for goods, lands, houses, persons, must be (at least on this account, if all other pretences be overthrown) diffused throughout all King∣doms and States of the earth. And France alone, for example, must acknow∣ledge at least three hundred thousand French men and women, though born within and never out of France, to be with all their goods, lands, houses, reve∣nues, persons, properly and onely accountable to him, even (I mean still in all temporals) as to their onely supream Lord: and not accountable at all in any thing to him we call or who is truly the French King, Lewis the XIIII. All which must be concluded according to his design, if his Reader can be once perswaded by his arguments that his Ecclesiastical Immunity is as much as de jure Gentium, of the law of nations. For he would have us believe him that a law of nations cannot be so purely positive but that it must be partly also natural, or at least cannot be at all so positive or so from the consent or custom of men that any less number then that of all nations wherever, and of all even the Subjects of all nations, that is of all men, both Princes and Subjects, can in any particular Kingdom or State revoke or change it: because forsooth his unevi∣dent unnecessary conclusions of the third degree are those whereof the laws of nations are framed: and consequently those laws of nations are in so much or aliquo modo natural: and that even such or aliquo modo natural institutions can∣not be otherwise altered: and his Exemption of Ecclesiasticks must be ranked amongst those institutions or laws of nations, or amongst those dictats which are aliquo modo naturalia.

LXVI.

Having so considered his design let us now to his arguments whereby he pretends to prove his Assertion, or that of his Ecclesiastical Exemption or Immu∣nity (even as to the persons of Clergiemen) from the very supream civil power, and even in all temporal matters and causes whatsoever, civil or criminal, to be ali∣quo modo de jure divino naturali, and, without any modus at all, to be de jure Gen∣tium, or of the law of nations.

Four several arguments are formed by him to prove this Assertion. Whereof the first argument thus. It is the custom of all nations that Clerks be so ex∣empted. Therefore &c. For (sayes he) what is every where descends from nature it self, which is common to all. And to prove this Antecedent he al∣leages, That amongst the Hebrews the Levits were exempt from tributs, out of the 30 of Exodus, and 1. of Numbers. That amongst the Egyptians under Pharao the Priests were exempt. Gen. chap. 47. That the same exemption was enjoyed by the Hebrew Priests under Artaxerxes, 1. Esdras. 7. chap. That the same too as enjoyed by the Gentil Priests, may be known out of Aristotle l. 2. Oceonom. out of Caesar, l. 6. de bello Gallico, out of Plutarch, in Gamillo, and out of others. And amongst Christians, That the Emperour Constantine the Great, no sooner was openly professed Christian then he incontinently, as if nature her self had taught him, declared the Priests exempt from the common duties of other Christians; as appears out of his Epistle to Anulinus, recorded by Eusebius l. X. Histor. Eccles. c. 7. Wherein other Christian Emperours did imitate him. But to this purpose Iustinians words are to be noted particular∣ly l. Sancinius. 2. Cod. de Sacrasanctis Ecclesiis. For when he had in this law pri∣viledg'd the Churches (that is the publick places of prayer) he added presently Cur enim non facimus discrimen inter res divinas & humanas, & cur non competens praerogativa caelesti favori conservetur? by which words (sayes our learned Cardinal) this Emperour signified that exemption not to be the pleasure of men, or arbitrary, but due and necessary.

Second argument thus (or from some kind of similitude which we may conceive betwixt the Soul and Body, of one side, and the spiritual and temporal power on the other.) The soul (or spirit) is ordered so by nature in relation to the body (or flesh) that although she hinder not the actions of the body while or when they are regular, yet if otherwise she curbs

them, and absolutely in all cases governs the flesh or body at pleasure, according to the end this rational commandress hath prefixed to her self: and on the other side we see that the flesh hath no empire no command over the spirit, nor can direct, or judge or restrain it in any thing. Ergo, sayes Bellar∣mine, a paritate it must follow, or be, That in the same wise the Ecclesiastical power, which is spiritual, and therefore naturally superiour to the secular, may, when it is necessary, direct, judge, and restrain or use coercion towards the civil power, but never be it self directed, judged, or restrained by the se∣cular.

Third argument thus. As well in holy Scripture, and other writings of holy Fathers, as by the common custom of Christians, Priests are adorned with the names or titles of Fathers and Pastors. But nature teacheth that children are bound to obey their parents, and willingly abide correction from them; but never to think that they on the other side may themselves com∣mand, correct, or judge their parents. And much more doth the same nature teach that sheep are directed and govern'd by their Pastours, and when they straye, are by the whistle or stick of their Pastors reduced again into their right way and pasture. Which is so true, that it would be plainly against nature, that a sheep should direct or govern her Pastour.

Fourth argument thus. Ecclesiastical persons are the Ministers of God, consecrated for his onely service, and for this very purpose offered by all the people to God. Whence it is that they are called Clerici or Clerks from the greek word Cleros that signifies a lot: as if by that name of theirs it were giv∣en us to understand, that they belong specially to the lot of our Lord Which St. Hierom teacheth in his Epistle to Nepotianus. But certainly in such things as are offered and consecrated to God, and so in some wise made as if they were the property or peculiar of God, no secular Princes can have any right. Which both the light of reason doth shew, and God himself delivers not ob∣scurely in holy Scripture, where he sayes in the last of Leviticus, Quicquid semel Deo fuerit consecratum, sanctum sanctorum erit Domino.

Fift and last argument thus. God hath not seldom punished miraculously the prophaners of Churches, and such as presumed to violate the immunities or privileges granted to sacred places. Whereof much may be read with Tilmannus Bredenbachius l. 5. sacrarum collationum. But that is a very notable testimony which is read of Basilius Porphyrogenitus, Emperour of the Greek, apud Balsamonem in Nomōca-none Photij, in commentario canonis primi Synodi, Constantinopolitanae primae, & secundae, quam nos Latini Octavam appellamus. For the said Basilius attributs the cause of the calamities of those days to a certain law made by his predecessour, Nicephoras Phocas, against the liberty of the Church. Ex quo (inquit) lex ista robur habuit, nihil boni penitus in hodier∣num us{que} diem vitae nostrae contigit, sed potius ê contrario nullum omninò genus ca∣lamitatis defuit. From the time (sayes Basilius) that law (of Nicepherus) was observed, no kind of good fortune happened in our life, but rather on the con∣trary no sort of calamity was wanting. And therefore this Emperour Basilius did with much reason abrogat wholly that law.

And these are the five arguments of Bellarmine. The first grounded on his pretended custom of all Nations: second on his similitude betwixt the Ec∣clesiastical power and lay, and that of the soul and body: third on the titles or names of Father and children, and sheepheards and sheep: fourth on the title or name of Clerks derived from the greek word Cleros, and on the significati∣on thereof: and the fift on signs and prodigies, as he speaks, or calamities which pursued the infringers of Ecclesiastical Immunity, liberty, or Exempti∣on. And these arguments I have given all of them as neer as I could in his own words and form: that the Reader may the more clearly judge of my answers, and of the controversy in it self, for what concerns my present pur∣pose, (in this Section) which is onely (as I have often advertised) the Ex∣emption, or not exemption rather by the law divine natural or law of nations

of the persons of Clergiemen from the supream lay civil and coercive power in criminal causes. And consequently also judge whether I wrong this most eminent Cardinal if I say, as I do say, That he hath by his doctrine here, or in and as to this particular of such exemption and of such laws, extreamly abused his Readers, and not his Readers onely, but his Religion and reason, and Layety and Clergie, and Church and State, and even all mankind. And that for this he pretends a custom of all Nations, which never hath been yet of as much as any one Nation in the world: both holy and prophane Scriptures, neither of which have one word to the purpose: a similitude that is lame: titles or names, latin and greek, that (to conclude his purpose) are no less vain: and finally the justice of God, and saying of an Emperour, that never executed, nor this at all pronounced in our present case or dispute.

LXVII.

For, and for what concerns his first argument (and I mean still as he intends it to conclude not some kind of exemption, Immunity, or priviledge either lo∣cal or personal, given to Churches or Churchmen, but even that plenary Ex∣emption of his own, or which he pretends of all their lands, goods, houses, and persons too, and in all kind of causes spiritual and temporal, civil, crimi∣nal, mixt; and this also not from the inferiour lay or civil Judges onely, but also from all the very supreamest civil both directive and coercive powers on earth) it is plain enough

That his Assumption or Antecedent is false; because he hath not yet, nor any other can for him hereafter instance as much as any one single Nation in the world wherein they ever yet had or have at present such Exemption. That for all those nations known to us, we see dayly the quite contrary both taught and practised amongst them in relation to the supream civil power, and as well to the persons of Clergiemen in some cases for what concerns judgement and punishment, as to their goods and lands, for that of taxes, when the Commonwealth is necessitated to laye taxes on them.

That not one of those places he quotes either out of holy Scripture, or other books, or Histories, prove that Antecedent of his or his Allegation of the custom of all nations in the point, or even (which is less) of any one nation. Though if he did or could prove it for some one nation; yet he could not therefore be thought to have said any thing for the proof of that antecedent, or of his grand position, unless he did withal instance it gene∣rally.

That therefore likely it was that he onely quoted the books and chapters, without giving the words or contents of those books or chapters, whereby the Reader might be judge of all without further trouble to turn those monu∣ments either sacred or prophane.

That in the former Section I have already shewen at large the impertinency or unsufficiency as to his general Assertion of his quoting the 47. of Gen. and 1. of Esdras. 7. for what concerns the Hebrew Priests under Artaxerxes: and therefore need not say any more of these two Scripture places here.

That for his other two Scripture places the first out of the thirtieth of Exodus, and second out of the first chapter of the book of Numbers, neither of both has a word importing as much as a bare exemption of the Le∣vits from all kind of tributs; or from any at all but onely from the half ficle which was to be payed for the use of the Tabernacles by all the children of other tribes who came to 20. years.

So that I cannot but be somewhat troubled when I see this great man alleadge Scriptures after this rate. 1. Because this very exemption of the Levits from paying that half ficle, is by consequence onely concluded out of the second of these places or both together, forasmuch as in the late or in that 1. chap. of Numbers verse 48. God commanded Moyses not to muster the

Tribe of Levi, and that in the former place, or 30. of Exodus 12. v. we find that each one mustered was to pay to the Lord, or for the use of the Taber∣nacle half a sicle (ten of our pence.) 2. Because these very places tell that all the children boys and youths of what ever tribe who were under twenty, were as well exempt from that payment, because from the muster, as the Levit, were; not to speak besides of the female Sex. 3. Because it were certainly most ridiculous to conclude hence that all those young men, besides all the women young and old, were in all things whatsoever exempt from the supream civil Magistrate, from the supream lay Judges, and Kings that succeeded those Judges. Nay and extreamly ridiculous to conclude from even a general exemp∣tion of the Levits from all kind of tribute, did such appear, as it doth not, to con∣clude I say their personal exemption and in all kind of causes, civil, criminal, mixt, from those supream lay Captains, Judges, Kings, whom yet God himself appointed to rule all the Tribes aswell of Levi as others.

That for his other citations out of Aristotle, Caesar, and Plutarch, for what concerns other nations, and Priests of Gentils, either Greeks, Romans, or other soever, I took the pains to find these Authors, and turn the places quoted, and read those whole books quoted by him; that is, that whole second book of Aristotles Oeconomicks, and that whole 6. book of Caesars Gallick warr, and that whole life too of Plutarchs Camillus; but found all against our learned Cardinals exemption, or his latitude of it.

That Aristotle hath not a word of Priests either in that second book, or in his first (which are all the books he hath of Oeconomicks, or de Cura Rei fa∣miliaris, as the Latins entitle them) but onely in one place of the second, where he tells that when on a time Taos King of Egypt was to march his Army and wanted money, Chabrias the Athenian gave him Council to tell the Priests of both Sexes that for the charges of the warr he found it necessary to lessen their number. That hereupon the Priests, every one for himself, to be continued, gave the King money. And that again after this money so received, the same Chabrias the second time advised the King to command the same Priests to spend thenceforth but the tenth part (on themselves and sacrifices) of that they had till then, and give him the other nine, until he had ended the Persian warr. If this import any thing out of Aristotle for Bellarmine's purpose, or not rather directly against his purpose of a law of nature or nations for the exemption of either as much as Priestly Clerks, or Gentil Priests, from the supream Civil power, it imports all things els he please.

That Caesar indeed hath somewhat more likely of the Druides of Gaul. Druides à bello abesse consueverant, ne{que} tributa unà cum reliquis pendunt, militiae vacationem omnium{que} rerum habent immunitatem. And yet here is no more but vacation from warr, exemption from tributs, and immunity for all their goods. Not a word of their being exempt from the supream Civil Magistrat generally in all kind of things or causes, or indeed in any thing at all from his supream power. And still whatever is said here, is said onely of the Druides of Gaul. Not a word in all that book of Caesars of the Priests or customs of all other nations, or of any, in exempting so generally their Priests; if peradventure Caesars telling, That the Druides of Gaul had their discipline from the Drui∣des of Brittain, be not a testimony of such Custom of other nations; which cannot be said.

That for Plutarch in Camillus, he tells there (I confess) how after the Gauls had possessed Rome for seaven months (the Capitol onely excepted, which the holy Geese of Iuno's Temple by their gagling preserved) and after the vio∣lence of a great plague, and the power of Camillus had beat them away, and forced them back to their own territories: the Romans nevertheless were in such fear of their return, that they made a law for the exemption of Priests from warr, so it were not against the Gauls. For these are the very words of Plutarch there, and all the words he hath (in that whole life of Camillus) of any such matter, or of Priests at all. 'Tis improbable therefore that Bellarmine

ever troubled himself to read Plutarch, when he quoted him for his purpose here, of a law or custom amongst the Romans for the general exemption of as much as their own Priests in all things, or even too in any thing from the su∣pream civil power of their State? Here they are not exempted in some cases as much as from the duties of warr.

That for what concerns that priviledg of Constantine, and for what appears out of that his Epistle to Anulinus, recorded in Euseb. l. 10. cap. 7. I elswhere shew (as I bring that Epistle at length in the next Section) that Constantine was farre enough from granting thereby any such exemption as Bellarmine pretends either of the persons of Clergiemen from asmuch as the most subordinate inferi∣our lay-Judges, or of their goods from taxes; but onely an immunity or freedom from publick offices, as those of Sheriffs, Mayors, Bayliffs, Constables, Colle∣ctors &c.

That finally for those words of Iustinians law, who sees not they are to no kind of purpose alleadged? certainly how subject soever any Divine or other person on earth will say Clerks are to either supream or subordinate civil Ma∣gistrats in all kind of temporal causes; yet will the same Divines and all other persons, and at the same time, freely acknowledg (with Iustinian) the equity of making a difference twixt divine and human things, and of allowing a competent prerogative to celestial favors, that is, to persons or places which (by ex∣trinsecal denomination) are divine, or which have that Celestial favor to be specially dedicated to the service of God. But is there no other difference to be made, no other prerogative to be given but an exemption so general from the supream civil power? Besides, our Cardinal himself confesses that Iustinian spake these words of the material Churches, as he made that law for them onely; not at all for the persons of Churchmen but as long as they were in those Churches; albeit he made several other laws in favour of their persons also, whether in or out of the most sacred Churches. Of which last sort of laws more presently in the next Section.

So that any right collection either out of the former priviledg of Constan∣tine, or out of these later words of Iustinian signifies nothing at all to prove a custom amongst Christians forsuch exemption as Bellarmine would have amongst them as flowing from nature.

2. For his second argument or similitude, who sees not, that (as Divines and Philosophers too confess) as the argument which is à simili, is the very worst, and most unconcluding sort of argument, if it run not upon all four, as they speak: so this here of this great Cardinal is very lame in that re∣spect? For the difference is so wide, and so great 'twixt both, that we know evidently, and by daily experience, that the body can act nothing at all, not as to natural sensation or vegetation, but as a meer dead trunk, a carkass, without the soul, nor act any thing at all rationally or freely, without the direction of that superiour portion of the soul, which is by some called the spirit: and we know no less evidently, that the lay civil Magistrate, both supream and subordinat, can act both rationally, freely, and honestly too, without, nay and often also against the direction of those we call the meer spiritual Magistrates, or of any kind of ecclesiastical persons. That the one may be, and hath not seldom been without the other, that is, the former without the latter, and yet compleat and perfect as to its own proper functions. And the latter may erre, and hath often err'd, involving it self in politick matters out of its own sphere, when the former did not. But we see the natural body cannot as much as be without the soul. So that for Bellarmine to assume this simile, is to argue from a very lame similitude, and expect this ordinary answer to the like, similitudo non currit quattuor pedibus. Besides, I must advertise the Reader, that he abuses him again, by taking it in the abstract of one side. Whereas if it did, or could signifie any thing, he should have taken it in the concrete of both sides: that is, made the simile 'twixt the soul and body, of one side, and the lay Magistrate, or lay Judges,

and the spiritual persons of Clerks, or Ecclesiastical Superiours, on the other: and not have assumed on this side the civil power, and spiritual power only in the abstract. For it is very well known these as such, act not at all, either of them. And moreover, that this argument, or simile, did it prove any thing (as we have seen it doth not) proves not only the exemption of Clergy∣men from all lay-power, and in all causes and matters whatsoever, nor a co-ordination only in temporal matters; but also, and in all imaginable, even the most worldly matters of any kind, a super-ordination, or an absolute domini∣on of Church-men over all the lay-persons, even the most supream Monarchs on Earth. To which purpose, although Bellarmine presses this very same ar∣gument elsewhere, (dei Roman. Pontif. l. 5. cap. 6. however against his other main purpose, which is to give the Pope alone a power to dethrone Kings; and this simile would give this very power to every Diocesan Bishop, nay to the inferiour Ghostly Fathers, or Parish-priests of every King) yet no man, I hope, will be any more so foolish as to believe him, or be perswaded by so lame a simile: having both evidence of Reason, Scripture, and Traditi∣on to the contrary; as will appear hereafter, in some of the following Sections, on this very point we now handle. Lastly, I must advertise the Reader, that he is not to be amused with a greater excellency of the spiritual power in it self, or in its own nature, or even in the end for which it was given, this end being wholy supernatural (such as must be that which is to a life of grace in this world, and of glory in the next) and which, the meer lay, civil, or temporal power, as such only, hath not, nor can pretend. The greater excellency of one cal∣ling or profession, cannot warrant the professors of it, to subject to their own commands all or any other persons that profess a calling of less excellency: as may be seen by daily experience in all the several professions, or trades in the world. Nor is it consequent by any discourse of natural reason, that be∣cause one sort of men are of greater dignity, as to their callings, they cannot be subjected in many things, or matters, by the King to the command of others who are otherwise of much inferiour dignity, or perhaps of none at all. Nay, we see daily, and by ten thousand practices, that Lords, Marquesses, Dukes, must in many things obey and receive commands from very poor mean per∣sons, of no kind of titles otherwise, but that of their present office, and that too of the very meanest offices not seldom. And must it be against natural rea∣son, that because the King of all Kings, the Lord of life and death of all crea∣tures, hath out of his mercy, and for the eternal ends of his mercy to all people, given a certain ministery, or even dignity the greatest that can be to some sort of men, and this also for the service of other men in a certain calling which belongs to their spirits or souls onely, they might not have been, or they have not actually been subjected to other men though not so dignified in that special ministery, and subjected I mean to such in other matters onely which concern their natural and civil being onely as a civil society of men living in this world? We see by a thousand experiences daily, that many who are very fit for one sort of command or calling, are very unfit for the other. And we know that the spiritual function alone, to be discharged well, requires the whole man. And we know also that spiritual men or Clerks must notwith∣standing their Clerk-ship remain always men, that is, involved by a thousand occasions in affairs which belong directly and properly to the temporal go∣vernment of things belonging to the body alone. Must it be against natural reason that God should not have exempted them in such matters from the Governours that are proper for such matters? Or must it not be rather ac∣cording to natural reason, that in such matters they should be subject to such Governours, though in other matters which are spiritual these very same Go∣vernours be directed by them? I am sure that however any do answer to this in point of reason, he cannot make any good use of Bellarmines second argu∣ment here from his simile of the soul and body to answer it.

3. For his third argument from the names or titles of Fathers and Sons, Pastours or Sheepheards and Sheep, we know very well that both scriptures and Fathers and sacred and prophane writers adorn also Kings and supream civil Magistrats with the same titles or names of Fathers and Pastours. That as Bellarmine or others of his way understand a politick or temporal Father-hood and Pastour-ship by such denominations as given to the civil Magistrate: so of all sides the same titles given to Churchmen must be understood onely of that Father-hood and Pastour-ship which is purely spiritual; and consequently the titles of children or sheep given to all laymen as relating to such Fathers and such Pastours, must import onely spiritual sheep and spiritual children, or children onely and sheep onely in matters purely spiritual. That as the King is properly Pater Patriae, and Pastor Patriae in that sense which is proper to him: so all persons whatsoever either civil or Ecclesiastical, who acknowledg him their King, and themselves his Subjects, are in that same sense his children and his sheep. That those words Fathers and Sons, Pastors and sheep, being Meta∣phorically or onely by a Metaphor applyed to both sorts of Rulers and ruled persons, the temporal and spiritual: the same words names or titles are as properly applyed or attributed in a politique sense, or as designing or meaning a civil Father-hood, Pastor-ship, &c. of government, as they are to a meer spi∣ritual. That hence this learned Cardinal may see

First, his third argument very easily solved. For if reason teach that children are bound to obey their parents &c, and the sheep to be directed by their Pastors, and consequently neither Parents nor Pastors to be subject to but ex∣empt from the power of their children and sheep: reason also teacheth that although we admitted this without any distinction when the parents and chil∣dren, and Pastors and sheep are such not by a metaphor but by nature; that is, when they are natural parents, natural children, natural pastors and natural sheep; yet when they are such onely by metaphor, or by a metaphorical kind of speech, that is, onely by some kind of similitude, as in our case on both sides, then it must be granted of necessity that the children are onely bound to obey wherein they are children, and the sheep to be directed onely wherein they are sheep: and consequently the parents and pastors exempted (from their such respective children and sheep) onely wherein they are such parents and pastors; and not in other cases or matters. I say that reason teaches all this, and even Bellarmine himself must confess all this, or certainly confess that which he would more unwillingly, and plainly too against his own very first position of the Immunity of Ecclesiasticks or their exemption (I mean) from the lay power in Ecclesiastical or spiritual matters. For the supream lay Magistrats, Kings and Emperours are the politick civil Fathers and pastors of all the Common-wealth and even of all their respective Subjects aswell Clerks as Layeicks: and no less properly called Fathers and pastors then the Priests, Bishops, or Popes themselves are so called: being that neither King or Pope are so indeed, but in a certain sense, though different sense each of them, and both onely called so by a metaphor, and by some kind of similitude (and in some things onely) to a natural Father, and natural sheep-heard: and being this similitude is at least as great, apt, and obvious to nature in the government of Princes as in that of Priests.

Secondly, he may see it retorted thus. For if metaphorical children be subject to their metaphorical parents in all things wherein the one are such parents and the other such children, and if metaphorical sheep be subject to and are to be directed by their metaphorical pastors, then must it follow that in all worldly or temporal affairs, in all civil and criminal causes &c. all Clerks Priests and Bishops are subject to, and consequently not exempted from the supream civil, politick, worldly temporal Father and pastor of the Common-wealth. For as they are still Cittizens and members of the Common-wealth, notwith∣standing their special function, and as they are still subjects, and acknowledg the temporal King that rules temporally the Common-wealth to be even their

own King alwayes (for so doth Bellarmine himself confess notwithstanding the plain contradiction:) so must it be consequent that they must alway too acknowledg themselves metaphorically or in all such temporal respects his chil∣dren and his sheep.

Thirdly, he may see in this metaphorical argument, his assumption or antece∣dent partly false, and partly unconcluding. False, where he sayes or supposes at least (and must suppose if he will conclude any thing) that natural children are generally bound to obey their natural parents in all things, and at all times, both during their being minors, and after: and that natural parents cannot be subject to their own natural children in any respect or at any time. For the contrary is evident in the doctrine of all Divines and Lawyers, and by the practice of all Countries and ages, or that even (I mean) in all things, other∣wise onely indifferent, natural children being once come to lawful years are not bound to obey their very natural parents, not even in the state of their life, of marrying or living single, entring Religion or not, taking to this or that trade, dispensing so or so of goods acquired by their own industry, and a thousand such like. And that also the natural parents may be bound in some cases and some times to obey their own natural children, and in such to be not exempt from but subject to them. As for example in all matters relating to the pub∣lick, when natural children are made publick Officers, or Governours of King∣doms, Provinces, or even of particular Towns or Citties &c. Unconcluding, where he assumes for a proof of his purpose, That, according to nature, natural sheep must be directed and govern'd by their sheepheard in all cases, not he by them in any case. For albeit this be simply true without any kind of distincti∣on; yet it is therefore onely true so universally, because such sheep are by nature meer natural Beasts, without any reason at all, without discourse in any case; and their sheepheard in all cases a rational Creature, and, as to them at least, capable of some knowledg discourse and foresight of what may be for their good or hurt. Now to conclude hence that men of reason because they are said to be or are indeed metaphorical sheep in order to some other men, and but so in some respects or cases onely, though withal truly and pro∣perly metaphorical pastors at the same time in other cases and respects, and in order also to those very other men, must notwithstanding all this be directed, govern'd, judg'd in the self-same other cases and respects, and by the very self-same other men who yet are themselves in such other cases and respects but meer metaphorical sheep, and no pastors at all: I say that to conclude so, must of necessity be no other then to conclude that which cannot be concluded but by a manifest inconsequence against natural reason, & no less manifest abuse of this very similitude: because as it is now apparant, it concludes the metapho∣rical Pastor wherein he is pastor to be directed by his own metaphorical sheep.

To his Fourth argument from the Greek word Cleres, or Latin Clerici, or the title of Clerks appropriated or at least attributed as originally peculiar to Ecclesiastical men; or to the argument derived from the significa∣tion of that word, name, or title, importing as much as a lot, and consequent∣ly signifying Churchmen to be in a special manner of the lot or portion or share of God: The answer is obvious.

1. That, were that indeed the etimological reason of that title as attribu∣ted to them, which yet this Cardinal hath not proved, and others that dive unto such etimological reasons deny, saying that Churchmen are not therefore stiled Clerks, but because they of their own parts are by their orders supposed to take God onely for their own portion, lot, share, inheritance; yet I say were the meaning that which he gives this word, certainly no more could be thence concluded for their exemption or immunity from the supream civil coercive power then could be for the like exemption of the Levits by the words of God himself so often repeated in Leviticus, mei sunt. And being these words of God himself prove no such exemption to have been of the Levits, as I have before discoursed in the former section, much less can the

title of Clerks assumed by our churchmen themselves, or given them by other men, though (I confess) significantly and properly enough.

2. That notwithstanding that Clergiemen are by special function (and in a more special manner then meer laymen) the Ministers of God and consecra∣ted for to be so: and were it granted besides, that all Clergiemen, are at the time of their consecration (or other designation, such as that is of the onely first clipping of their haire by the Bishop, which is called primi tonsura, and which without any more adoo makes them Clerks:) were it I say granted that at such time all the lay people, and even the very supream civil Magistrate himself amongst them, did offer to God for his Ministery all Clergiemen whatsoever, that is all such as are then to be initiated by the Bishop (which yet cannot be granted: being we see often too many unfit, in many respects, initiated so; against both the express Canons of the Church and known judg∣ment of both Prince and People:) no more can be rationally concluded from either such designation or such oblation, or both together, but that nei∣ther people nor Prince may at any time evermore divert or hinder from the Sacred Ministery the persons so consecrated by the Bishop and offered by them∣selves to God for that his special Ministery. Nor therefore of such initiated persons no such exemption at least as that pretended to be of them from even the very supream civil power, and in all causes even the most criminal soever, can at all from such consecration or oblation or both together be concluded by any principle of natural reason. Because natural reason and practise too of all ages and countries tels us there is no incompatibility at all betwixt the duty or subjection of sacred persons to or not exemption from at least the supream civil power, and that of their special holy function; but on the con∣trary that the former doth much advantage the later. And because both na∣tural reason and christian Religion tels us that Clerks by their sacred initiation are not freed from any other former duties, or from such as they had till then been bound unto by the laws of God or nature, to be performed to other men: as for example, the duty of paying a pecuniary sum borrowed from a Neigh∣bour, the duty of reverencing, honouring, obeying and serving their natural parents in all such things and cases as children ought, &c. And lastly because it is confessed of all sides that subjection to the not onely supream but subor∣dinate civil Magistrate in such criminal causes was a former duty.

Whence also it is clear enough that the exemption of Clerks from the sub∣ordinate or inferiour civil Judges cannot be said to be annexed perse, or natu∣rally, or necessarily at all to any such initiation, oblation, or both together; but meerly by accident, and by the free will of others, forasmuch, to witt, as it pleased the civil Magistrate, civil power, and civil laws to exempt them from such inferiour civil Judges in all, or many, or some cases, according to the divers customs of divers Countries.

3. That were that assumption of Bellarmine universally true, without any distinction where he sayes, That in things offered and consecrated to God, and therefore made in some sense as if they were the peculiar and property of God no se∣cular Princes can have any right: or were it true in his sense and to his purpose: or were a peoples being made in some sense as if they were the peculiar and proper∣ty of God, were this I say (wherein Bellarmine here puts all his force) an ar∣gument of the exemption of such people from all meer civil or lay power: then must it follow that all not onely the 12. tribes of Israel, and not the tribe of Levi alone, had been in the old Testament exempted from all meer lay power; but even that all Christians are universally in the new. For all the 12. tribes were not onely purified and sanctified by several aspersions and other ceremonies performed by Moyses and Aaron, and offered also and devo∣ted by themselves to God; and this too by the appointment of God him∣self; but were also all of them generally adopted by God, and by his own mouth declared his own chosen people, portion, lot, inheritance, and sancti∣fied by himself, and for his own service segregated out of all the Nations of

the earth. Eritis mihi sancti, quia sanctus sum ego Dominus, & separavi vos a caeteris populis ut essetis mei. Levit. 20. words I am sure spoken by Moyses, as from the mouth of God himself, and spoken by him to all the 12. Tribes uni∣versally, and not to that of Levi alone. And therefore all the 12. Tribes of Israel, were made as of the property and peculiar of God himself; quasi ipsius dei propria facta sunt; according to Bellarmines phrase speaking of Clerks. And for all Christians too universally, who is so ignorant as not to know, or so obsti∣nate as not to confess that they are offered by their Godfathers and consecra∣ted to God and for his special service, and sanctified too both externally and internally when they are baptized at the Sacred Font, when the sanctified water is poured on them, & the words of life are pronounced over them, and the rest of the Sacred Rites are duly performed by the Priest of God, as of signing them with the sign of redemption, and anointing them with the Chrysm of Sanctification, and anointing them too in so many parts together as their Crown, and Breast, and Shoulders, and of &c? And consequently how can it be denyed that all Christians universally, that all those we call meer laymen or women must be in some sense (and that even a very good, true, and proper sense) made as if they were the peculiar and property of God?

Certainly not onely in this same sense or quasi can it be denyed either of Israelits or Christians; but not even in the most strict and proper sense ima∣ginable of the property of God can it be denyed that by and for many other most considerable titles, as those of creation, redemption, sanctification, preservati∣on, general and particular providence, &c. all the Nations of the earth aswell Infidels as believers, and all their lands and goods are of the property of God. As it cannot be denyed that it is onely respective or in some certain respect onely he sayes himself or we say that such or such a people, or such or such things belong to God. Therefore as the belonging of all persons and all things whatsoever on earth to God, and the belonging of them to himself alone immediately by and for so many other titles of eminency and excellen∣cy admits (according to natural reason) nay and requires also (according to the same reason) that earthly Kings and civil Magistrats, as his Vicegerents on earth in temporal matters, should nevertheless have such a right derived from him to govern justly, and righteously to dispose of all the very self-same persons and things: it must follow (by the same natural reason still) that no other particular title whereby some sort of people or things are said to be God's, can exempt such people or things from such a right in Princes to govern and dis∣pose of them to such ends as God himself would have them govern'd and disposed of, unless the very same God, who hath bid us all universally and un∣distinctly obey such Princes, hath himself by special provision (revealed to us) exempted such a sort of people or things from the government of Princes. But no such special provision is yet proved in relation to Clerks. Nay the quite contrary shall be proved hereafter in its proper place. And yet what∣ever be said or thought of other proofs or no other proofs of such a special revealed provision for Clerks, I am perswaded it now appears sufficiently out of what I have hitherto said, That our learned Cardinal hath alleadged no proof at all, nor dictate of natural reason (which is our present controversy) for such a portion. And consequently neither any such proof or dictate for that his Assumption, which he delivers so confidently in these words: Certe autem in ea quae sunt eblata & consecrata Deo, & quasi propria ipsius Dei facta sunt, nullum jus habere possunt Principes seculi. And yet gives no reason at all for that his too confident assertion; but onely in general would have us believe him that the light of reason doth shew it to be so: and then would have us believe him too that God himself hath not obscurely delivered it to be so, Levit. last chap. v. 29. where it is said by Moyses to the people, Quicquid semel fuerit consecratum sanctum sanctorum erit Domino, whatever shall be once conse∣crated, shall be holy of holies to the Lord. But our learned Cardinal should have considered we are not bound to believe that his bare saying, That the

light of reason doth shew any such thing, unless he further prove it to us by a discourse of reason, which yet he doth not as much as venture upon; and I have shewed already he could not venture upon, if he would not be foiled. Nor likewise are bound to believe his bare saying, that God himself hath not obscurely delivered it to be so in the said passage of Leviticus, unless we can be convinced by that very passage it self, or by the sense, or interpretation of it delivered us by Tradition in the writings of holy Fathers. But he brings us neither Church nor Fathers, nor as much as one single Father; so far he is from venturing on Tradition, for any such meaning of that passage. And I am sure the words taken either precisely in that passage, or relatively, and by comparing them to, or expounding them by any other passages of that same chapter, or even of any other, either in the whole book of Leviticus, or what book soever in holy Bible, imports no such meaning as Bellarmine would impose on us. Whatever is once consecrated, shall be holy of holies to the Lord, are the words. Ergo, sayes Bellarmine (for this must be the conse∣quence) these words import not obscurely, that the Vicegerent of the Lord on earth in the external Government, and by the power of the carnal, mate∣rial, or corporal sword hath no power at all from God, or by nature to force by means proper to him (when he shall see it necessary) such consecrated persons as Clerks are, to serve God holily, and behave themselves justly to∣wards their neighbours, according to the ends of their consecration, and thereby live so as they may be alwayes, and in all things, holy of holies to the Lord. If this consequence follow by any reason, or Philosophy, or any Scripture or Theology, we may hereafter perswade our selves, that ex quoli∣bet sequitur quodlibet. And if either clearly, or obscurely, or any way at all they import any such thing, I confess my self to understand no kind of thing.

Therefore the natural, genuine, and even obvious meaning of that passage can be no other but what is sufficiently declared in that whole chapter (as likewise in many other chapters even of that very book) but more especial∣ly in the former part of that same 29. verse, where you read this general rule given by God to the Israelits, Any thing that is consecrated to the Lord, whether it be man or beast, or field, shall not be sold, neither can it be redeemed. And then follows immediatly in the same verse, and as a corollary, that pas∣sage quoted by Bellarmine, whatever is once consecrated, shall be holy of holies to the Lord. Whence, being compared to what is said before in the same chapter of the redemption of vows made of Lands, Houses, Beasts, either clean or unclean, and of the persons too of men and women, appears plainly, that nothing else is intended, but that if the thing vowed be not redeemed by a sum of moneys before consecration made, it shall not be lawful to re∣deem it any time after consecration once made, nor consequently lawful ever after to convert it to prophane uses, that is, to any other uses, but those in∣tended by vow for the more especial service of God.

Whence further, it must no less plainly appear, that were that very same law of Leviticus binding Christians now under the new Testament, no more can be concluded to Bellarmines purpose, and as to our dispute concerning the exemption of Clergymen from the civil power, but that which should as well restrain the Pope as the Prince. Because no more, but that neither temporal nor spiritual Magistrate could secularize Churchmen, or Church-lands, or Church-beasts, once they had been consecrated Church men, or Church-lands, or Church-beasts. Which yet neither Bellarmine himself, nor even any of his Defenders will allow: as indeed both reason, and so many thousands, and even daily un-reproved instances tell us it cannot be al∣lowed.

So that our learned Cardinal alledgeth in this point a law, which is no more a law at all to us that are Christians: and yet a law, which were it a law for us, hath not one word to his purpose. For who sees not the con∣sistency

of these two? 1. A right, or a power from God in the supream ci∣vil Magistrate to force consecrated persons to behave themselves as becomes such consecrated persons. 2. No right, or power from God in such Magi∣strate to prophane those consecrated persons, or to apply them to any other calling or profession, which is, or must be inconsistent with the ends of their consecration? And who sees not consequently the vain flourish of this Que∣rie wherewith this eminent person concludes his fourth argument. Quis au∣tem dicere audeat jus esse profano homini en ea quae sancta sanctorum, id est sanctis∣sima dici meruerunt? who dares be so bold as to say, that a profane man hath right to those things which have deserved the name of holy of holies, that is, most holy? And then adds as a final conclusion of all: Qua ratione bona etiam temporalia Clericorum, bona Dominica proprie dicuntur in can. 4. Apostolico, & ideo tanquam Deo sacra jucisdictioni laicorum subjecta esse non possunt. Upon which account (sayes he) temporal goods, of Clergymen are in the fourth Apostolical Canon properly said to be Dominica, or the Lords goods; and therefore as being consecrated to God, cannot be subject to the juris∣diction of Laymen.

But he needed not make this so vain flourish of a querie, or corrollary fol∣lowing, which himself could not but know to have been ten thousand times over and over answered by Catholick Divines, and Catholick Bishops, and even by some very learned, and very holy Popes too; who in all ages both acknowledged, and asserted a right in Emperours, Kings, and other supream temporal, or civil lay Magistrates to govern, command, and even force by the sword (if necessary) all in their Territories, even the most eminently consecrated, to do their several duties to God and to the Commonwealth, and to all their neighbours respectively. As likewise they acknowledged, and asserted in the same supream civil Magistrate a right to provide by good wholsome laws, and otherwise, that the temporal goods of Churchmen should be rightly used by them, and not abused at all against those holy ends for which only either Princes or People, or both, had questionless devoted such goods to God. Therefore to answer his question directly and briefly, I will my self be one of those who dare say that such profane men as these su∣pream civil Magistrates are (since Bellarmine must needs have all kind of Laicks, how Christian soever, esteemed profane men) have such a right as I have here declared, over such holy of holies, or most holy persons and things.

And that his allegation (not out of the fourth Apostolical Canon, as he quotes it, but out of the 40.) were those Canons authentick, or indubitable Canons of the Apostles (as this learned man himself knew very well they are not) makes very much less for his exemption of the Goods of Ecclesiasticks, &c. from such a right in such profane persons. For as this Canon attributes not the title of res Dominicae to all the goods whatsoever possessed by Clerks, being it doth not to the Bishops own proper goods, but to those only which being in common to all the Church, or as well to other Priests and Ministers as to the Bishop (whereof the text it self, which I give here, is proof; sint autem manifestae res propriae Episcopi (si tamen habet proprias) et manifestae Domi∣nicae, ut potestatem habeat de propriis, moriens Episcopus ficut voluerit de relinque∣re, &c.) so it is clear enough out of what is said hitherto, that no more can be concluded out of this denomination precisely against such a supream right as I have now declared) in the supream civil Magistrate, then may be out of any other epithet, or word signifying only a pious, or godly use of such goods. And therefore no such matter as Bellarmine concludes, which is to be in all senses, and to all purposes, exempt from even the very supream jurisdiction of all kind of lay Princes.

Doth natural reason teach us any inconsistency 'twixt some right, or some power in the lay Prince or Parliament, in some cases to tax the lauds or goods of the Church, and the being nevertheless of those very lands, or

goods still designed for pious and holy uses? or that even such taxation made by such a lay, supream power, and the execution, and use of it, may it not be of absolute necessity to preserve both the State and Church, and the very continuance of these goods, or lands hereafter in the immediate possession and property, and use of the very Church and Church-men? And is it not clear, that as the meer lay Subjects property in their own hands must not cease at all by their being subject to necessary con∣tributions, or taxes, when the supream legislative power layes such taxes on them for the maintainance of the publick: even so those goods or lands whichh are for some special ordinary use, called Dominicae, must not there∣fore cease to be Dominicae, or in the property of the Church, because they may, according to natural reason, be in certain cases lyable to the like taxes imposed by the same supream lay power, and by virtue of a true right in this very supream lay power to impose by its own authority alone such taxes on Church-lands, albeit the Church-men themselves should unreasonably deny their own consent? nay, hath not the practice of the Christian world for many ages, under great and good, and most religious Christian Princes shew∣ed us, that the lands of the Church were often taxed so by them, and by virtue of their own proper authority alone, without being once ever told by the Church that they did amiss therein, or at all against the ends, or use of Dominicae? Did not St. Ambrose himself confess in the difference he had with the young Emperour Valentinian, and with his Arrian Mother, about the giving up a Church in Milan to thense of the Arrians, did not, I say this so great, and so holy, and so knowing Ambrose tell the Emperour, that in∣deed the lands of the Church were under his power, and therefore payed him tribute; but that the Church it self was not for such an impious use? Therefore our learned Cardinal is much out in his collection here from this Canon of the Apostles, when he sayes that by natural reason, because the goods or lands of the Church are called Dominicae, therefore the cannot in any wise, or for any use, or in any case be subject to the supream lay Jurisdiction.

To his fifth and last argument, I need not say much: because it so little requires other answer than That it is the very worst sort of argument he could use for his Ecclesiastical Immunity, and for the being of it as such from the very law of Nations and Nature. For to pretend, or alledge even true, mi∣raculous, extraordinary judgments, or punishments from God on the Pro∣faners of holy places, or even too on the tyrannical Oppressors of holy or Ecclesiastical Persons, as also on a Prince or People, for having made first, or observed after out of covetousness, hatred, envy, pride, ambition, or any other sinful end, such laws as naturally must lessen the holiness or esteem, or reverence, which must be due to either such places or such persons: what hath this to do with the religious worshippers of such places, and with the careful protectors of such persons, or with either Prince or People, that for a just and holy end make a wholsome law, which, being observed by Church∣men, will make them more holy and more reverend? Besides, how often have we read of extraordinary judgments of God pursuing presently the injustice committed by either Prince or People against meer lay men, and against such as could pretend no such exemption, and against such too as had no right of their side, but from the positive, civil Institutions, or Laws made by other meer lay-men? If our most eminent Cardinal had alledged, and proved but one only miracle wrought in the case, that is, wrought by the invocation of God, and either expresly, or even tacitly for the confirmation of his Thesis, or the being of Clergymen so exempt as he would have them in all cases, and all respects, from the supream civil jurisdiction of lay Prin∣ces; then indeed he might have had some colour to amuse the Reader with that his fifth Argument. Albeit yet such miracle would not be home enough unless withal it appeared wrought to confirm their being so exempt by the law of Nations and Nature. But neither for Churchmen or Church, doth he as

much as pretend to any such material miracle, or any such extraordinary punishments from God.

And good God! what is it to prove such exemption as he pretends, That the sacrilegious robbers, or any other wicked prophaners of a Church dyed presently? That a passionat wicked Prince who did without any form of justice without any just cause at all, and who did even against his own laws and his own conscience persecute to death a Religious Prelate or Priest, onely for having been a good Prelate or good Priest in reprehending wickedness, that I say such a Prince had an evil, or strange and suddain end? Certainly were it acknowledged of all sides, did God himself now expresly, and intelligibly, and evidently reveal it to all the world, that notwithstanding any pretence, or even any positive laws of men hitherto, all kind of Churchmen and Chur∣ches, and their persons, goods, lands, houses, &c. were (as other men) in all kind of temporal matters subject to the disposition and coercion of not only the supream, but also of the inferiour civil Magistrate; yet from the provi∣dence and goodness, and justice also of God, we might rationally expect sometime, and pray sometime also for such extraordinary and exemplary mi∣raculous punishment of such as would abuse that right or that power given them by God, to govern well questionless, to govern holily and justly the Church of God and Ministers and lands and revenues of it?

Besides how often have such extraordinary miraculous punishments seized on the very Ecclesiastical Governours themselves, and even on the very supream Ecclesiastical Governours who have oppressed the inferiour Clergie? And yet there was no exemption of this inferiour Clergie from them concluded thence.

Lastly how knows for what injustice in particular did those extraordinary punishments from God (and let us suppose them still truly miraculous, and from God in a special way: which yet will be hardly proved of most of them) seize upon such as were said to have violated Churches or Churchmen against that which this learned Cardinal pretends to be Ecclesiastical Immunity, Ex∣emption, or Liberty? Did God reveal it was particularly for infringing that, or infringing any part of all that which Bellarmine understands, or pretends to be of true and due Ecclesiastical exemption? and was moreover to shew by a testimony from Heaven That this Ecclesiastical Immunity of his must be ad∣mitted to be such by the law of Nations and Nature? Or did God reveal it was not perhaps for some other indeed more unquestionably exorbitant wick∣edness of those very men so punished miroculously? Or must the single con∣jecture of Basilius Porphyrogenitus be to us a certainty that indeed those evils happened at that time to the Constantinopolitan Empire by reason or because of that law (whatever it was) made by Nicephorus Phocas? and further yet a concluding argument for the being of Bellarmine's such pretended Ecclesiasti∣cal Immunity from the law of Nations and Nature? which onely is our present business or dispute. Nay must we not rather according to reason attribute those very plagues or judgments from God at that time to other causes, that is, to the undoubted uncontroverted injustices and wrongs done by Nicephorus Phocas in using ill and abusing very much the supream power he had over the Clergie; if, I say, there was any thing extraordinary in those plagues, or if they were such as the like or farre worse did not fall on that people or Emperour of Constantinople very often before that law was made, and after that law was again abolished, and when Ecclesiastical Immunity was as strictly and religi∣ously observed as ever, or when the supream civil power as rightly used as ever for the veneration of holy places and holy persons? Do not the Greek Histo∣rians of those times, Curopolates, and Cedrenus, Zonaras, and Glycas, do not Baronius, and his Abbreviator Spendanus, ad Annum Christi 962. & 964. con∣fess with those Greeks, That Nicephorus Phocas, though otherwise an excellent and victorious Prince, had been charged with several other exorbitances? as with having suffered himself after the death of Romanus to be chosen Empe∣rour by the Army, notwithstanding that Basilius and Constantinus, both law∣ful

Sons to the deceased Emperour Romanus, were yet alive and lawful Heirs of the Empire? and with marrying Theophanes Augusta or the widdow Em∣press, notwithstanding his own former legitimate wife was still alive, and no other cause to divorce from her: and that besides he had received her (or the said Theophanes's) Son as a Godfather, out of the Sacred Font: and with too much liberty given to his army to oppress against all right and reason as well the Layety as the Clergie, indulging them whatever they fancied and without any punishment: and with robbing the very Churches of their donaries: and with laying grievous excessive tributs on both Churchmen and Layemen against the law: and with assuming to himself entirely the elections of Bishops, and taking to himself also all the spoils of the dead Bishops: and finally with endeavouring to have all the Souldiers killed under him in his warr against the Sarracens, to be accounted and invoked as martyrs? Do not the Greek Historians charge this Nicephorus with all these particulars, and not with that law onely? And if so, as questionless it is so, how could Basilius Porphyrogeni∣tus, or Bellarmine, or we out of either perswade our selves with any certitude, it was for a bare law revoking some former priviledges of the Clergie, (in case I say that law was such) that Empire suffered in after days, and not ra∣ther for some of those other undoubted exorbitancies against undoubted either divine or humane laws? or suffered not for that law in it self, but for the evil end or evil execution or use of it? For a law may be good in it self; and yet the intention of the law maker, and his use of it very wicked. And after all & whether it was so or no, what proof (I beseech you) is that bare saving, conjecture, opinion, or judgement of Porphyrogenitus, That Bellarmines pretended Exemption of Clerks in all both civil and criminal causes whatso∣ever from the supream civil power hath been established either by the law divine natural or by the law of Nations? That saying of Basilius Porphyroge∣nitus doth not touch this matter at all.

So that from first to last I dare conclude That for such Exemption and by such law of Nature and Nations Bellarmine hath not brought as much as any one argument which may seem to have the least colour of even probability itself, nay nor even of that very worst sort of probability, or that which our late Schoolmen call extrinsick onely. Which himself did know so well, that after having laboured so much to impose on us such exemption by such laws in a whole chapter; yet in the chapter immediately following, (which is his 30. chap. l. 1. de Cleric.) he dares not give this doctrine of his own any bet∣ter title or any better assurance, not even for the being of it as much as by the divine positive law, but onely the title or assurance of a bare probability of consequence. And which further yet he knew so well that as he never once thought of the least Exemption of Clerks, either as to their goods or as to their persons in politick or temporal affairs, criminal or civil causes, from any civil power whatsoever, supream or not supream, not even from the most in∣feriour civil Courts or Judges, or of any kind of Exemption at all establish∣ed for them (in temporal matters) by any law divine either natural or posi∣tive: that, I say, as he never thought of any such Exemption by such laws in all or any the former editions of his Controversies, or not until the very last edition of them by his own commands: so it must be confessed he was in this point a very great changling; to wit, after he had seen all his other ar∣guments out of human law, or out of the civil and Canon law, for his exor∣bitant exemption, answered home by Doctor William Barclay in his accurate though little book de Potestate Papae, particularly in the 15. and 32. chapters of the said book. For, in those former editions, himself taught in ex∣press tearms against the Canonists, Exemptionem Clericorum in rebus politicis tam quoad personas, quam quoad bona, jure humano introductam esse, non divino, That the exemption of Clerks in politick matters, as well concerning their persons as their goods, was introduced by humane law, not by divine. Nay also (as Barclay well notes, de Potestate Papae. c. 15.) made it his business (to wit in those former editions; besides which the foresaid Barclay

the Father knew of none) to prove the truth hereof by three several sorts of arguments. 1. by that of Paul Rom. 13. omnis anima potestatibus sublimi∣oribus subdita sit, according to St. Chrysostome's exposition and understand∣ing of it, to be a command as well for Clerks as for Laycks. 2. by other testimonies of holy Fathers in the point. 3. because (sayes he) nullum pr••∣ferri potest Dei verbum, quo ista exemptio confirmetur, there cannot be any word of God alleadg'd for this exemption. From which doctrine he was so farre in his last edition, that seeing he was left no other argument undissolved, no other way unblocked for maintayning or carrying on his Exemption, or that of Clerks in his exorbitant latitude of it, and yet would not yield to victo∣rious Truth: he would needs in his old age trouble himself and others with a new invention (or pretension rather, nay rather too a meer aequivocation in effect) of not onely a positive law divine per quandam similitudinem, but even of a natural law divine; and further confound the law of nature with that of nations: and yet in the end of all pretend no more (cap. 30. in solutione primae objectionis) but a meer probability of consequence for his positive law of God; nor for his natural but such a third degree (c 29.) as by his own ex∣plication of the third degree, is no kind of degree at all of any true law of nature. Whether this be not to abuse both Clerks and Layicks, Princes and Subjects, the State and Church, being the controversy is of so high concern to all for the peace of the world, I leave the indifferent Reader to judge. For I have done my part, and proceed now to shew by the solution of his other arguments,

LXVIII.

That for what concerns human laws too either civil or Ecclesiastical, the case is also clear enough of my side, (both against him and our late Doctors of Lovaine) That by neither law Clerks have ever yet been exempted in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power; nay nor in any kind of meer tem∣poral cause whatsoever, criminal or civil, from that supream civil power; were it necessary for my present purpose to add this, as it is not. Though I confess they have been exempted (and very justly too) by several both im∣perial and other municipal and Royal laws from inferiour civil Judicatories in many civil causes: and, in some Countries, by the peculiar municipal laws of such Countries, exempted also in some criminal causes, in prima instantia, from the inferiour subordinate civil Judges: and other Judges, that is, Eccle∣siastical Judges given them in such exempted causes both criminal and civil; but given them so by the supream authority civil, and proceeding in so much against them to a meer civil determination, execution and coaction, by vertue onely of the power derived from the civil laws and supream civil Magistrate, and not by vertue of any spiritual power or other whatsoever derived from the Church as purely a Church. Because the Church, as such, hath neither territory nor sword: & consequently no external criminal or civil Judicatory with any external or temporal power of coaction or coercion, properly such; but onely a spiritual power of meer spiritual censures, which is but secundum quid, or diminutively and improperly called coercion or coaction, for what belongs to our purpose here. But however this be or be not; it is clear enough,

First, that by no civil law of the Roman Emperours, Clerks have been ever yet at any time exempted in criminal causes from the supream civil Magistrat, or from the supream civil coercive power of his laws. Which I take to be so absolutely certain, That Bellarmine himself for proof of his third Propositi∣on, which he hath (cap. 28. l. 1. de Cler.) in these general words, Non pos∣sunt Clerici••a Judic•• seculari judicari, etiamsi leges civiles non servent, had not the confidence to alleadg any other imperial or civil constitution, but onely those of the Emperour Justinian's Novells 79. 83. and 123. where yet Bellar∣mine confesses this Emperour decreed no more but the exemption of Clerks

and Monks from secular (that is laye) judicatories in civil causes onely; and not in criminal. Nay confesses that for criminal causes the same Justinian par∣ticularly, and expresly decrees in these very Novels, that Clergiemen be sub∣ject still to the lay or civil Pretors Jurisdiction; with this caution only, that judgment of death be not pronounced in the Pretors Court against a Clerk, before he be degraded by the Bishop. So that by the very concession and confession of Bellarmine himself, it is not only clear enough, that no civil constitution can be produced for the exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the supream lay power; but also clear enough, that no such can be pleaded for their exemption in such causes from all subordinate, inferiour lay Courts; being the Pretors Court was a subordinate one, at least unto the Princes own supream Tribunal; and being that Bellarmine having confessed this much of this law of Iustinians, finds no other civil Institution for his pur∣pose in criminal causes to alledge, but flyes presently to his Ecclesiastical In∣stitutions in that point: saying, that albeit the civil law did not so exempt Clerks in criminal causes from the civil Judicatories, yet the Canons of the Church did, as (sayes he) appears clearly out of the Epistle of Cains the Pope to Felix, and out of the first Epistle of Marcellinus, and also out of the XI. book of Gregory the Greats Register, epist. 54. ad Joannem Defensorem: and saying further, that the civil law must yield to the Canon Law, cum pos∣sit summus Pontifex Imperatori praecipere, in iis praesertim quae ad Ecclesiam perti∣nent, whereas (sayes he) the supream Pontiff (or Pope) may command the Emperour, especially in such things as concern the Church. Where it is evi∣dent, that Bellarmine confesses plainly there is no civil Institution or Law for the exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the civil or lay Courts. For the Reader is to take notice here, that by the civil law in this matter, no other civil law is understood, but that only of Emperours. From which in∣deed originally, and only, all the exemption of Clerks proceeded; even in those Christian Countreys, which have shaken off the yoke, and even in those too which never yet were under that of the Imperial Power or Laws; but have made themselves peculiar municipal laws. Which yet albeit they be meerly, and properly civil laws, yet are they not the civil laws whereof Bellarmine treats, and his other Associats contend: as we are sure they give more exemption to Clerks, either in criminal or civil causes, then those of the Roman Emperour did.

But forasmuch as many of our Clerks are ignorant of that spring of their ex∣emption, whatever this exemption truly & groundedly be, as others are no less ungrateful for not acknowledging it: I will oblige those, and check these by laying here before their eyes the very first laws, & the several degrees of them, whereby they came by the meer favour of the Roman Emperours to that ex∣emption from Secular Courts, which they have truly ever since enjoyed more or less in Christendome, according as these laws were continued, practised, or even by other Princes not subject any more, or at all to the Roman Empe∣rours and Laws, enacted a new, or allowed of. Therefore, and that we may not erre hereafter in this point, the Reader is to know, that all these several priviledges, liberties, or exemptions (either of persons, lands, or other goods) which the Clergy hath now in Christian Kingdoms, and States, have not been granted at first by any one Emperour, or at any one time.

The very first exemption, ever yet granted to Clerks, was that of Con∣stantine the Great, whereby, after this good Emperour had formerly publish∣ed his edicts of liberty for Christian Religon in general, he particularly gave this priviledge by law to those of that religion were called Clerks, that they should not be obnoxious to nominations or susceptions: that is, that if they were named or elected for any civil office of Magistracy, or Wardship, or of gathering of Taxes, Tributes, &c. yet they should not be bound to under∣go any such; whereas before that law or priviledge, Christian Clerks, be∣ing named or elected, were bound to undergo all such offices, without any

such excuse at all. But eight years after this law so made, the same C••n∣stantine made another, whereby he gave a general exemption to such Clerks from all kind of civil offices. l. 1. & 2. Cod. Theod. de Episcop. & Cleric. l. 16. wherein he gives the reason of this priviledge: least (sayes he) Clerks (sacri∣lego liv••re quorundam a divinis obsequiis avocentur) may out of the sacrilegi∣ous envy of some be called away, or diverted from their divine imployments. And indeed it is very observable (against the ungrateful temerity of some Clerks, who are loath to acknowledge the spring of their Immunity to be from the secular power) that the same most Christian Prince calls those ex∣emptions priviledges. For so he calls them in express tearms. Haereticorum facti••ne comperimus Ecclesiae Catholicae Clericos ita vexari, ut nominationibus seu suceptionibus aliquibus, quas publicus mos exposcit, centra indulta sibi privilegia pregraventur. we have found (sayes he) that by the faction of Hereticks, the Clerks of the Catholick Church are so vexed, that they are forced to sub∣mit to nominations and susceptions (which publick use requires) against the priviledges granted them. In reference to, and in pursuance of those pri∣viledges, so generally granted by this pious Emperour Constantine to all Clerks of the Catholick Communion, it was that he writ to Anulinus, the Prefect of Affrick, that letter, whereof I treated before (but whereof I have shewed also that Beliarmine made other use then he should, or could) which Eusebius hath at length in his Ecclesiastical History, l. X. c. VII. and I give here now wholy out of him, (to this end also that the Reader may himself be Judge, with how little reason our learned Cardinal did quote it for a proof of a law of Nature, or Nations, for his exemption, or in his whole latitude of the exem∣tion of Clerks from the supream, civil, coercive power, even in all kind of criminal causes whatsoever: albeit this consideration belong properly to the former Section.) Ave Anuline carissime nobis. Cum ex multis rebus constet religionem illam in qua summa divinae majestatis reverentia custoditu•• spretam quidem maxima reipublicae imp••rtasse discrimina; eandem verorite suscep∣tam ac cust litam & nomini Romano maximam prosperitatem, & cunctis mortali∣um rèbus, divina id tribuente beneficientia, proecipuam felicitatem contulisse: pla∣cuit ut homines illi ••ui cum debita sanctimonia & assidua hujus legis obseruantia, ministerium suum divinae religionis cultui exhibent, laborum suorum mercedem re∣p••rtent, Anuline carissim•• nobis. Quocirca eos homines qui intra Provinciam tibi creditam in Ecclesia Cath••lica cui Caeciliarus praeest, huic sanctissimae religioni mi∣nistrant, quos Clericos v••care consiteverunt; ab omnibus omnino publicis functio∣nibus immunes volumus c••nservari: w••err••re aliquo aut casu sacrilego a cultu sum∣mae divinitati debit ••abstral ••ntur sed ut p••tius absque ulla inquietudine propri•• le∣gi deserviant. Quispe his summam venerati nem divin•• numini exhibentibus, maximum inde em sumentum republicae videtur accidere. Vale Anuline carissunt ac desideratissime n••••is.

Thirty six years after this letter and the former priviledge of Constantine, the Sons of this great Emperour, Constantius and Const••ns (the one an Arrian, the other a Consustantialist, governing the Roman Empire, their father being dead, Arbiti••, & L••ll••••nus being Consuls) gave yet a further priviledge to Bishops (and only to Bishops, not to other Clerks) that it should not be lawful to ac∣cuse them of crimes before Secular Judges. And so decreed by an express law. L. Mansuetudinis. 12. e••d. tit. For as for other Ecclesiastical Persons, Priests, inferiour Clerks or Monks, they remained still, as they were, in all both civil and criminal causes under the jurisdiction of the civil (I mean subordinat) lay Magistrates, until Iustinians time. And therefor it was that Leo and An∣themius, both and together Emperours (about some threescore years before Iustinian) to favour somewhat more yet the Clergy, and that they might not be drawn too farr by the lay Judges, enacted (Ne orthodoxae fidei sacerdotes & Clerici cujuseumque gra••us, aut Monachi, in causis civilibus, extra Provinciam, aut l••cum, aut regionem quam habitant ex ullius penitus, majoris minorisue sen∣tentia Judicis pertra••antur; sed apud suos. Iudices ordinarios, id est Provincia∣rum Rectores, omnium contra se agentium excipiant actiones) That no Priests o••

Clerks, of what degree soever, nor Monks, of the orthodox Faith, be in civil causes drawn at all out of the Province, place or Countrey, where they dwel, by any higher, or lower Judge whatsoever; but be left to answer before their own ordinary Judges, that is, the Rectors of Provinces, the actions of all Plaintiffs against them. Behold how these most pious and Catholick Princes declared the Presidents of Provinces to be the ordinary Judges of the Clergy. Whom yet none of all the holy Fathers, or great Pontiffs of those times did rebuke herein, or taxed with any errour, or with having declared, or spoken in such matters (and in their publick Institutions or Laws) any thing at all less truly, less piously, or less orthodoxly. Whence it appears how injuriously they speak of Iustinian, that charge him with usurping any jurisdiction over Ecclesiasticks: whereas, on the other side, they should acknowledge themselves infinitly bound to him, for as much as he was the very first of Emperours that in civil causes exempted Clerks from secular (that is, lay) Ju∣dicatories, to which till his time they had been subject in all such causes. Which exemption, or priviledge, given so by him, is to be seen in the be∣fore-mentioned law of his Novel. 83. but still with the also fore-mentioned caution, that in criminal causes of Clerks, the Pretor have cognizance; however with this other caution also, to see them degraded by the Church before he give definitive sentence, or at least before he proceed to execution, when their crime is found by him to be such as deserves the Gallies, or Mines, or Exile, or Death, or any other infamous punishment.

All which being so, or this which I have now related being the true origen and progress of Ecclesiastical Immunity, given so by several Emperours, and at seueral times, from the conversion of Constantine until Iustinian made this law in his 83. Novel:

First, it is clear enough by these very laws (without relating to, or depen∣ding at all of Bellarmines concession) that Clerks have been originally subject in all politick matters, not only to the supream power of secular Princes, and consequently subject in criminal causes to their said supream, civil, coercive power, but also, in both civil and criminal causes, to the subordinat, lay, or civil power of inferiour Judges. Otherwise certainly neither could those Emperours grant those priviledges, at least as priviledges: nor would so ma∣ny learned, virtuous, and holy Fathers, Bishops, and Popes as were then in the Roman Empire, advise so ill in their own concern, and in that of truth also and Christian Religion, that they would own such exemption as from the benefit, concession, or priviledge of such lay Princes, if they had be∣lieved to have had it formerly, and originally from the very essence of Reli∣gion. For by owning such priviledges from those Princes, they confessed themselves to have been subject to such as could give them this ex∣emption: being it is manifest that nothing can be freed, or exempted, which was not bound and subjected before in such matters wherein after the exemp∣tion is. Besides, the very Emperours themselves are sufficiently known (in History) to have been so pious, that if they had been taught by the Bishops, or at any time had been of themselves otherwise perswaded, that Clergy∣men were exempt from their power by the law divine: they would have decla∣red so much presently, and generally in their own laws & edicts, without min∣cing, without reserving stil a power, even to their inferiour Judges, to proceed against Clerks in most, or many, or some matters. For if those good Emperours, and other Christian Kings in their dayes bestowed on the Church so profu∣sedly, and only out of godliness, piety, zeal, what they believed to be their own proper goods, how much more would they have abstained from usurp∣ing on those of the Church, and to which they had known themselves to have no kind of right?

Secondly, & forasmuch as depends of the testimony, or authority of the civil Law it self, it is clear enough, that Clergiemen have not only been originally, or sometime, but have continued alwayes, or at all times, since the very first

of christianity are at present stil subject to the supream civil Power; & therefore not exempt from it. For being it appears by these laws that Clergiemen were so first, indistinctly in all kind of politick matters subject, or not exempt in any either from the supream civil, or subordinate civil: and being further, that none of these laws, nor altogether, exempt them but in some politick things, or some such causes from the subordinat only; and in none at all from the supream in any such cause: and being moreover, that it was from, and by virtue of, or by a power derived from those very civil laws, and consequent∣ly from the supream civil Magistrate, Prince, Emperour, that Ecclesiastical Judges were so appointed for other Clerks in any civil, or criminal cause whatsoever, or in those we call meer lay crimes: it must follow, that foras∣much as concerns the testimony of those civil laws, which Bellarmine quotes here, Clerks are still subject to the supream civil power; though not in some cases, or not even in very many cases, to the subordinat civil; but in such have other Judges, that is, Ecclesiastical ones appointed them by the same laws. For by the testimony of these laws they are not exempt, where∣in they were not exempted by those very laws. And those laws do not ex∣empt them in any case at all from the Legislator Himself, or from the supream civil power, nor even from the subordinate, indistinctly, and universally in all cases; but in some only.

Thirdly, it is clear enough also by the testimony, authority, and warranty of these civil Laws, and forasmuch, I say, as depends of such warranty, if joyn'd together with the allowed doctrine of all christian both Lawyers and Divines generally, that in such Christian Kingdoms as never have been go∣vern'd by those laws of Roman Emperours, or which in after-times did le∣gally shake off the yoke, both of the Empire and imperial laws generally, and are govern'd only by municipal laws of their own; Clerks are not exempt at all in politick matters from either supream or subordinate lay Courts or Judges, no further then such municipal peculiar civil laws do exempt them. And being, that in no such Countrey at all, for any thing we know yet, or is alledged yet by Bellarmine, or by our Divines of Lovaine, Clerks are not ex∣empt by such laws from the supream civil power: and being at least, that whatever may be imagined of some one or other Countrey (with or without ground) we know certainly there is no such law in England or Ireland, nor hath yet ever been: it is no less clear, that Clerks are not at all exempt in England or Ireland in politick matters from the supream civil power of the Prince, or of his Laws: forasmuch (I say still) as depends of the testimony of the civil laws, or even of the doctrine of either Christian Lawyers, or Ca∣tholick Divines. Which doctrine is, that laws of men (when meer laws of men, and in politick matters) depend not only of public ti••••••, but also of legal reception, and hereof also, that they be not abrogated again by a con∣trary establishment, or by a general opposition, abrogation, or disuse in any particular Kingdom or State; especially if such as have the supream civil Legislative Power approve of, or concurr to such abrogation or disuse.

Fourthly and Lastly, and as a corrollary out of all, it is perspicuous, that as the very civil laws of Roman Emperours, and such other municipal laws of other Christian Princes giving such or some certain and special exemp∣tions, and other priviledges to Clergiemen (and giving them freely, and out of devotion only, for the greater decency and reverence of the Church) do convince any rational person, that secular Princes are still continually (as they have been originally) Superiours in temporal power to the Clergy, even to all Priests and Bishops whatsoever living within their Dominions: so they also convince that not even the great Priest and Bishop, the very chief and spiritual Prince both of all Priests, and of all Bishops too, the Pope him∣self, not even this so Oecumenical Vicar of Christ in all spiritual matters throughout the whole earth, can be truly said to be at present upon any other account exempted from secular Powers in temporal matters, but on

this only, that he also himself is now as he hath been for some ages (though not from the beginning) a temporal, or secular Prince too: and that now he represents a double Person; that of the Successor of St. Peter at Rome (which undoubtedly he hath from Christ, and from the Church, purely ta∣ken as a Church) and that also of a secular Prince with independent secular, civil, or temporal power; which latter he hath no less undoubtedly, and even only, and solely from the meer devotion, benevolence, bounty, and gift of other Princes and people, & even, I mean, of meer lay Princes & People.

But to the end learned men shall not say I take advantage of Bellarmine's not having so throughly examined this matter in his great work of Contro∣versies, nor even in his very last edition of that work; which yet is the editi∣on I have hitherto answered: and shall not object at any time, that Bellarmine sifted yet more narrowly the question of the civil laws, in a latter book of his, when he was in his old age forced to it by Doctor William Barelay's an∣swers and solutions of all the Church-canons, whereon chiefly, or rather indeed only Bellarmine relyed till then (as we have seen and we shall further see yet in the next Section) for his so general exemption of Clergiemen from even the supream, civil, coercive power in all criminal causes whatsoever: least, I say, any should object this, I will give at large, and in Bellarmines own words (but Englished) all that he replies in that his very last piece (on this subject we have now in hand, of the civil laws) against the same William Bar∣clay; and my own rejoynder also, though in effect, and for the most part made before, I confess, by another, that is, by Iohn Barclay the Son, in his Pietas, and to justifie the quarrel of his then dead Father.

LXIX.

Bellarmine therefore, seeing by the said William Barclay's work (De Pote∣state Papae in Temporalibus) against him, that all his former pretences, of what law soever, civil or ecclesiastical, for the exemption of Clergiemen from the supream civil Power, could not perswade any judicious Reader of that book of William Barclay, regards no more what he had granted before in his great Works of Controversies, and even in the very last edition, and after so ma∣ny recognitions, l. 1. de Cleric. c. 28. but retracts that, and puts on a new face, and amasses together all his reading ever since that Edition, and all his vete∣ran strength and wit to prove, that not only by other arguments, but also by the very civil laws of Roman Emperours, all Clergiemen are wholly, and generally exempt, and in all causes both civil and criminal, from all even the very supreamest civil coercive power on earth, even from that of those very Emperours who made those laws.

To the fourth proposition (sayes he, Tractatu de Potestate Papae in rebus tem∣poralibus, cap. 35.) which was, that no writer hath recorded to posterity, that Princes have exempted Clerks from their own power; but only from the power of inferiour Magistrates: I answer, that whoever sayes so, doth seem either to have read nothing, or to have purposed to abuse his Rea∣der. For Ruffians writen l. 10. Hist. c. 2. That Constantine the Em∣perour pronounced in express words, It was not lawful for him to judge Priests, but rather to be judged by them. Whereby he declared openly enough, that Priests were exempted, not only from the power of inferiour Judges, but also from that of the very supream. To which declaration, that law of the same Constantine, which is the seventh in Theedosius's Code, de Episcopis & Clericis, is consentaneous: where it is said, that the Readers of the holy Bible, and the Sub-deacons, and other Clerks, qui per injuri∣a•• Hereticorum ad curiam devocati sunt, who by the injustice of Hereticks are called to Court, shall be absolved, and henceforth, as in the East, shall not be called to Courts, minime ad curias devocentur, sed immunitate plenissima petiantur, but enjoy a most plenary freedom. So he. Whence,

being it is clear enough, that he absolutely prohibits that Clerks be called to Courts, and will have them to enjoy a most plenary freedom, and that he excepts nothing at all, it must be also manifest, his mind was, that neither shall they be called upon to the very Princes own supream Courts: for it would not be a most plenary exemption if they were obnoxious as much as to the very principal Power it self. Such an other is that law of Theodosius and Valentinian, Cod. Theodos. l. ultima. de Episc. & Clericis; where we read thus. Clerks whom without any distinction the unhappy presumer com∣manded to be lead to the secular Judges, we reserve to Episcopal Audience. For it is not lawful that Ministers of divine duties be subjected to they plea∣sure of temporal powers. In which law where nothing is excepted all things do seem to be comprehended, unless peradventure the Princes power may not be said to be temporal. And even Iustinian himself in his 83. No∣vella, so often quoted by our Adversaries, as if therein Clerks did not seem to be exempted in criminal causes from the secular Court, hath these words, That he must be first degraded from his sacerdotal dignity by the Bishop, and so be put under the punishment of the law. Where we see Clerks, as long as they remain Clerks, not to be under the power of the laws; but onely after they are by the Bishop deprived of their Clerical honour: and therefore while they remain Clerks, to be not onely exempt from the power of inferi∣our judges, but even from the very laws of Princes, for what belongs to co∣action. And this is it which the Council of Constance did say in the 31. Sessi∣on, That laymen have no jurisdiction, or power on Clerks. And certainly under the name of Laicks it comprehends even supream Princes, whereas these are Laicks. Finally, that I may pass over many other arguments, the Emperour Frederick the second, speaks generally in his first constitution where he sayes, We also enact that none presume to draw any Ecclesiastical person to a secular judg∣ment, either in a criminal or civil question, against the imperial constitutions and canonical sanctions. So much there. But by secular judgment, are not onely understood the judgments of inferiour judges, but also those of the su∣pream, whereas all are equally secular.

And we see it so observed indeed where the reverence of sacred canons bears the sway.

Behold here good, Reader the very last essaye of a dying cause. Our great Cardinal having been unwilling but to say somewhat; however himself, so knowing a man as we must presume he was, could not but know he said no∣thing at all in all this discourse to perswade any other even but meanly know∣ing or judicious Adversary, That any Roman Emperour did ever yet by any of these laws or other whatsoever exempt or intend to exempt or that other∣wise they or any els understood Clerks to be exempt by any other law from their own supream imperial power in temporal matters, either criminal or civil; though I dispute not at present of civil causes, but onely of criminal.

For 1. who sees not, That were the testimony of Ruffinus's being home in any point, a convincing argument; yet this which is here alleadged is not in any wise to the point or question? Ruffinus tells indeed that Constantine said it was not lawful for himself to judge the Priests; but tells not that Constantine ever said himself had exempted them so from himself, or that they were so by any law of man. Albeit therefore Constantine said so to the Bishops of the first general Council of Nice; yet is it plain enough out of the very series of that History in Ruffine, when they offered 〈◊〉〈◊〉 petitions to him one against an other, that as this was said by an ordinary manner of speech onely, and by way of complement, so the words must not be taken strictly or scrupulously at all, but onely as extolling the dignity of Bishops, and as in∣tending to deterre them from litigiousness, and chieftly 〈…〉〈…〉 purpose to free himself from the trouble of judging their hateful differences. That this was the mind of Constantine, appears by these manifold and manifest ar∣guments. 1. That for that his saying he gave this reason, that Bishops were Gods, and received power from God to judge of him, de nobis q••••{que} pudican∣di.

But neither can relate to human constitutions. Nor even to those are divine, least otherwise it must follow that Constantine farre better understood the law of God when he so refused to judge the Bishops, then those very Bi∣shops themselves who in that holy Oecumenical Synod of Nice did repaire and complain to him as to their Soveraign Judg; as may be seen in that very History of Ruffinus. 2. That otherwise no Clerks, Priests, Bishops themselves can be Judges of other Clerks; sed ille solus de quo scriptum est, Deus stetit in Synagoga Deorum, in mediò autem Deos dijudicat. For so said Constantine to the Bishops on that occasion: and consequently, if you take his words strictly or scrupulously he said that Clerks were not onely exempted from his own tribunal, or that of Princes, but from that of Pontiffs also. 3. That the very same Constantine had in many other places and many other much more authoritative speeches, even in his own very imperial laws expresly declared how much he would have Clerks exempt, and how much remain still subject to the common law. As in Cod. Theodos. Tit. de Episcop. l. 3. l. 6. Cod. Iustini∣an. Tit. de Episc. & Cleric. l. 1. l. 2. l. 3. l. 4. Therefore neither did Constan∣tine mean or intend by that saying, That Clerks were exempt from his own immediate tribunal, not even by the law divine: nor in that History of Ruffi∣nus is there as much as a word whereby it may be gathered That Clerks were set free of or exempted from the supream imperial power.

As for that seaventh law, de Episc. & Cleric. in the Code of Theodosian, where it is said thus, Lectores divinorum apicum, & Hypodiaconi, & caeteri Cleri∣ci, qui per injuriam Haereticorum ad curiam devocati sunt, absoluantur; & de caetero ad similitudinem orientis minimé ad Curias devocentur, sed immunitate plenissima potiantur, how sees not also Bellarmines intollerable errour in his un∣derstanding of the word Curia, and of those other Devocari ad Curiam, as if curia imported a judgment, judgment seat, Judicatory, Tribunal, or Court of Justice? and as if Devocari ad Curiam, the same with to be called or con∣vened or summond to a Court of Justice, or before a Judge? whereas indeed Curia signifies precisely, and onely (especially in these laws) either the place where the Tribes, Wards, or publick Officers, as Collectors, Constables, tri∣bute gatherers, Mayors, Bayliffs &c. did meet; or those very offices of pub∣lick care: for from the word eura in Latin, which imports care in English, curia is said as it is derived. And Devocari ad Curiam signifies properly and onely to be called upon to undergoe these publick offices of care, which re∣late to the Commonwealth, to Villages and Burroughs, and Citties, &c: whence it was that such as were appointed for such employments were called Curiones and Decuriones, and were commonly rich, able, sufficient men, and were not suffered at all to refuse or quit those employments; not even under pretence of Clerk-ship, or of their being Ecclesiastical persons or Church∣men, nor even under pretence, or by vertue of their being priviledged per∣sons of the very Emperours own house or family. For Constantine himself commanded by law (eod. tit. de Episc. leg. 3.) nullum decurienem, vel ex de∣curione progenitum, vel etiam instructum idoneis facultatibus, at{que} obeundum pub∣licis muneribus opportunum, ad Clericorum nomen obsequium{que} confugere, &c. sed illos qui post legem latam obsequia publica declinantes ad Clericorum numerum confugiunt, procul ab eo corpore segregatos, curiae ordinibus{que} restitui, & civilibus obsequiis inservire, That no Decurion, nor any begott by a Decurion, nor also any of sufficient riches, and fit to undergo publick charges, should flye to the name and service of Clerks, &c. But that all such as, after the law was made, to decline publick charges or offices, had fled to, or put themselves in the number or calling of Clerks (that is of Churchmen) should be wholly segregated again from that body, and restored to their curia, wardships, or∣ders, and civil employments. And after him the Emperour Valentinian (l. 21. eod. tit.) ordained That Hi, qui Ecclesiae juge obsequium deputarunt, curiis habeantur immunes: si tamen eos ante ortum Imperij nostri ad cultum se legis nostrae contulisse constiterit; caeteri revocentur, qui se post id tempus Ecclesi∣asticis

congregarunt. That such as had deputed themselves for ever o the Church, should be free from the curia (that is from publick charges or offi∣ces of publick care) Provided they have done so or been so deputed before the beginning of our Empire. And let them be revoked that have after that time aggregated themselves to Ecclesiasticks. Gratian also and Theodosius (l. 39. C. de Decur.) decreed that Curiales, qui ses•• privilegio domus nostrae defendi posse crediderint, ad curiam revocentur, & propriis sunctionibus mancipen∣tur. That Curials, (that is men in the law capable and lyable to undergo publick cares, charges, or offices, as in a City rich able freemen, Aldermen, &c.) who believe they can defend themselves by the priviledg of our house, be revoked notwithstanding ad curiam to the Assembly house, or place where publick offices are imposed, and there constrained to undergo such offices. And yet the degree of Curials hath no title or name of Honour, l. 1. C. de Decur. and some immunities are bestowed on them, l. 21. ibidem. Quoniam, sayes that law, satis est si civitatum munera per eos congruè compleantur. Because (sayes it) it is enough for them to discharge well the offices which they undergo in the Citties. But frighted by the labour, and as it were continual servitude of such employments, they fled away from them; a curia refugie∣bant. For being employed in such, it was unlawful for them to relinquish the Town, Corporation, City, and go to the Prince's Court, or elswhere to take their pleasure, or even to go to the warrs, or turn souldiers. They must have continually kept their station at home to attend their publick charge, or when they should be called thereunto. Whence it is that the title of that law was thus conceived in the Code. De Decurionibus, & filiis eorum, & qui Decuriales habentur, & quibus modis a f••rtuna curiae liberentur. And that Princes beleeved they had highly priviledg'd the Clergie when they had freed them from wardships, guardianships, collectorships, and all other such pub∣lick civil offices, or, which is the same thing, from all nominations and suscepti∣ons, from all curial employments whatsoever. Behold here that most plenary exemption, immunitatem plenissimam, which Constantine would have the Clerks enjoy.

And who sees not moreover that Theod••sius and Valentinian, or that law of theirs alleadg'd by Bellarmine out of Theodosians Code. l. ultima de Episc. & Cleric. (where the words are these, Clericos quos indiscretion ad seculares Iu∣dices debere deduci infansius praesumptor dixerat, Episcopali audientiae reservamus. Fas enim non est, ut divini muneris Ministri temporalium potestatum subdantur arbitri••.) who sees not I say that Bellarmine labours in vain in quoting these Emperours or this law of theirs? For if even our learned Cardinal himself did but consider That that law was onely for confirming and asserting those priviledges which the Emperours themselves gave the Churches: as is evi∣dent out of this other passage and those other genuin words of that very law, ut qui••quid a Divis Principibus constitutum est, vel quae singuli qui{que} Antisti∣tes pro causes Ecclesiasticis impetrarunt, sub paena sacrilegii jugi solidata aeternitate serventur, himself also could not but be perswaded that those former words fas non est, spoken there by Theod••sius and Valentinian, signifie no more but an unlawfulness of or by their own human civil Emperial laws, and where or in such cases onely as by these laws it was unlawful to subject Ecclesiasticks to the judgment of temporal powers. And that these other words temporalium p••testatum arbitri as there, and as per materiam subjectam restrained, have rela∣tion solely to, and onely import or signifie such temporal powers as all inferi∣our Magistrats are; but in no wise the supream of the Emperours themselves. Being so that those Emperours themselves Theodosius and Valentinian by this or any other law, nor any other Emperour before them, had ever granted such a priviledg to any Clerk or Church, as to be wholy exempt from their own proper supream civil and imperial power. Nay how farre Clerks were under the Empire of this very Valentinian from such an imaginary priviledg or Exemption from the supream imperial power, may be learned out of his welfth law, (eod. tit. Novel. Valentiniani) De Episcopali Judicio diversorum

saepe cansatio est. Ne ulterius quaerela procedat, necesse est praesenti lege sanari. Ita∣{que} cum inter Clericos jurgium vertitur, & ipsis litigatoribus convenit, habeat Epis∣capus licentiam judica••di, praeeunte tamen uinculo compromissi. Quod & laicis si consentiant, authoritas nostra permittit. Aliter eos Iudices esse non patimur, nifi ••••••••tas ju••gantium interposita (sicut dictum est) conditione praecedat. Quoniam constat Episcopos & praesbyte••os f••rum legibus non habere, nec de aliis causis, secun∣dum Arcadii & Honorii Divalia constituta, quae Theodosianum Corpus ostendit, praeter Religionem posse cognoscere. Si ambo ejusdem officii litigatores nolint, vel alteruter, agant publicis legibus, & jure communi. Sin vero Petitor laicus, seu in civili, seu crimi∣nali causa cujuslibet loci Clericum adversarium suum, si id magis eligat, per authorita∣tem legitimam in publico judicio respondere compellat. Quam formam etiam circa Episcoporum personam observari oportere censemus. &c. Where it is plain this Em∣perour acknowledges no judicial power in Bishops not even over their own very Clerks at variance amongst themselves either in criminal or civil causes, nor as much as permits, licences or suffers any such judicial power in the Bishop over Clerks, but onely when it shall please the Clerks themselves to fix on him, and besides shall make a compromise to stand to his judgment: qu••niam constat Episcopos & Praesbyteros forum legibus non habere &c: because (sayes that law, sayes Valentinian who made that law) it is manifest that, by the laws, Bishops and Priests have no judicatory: nor according to the divine con∣stitutions of Arcadius and Honrius can take cognizance of any other causes, but of those of Religion. And therefore decrees, that if the parties at variance, be∣ing both of the same profession, refuse Episcopal audience, that is, the Bishops judgment, or if either of them refuse it, they are in such case to try their quarrel by the publick and common laws. And further decrees, that if the Plantiff being a lay person, whatever the cause be, against a Clerk, civil or criminal, shall rather choose this way of publick judgment acccord∣ing to the laws, that then such Clerk be forced by lawful authority to answer. And yet further particularly decrees the same form or method to be observed concerning the persons of Bishops To this law of Valentinian, may be added an other long after of those other no less Orthodox Emperours Leo and Anthemius, L. omnes. 33. c. de Episc. & Cleric. omnes qui ubi{que} sunt, vel posthae fuerint, Orthodoxae Fidei sacerdotes, & Clerici cu∣jus cum{que} gradus fint, Monachi quo{que} in causis civilibus, ex nullius penitus majoris minorisve sententia Iudicis commonitoria, ad extranea judicia pertrahantur: aut Provinciam, aut locum, aut Regionem, quam habitant, exire cagantur: nullus eorum Ecclesias vel Monasteria propria, quae Religionis intuitu habitant, relinquere miserabili necessitate jubeatur; sed apud suos Iudices ordinarios, id est Provincia∣rum Rectores in quibus locis degunt, Ec••lesiarum ministeriis obsecundent omnium{que} contra se agentium excipiant actiones. Let not any whoever at present are or hereafter shall be Priests of the Orthodox Faith, or Clerks of whatever de∣gree, or even Monks, be at the pleasure or by a monitory sentence of any grea∣ter or lesser Iudg, drawn to forraign Iudicatories: or forced out of the Pro∣vince place or Region where they dwell. Let none of them be commanded, by miserable necessity to relinquish the Churches or Monasteries, which for Religions sake they inhabit; but in such places as they inhabit in the Ministe∣ry of Churches, let them before their own ordinary Iudges, that is, the Re∣ctours of Provinces, receive the actions of all such as act against them. See Clerks of all degrees whatsoever, not subjected to Emperours onely, but to the Rectors of Provinces; who also are in this law said to be their ordinary Iudges. Now whereas the priviledges of Clerks are not read to have been any way lessened or recalled by any laws of former pious Emperours, from the times of Theodosius and Valentinian until that of this very Leo and Anthe∣mius; but rather by little and little daily enlarged by new indulgences or exemptions given to the Church: and notwithstanding such daily enlarge∣ment, the Rectors of the Provinces were yet under the same Leo and Anthe∣mius the ordinary Iudges of Clerks: it is sufficiently evicted that those words before in the foresaid law of Theodosius and Valentinian, fas enim non est ut di∣vini

muneris Ministri temporalium potestatum subdantur arbitrio, were spoke or writ in that same sense, we have said already: whereas, I say, the Emperors then held it fas or lawful for themselves to encrease the priviledges of Clerks and also at their own pleasure, or when they held it fit, to leave them to the common law.

And who sees not further yet that Bellarmine concludes out of Iustinians 83. Novel. quite contrary to the express letter of that very Novel? Iustinian there expresly orders That as to such Clerks, as should be convened in crimi∣nal causes at Constantinople (where himself lived and the Imperial Court was then) the Iudges there should determine the matter; but as to other Clerks that lived in the Provinces abroad, the President or Judges of those Provinces. Si de criminibus conveniantur, siquidem civilibus (that is, if the crimes of Clerks were civil or lay crimes, crimina laica, and not pure crimes of Religion or Faith) hic quidem, nempe Constantinop••li, competentes Iudices, in Provinciis autem, earum praesides sive Iudices. How then may Bellarmine con∣clude out of this Novel, that Politick or lay and meerly civil even subordi∣nate Judges (such as questionless the Presidents and Judges of Provinces were under Iustinian) could not Judge Clerks in criminal causes, while or during their being Clerks, or before degradation? For as for that other passage, or those other words, which Bellarmine takes hold of to abuse his Reader, prius hunc spoliari a Deo amabili Episcopo sacerdotali dignitate & ita sub legum manu fieri: in English these, this (Clerk) to be spoiled first of his sacerd••∣••al dignity, by the beloved Bishop of God, and so to be put under the hand of laws: who sees not that please to read that Novel, nay that please to read what Bel∣larmine himself before and elswhere l. de Cler. c. 28. most expresly and par∣ticularly taught of the contents of that Novel; who sees not I say that these words, prius hunc spoliari &c. & ita sub legum manu fieri, do not signifie in that law, that Clerks were not before the Bishop degraded them subject in such criminal causes to the lay Presidents of Provinces or to the laws, but onely after such degradation? It is expresly provided in that very law, as Bellarmine himself in the book of his now quoted confesses, That the lay judg is in the very first place of all, and before any such degradation to take cognizance of such criminal causes of Clerks: and that in the next place if this lay judge find him guilty, the Bishop is to degrade him before the execution, or judg∣ment of execution be given by the judge. Is it not plain enough that by this very law or Novel of Iustinian, Clerks were in such causes subject to such lay Judges and laws, before any degradation by the Bishop? could such lay Judges take cognizance of any cause or person that were not by law subject to them? Therefore it is evident that the words prius spoliari &c. in that passage quoted by Bellarmine, and words & ita sub legum manu fieri, must (as there) be onely understood in relation to a publick definitive sentence of punishment and execution of such. Which, that Novel ordains for the honour of the sacred function of Priests, not to be pronounced before the Judge give notice to the Bishop to degrade such a Priest as is by the same lay Judge upon examination and full discussion of the cause found to have de∣served some infamous punishment, as for example to be condemned to death, or to the mines, or perpetual banishment. That so it may not be said that a Priest but a man despoiled first of the dignity of a Priest, and of the very order it self as much as could be, and of all kind of priviledges of the Cle∣rical order, was legally condemn'd and suffer'd such an ignominious punish∣ment. And by consequence the priority signified by that word prius relates to the posteriority of a definitive publick sentence of such infamy, and to the execution of it: not at all to a posteriority of power in such lay Judge over such a Clerk in such a cause; which power we have now seen by that very Novel to have been anteriour to and wholly independent of the Bishops de∣gradation; being that the power of judicial cognizance of the crime was such. And by the same consequence, that being under the power of the civil

laws imported by those other words, & ita sub legum manu fieri, signifies one∣ly a certain kind of being under, and that too in order onely to such a subor∣dinate Judge in such a cause; but not all kinds of being under, nor any kind at all in order to the supream civil Judge.

As for Bellarmines Allegation here, of the Council of Constance, Ses. 31. its not to the purpose: because whatever may be said to have been meaned by the Fathers in those, or any other such words, or whether they intended only an exemption from the subordinat (ciuil or lay) Judges, or even from the supream; yet they say not here, or elsewhere, that such exemption wh••tever was given by the civil laws. Besides it is evident, that the Fa∣thers of Constance made no Canon at all in this point of exemption: and that albeit they have these words alledged here by the Cardinal; yet they only have them, or make use of them in a particular case, decreeing the li∣berty of the Bishop of Aste from an unjust imprisonment, wherein he was by force kept by Philip the Count of Virtues, a Philippo Comite virtutum, who was not the said Bishop's supream temporal Prince or Lord; but a sub∣ordinate; and who, without any warrant from the Supream, had by usurpa∣tion imprisoned the said Bishop. So that the Fathers of Constance alledging in the particular sentence they gave for this Bishop, and against this Coun••, and in such a particular, that, laici nullam in Clericos potestatem aut jurisdicti∣onem habent, and alledging this only too by way of supposition, or as a rea∣son of their said particular sentence in favour of the said Bishop, must not be presumed to have supposed more then was necessary for the justification of their said sentence, especially where to have supposed so, must have been point blanck without any former canon of the Church, or law of the Em∣pire, or custom of the world, and consequently against plain Scripture, Rom. 13. as I will shew hereafter. But to be exempt from the jurisdiction, or coercive power of subordinat civil, or subordinat lay Judges, Lords or Princes, according to the late civil laws of the Empire, and to the custom that by little and little was introduced, and then in force in the Christian world, was enough for that purpose, or justification of that sentence; notwithstand∣ing a plenary subjection still of even Bishops to the supream, lay, coercive power. The Fathers of Constance therefore being justly exasperated against the said Earl, did rationally and pertinently, secundum subjectam materiam, make use of these words (in the sentence they gave against him) attendentes quod subditi in eorum Praelatos, & Laici in Clericos nullam habent jurisdictionem & potestatem. For it is a rule in both the canon and civil Law, that the sense of words, how indefinit soever in any instrument, writing, or speech what∣soever, must not be what they import in a strict Gramatical or Logical sense; but what they do ex intentione loquentis, according to the intention of the speaker or writer: and that this intention must be gathered, not only out of the beginning, middle, and conclusion or end of any such instru∣ment, writing, or speech, and out of the collation of altogether (Cum utrius{que} Juris argumenta nos doceant ea quae in medio ad finem at{que} principium, & ea quae in fine ad utrum{que} vel corum alterum recte referri, sayes Nicholas III. in his De∣cretal. Exiit. de verbor. significatione. in Sexto.) but also, as natural reason tells us, ex subjecta materia, out of the very matter whereof, or concerning which the law, instrument, writing, or discourse is.

What last of all is alledged out of Frederick the Second's Constitution, being it is no more but a general ordinance, or an ordinance in such general or ra∣ther indefinit terms, for the exemption of Clerks in a criminal question from the civil-Judicatory, or being it is but a command or law, That none should pre∣sume to call, or draw an Ecclesiastical person, in a criminal question, or even civil, to a secular judgment, against the Imperial Constitutions and Canonical Functions: and whereas there was never yet any Imperial Constitution, or Canonical Sanction, either made before his time, or in his time, or after his time, that exempted Clergymen in either of both sorts of questions, civil or criminal,

from the supream, civil, and absolute power of the Emperour, themselves, or of other Kings that acknowledge neither Emperour nor Pope, nor any other above themselves in their temporal government: who sees not, that out of this Constitution of Frederick nothing can be concluded for such ex∣emption of Clerks in criminal causes from the supream civil power, but only from that of subordinat, inferiour, and ordinary civil, or secular Judi∣catories? Besides, we know Fredericks laws were only for those few Cities, or Provinces that remain'd in his time: which was about the year of Christ, one thousand two hundred and twenty: and therefore could not pretend, nor did pretend to prescribe laws to other Kingdoms or Kings, for the exempti∣on of Clerks, either in civil, or criminal causes, or even to the inferiour Iudicatories of other Kings. And that we know also, that that law of Fre∣derick was not imitated by the like in other Principalities, not subject to him, not, imitated, I say, generally as to the exemption of Clerks in all, either civil or criminal causes whatsoever, from the very subordinat, inferi∣our civil Iudicatories, nor even in prima instantia. So that I must conclude, that Bellarmine was put to a very narrow strait for an imperial, or civil law, wh•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pitch't on this of Frederick, which was not known, nor as much as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of in other parts of even Europe it self, as owning no subjection to Frederick. And yet a law not to the purpose, were it of the same authority those Imperial Constitutions were when the Orient and the Occident, South and North, as far as the Roman Empire was ever spread at any time, or even in great Constantins days, were under one Lord. An imperial or civil law in those days, or of such others for some ages after, which w••e received in the wide christian world, & consequently & generally retained might have been to pur∣pose, if it had clearly, expresly, on particularly enacted any thing to our pre∣sent purpose. But conceived in such terms as this of Frederick, co••l••, not be to such purpose. For it is one thing to be exempted from the subjection due to Emperours or Kings, and another to be exempted a for•• secuil••i, from a sec•••••••• Iudicatory. The Emperours had under themselves (and establish∣ed by themselves, and by their own civil laws) two sorts of Iudicatories. The one term••••••g meer civil, or meer secular Iudicatory, where peculars one∣ly, or meer ••ay men were Judges. And the other termed 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Ecclesiastical Iudicatory, where Ecclesiastical Persons only, or persons dep•••••••• by them, were Iudge••, whatever the cause, or question was, civil, or cri••••nal, tempo∣ral or spiritual, or mixt of both. And both had their power which (as co∣ercive, or a 〈…〉〈…〉 with any coerci••••••) from the Emperours and from their civil law 〈◊〉〈◊〉, So that the Emperours exempting any from the secular, Iudica∣tory, 〈…〉〈…〉 leave, or put such under the subordinat p••••er of the Ecclesiastical Judges deputed by the same Emperours, or by their laws. Which they might have done in favour of meer lay men, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 some lay-men, and in some, or many, or all case, whatsoever made, had it been their Imperial pleasure: as often they did by instances grant Epise 〈◊〉〈◊〉 And enti∣am, to meer lay men, and in meer lay crimes, or lay causes, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 civil and criminal, at lea•• in civil. Would Bellarmine conclude therefore, that those were exempted, or should be in such a case, and by the Emperours them∣selves, or their laws, exempted from their own supream, civil coercive po∣wer in criminal causes, or indeed in any, whatsoever? Or must it follow, that because, by the law of England, a Lord (for example) 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be con∣demned, or tryed in a criminal cause, but by his Peers, that therefore in England a Lord is exempt from the supream civil coercive power of the King himself? Or, that it is not by a power derived from the King th•••• Peer 〈…〉〈…〉, condemn, or free another Peer? Or even, that by the su∣pream power of the King, which formerly established such a law of privi∣ledge for Peers, the same law may not be justly again, or upon just grounds repealed, and a contrary law made in Parliament, if at any time it were found by manifest experience, that the Peers did manifestly and manifoldly,

and even to the ruine of the King and Kingdom, and against the very pri∣mary intention of all priviledges and laws, make use of, or rather abuse, such a former law, or former priviledge? Or finally, and consequently, that whatever priviledge of exemption, though only from Inferiour lay Judges, was so granted, as before, to Clerks, by the supream civil power of Empe∣rours, Kings, and other States, was such, that in case of manifest and ma∣nifold abuse, even to the ruine of the publick, and without any hope of amendment, it could not be revoked again, or moderated by another law, and equal power to that which gave it before?

Therefore from first to last, I think it is now clear enough, that by the ci∣vil law no Clerks are exempt in criminal causes from the supream coercive power of such temporal Princes or States, under whom they live.

LXIX.

That neither by the Canons of the Church I am now to prove. Wherein I find so little difficulty (that notwithstanding the general errour so wide spread, or supposed amongst as well Divines as Canonists, to the contrary, but introduced at first, and continued after, out of some passages of Councils very ill understood, considered, or examined) I dare say boldly, that not one∣ly none of all those Councils, or Canons of Councils alledged for such ex∣emption of Clerks from the supream civil power, but not even any of them alledged for their exemption from as much as the subordinat civil power of inferiour Judicatories, hath any such matter at all. Though my purpose here be not other then to prove this truth for what concerns the supream po∣wer only. To which purpose.

I affirm, that no where in any Council is it found, that the Fathers attri∣buted such authority to themselves, as by their own sole power to exempt Clerks from lay Tribunals •• or, which is the same thing, to deprive secular Judges, or Magistrates of power, empire, command, judgment, coercion, or Iurisdiction over Clerks; or (which also imports the very same) to prohibit the secular Judges not to take cognizance of, or give sentence in the causes, ei∣ther civil or criminal, of Clerks, brought unto their tribunals; or finally (and it is still in effect the same) not to summon Clerks to their tribunals, and judge their causes, whensoever such causes were meerly temporal; and not properly or strictly spiritual, or of a purely spiritual nature. And, I affirm also, that before Iustinians Empire (which was from the year of Christ, 527. wherein it was begun, to the year 565. wherein he dyed) no Council, nor ca∣non of Council, did ever as much as declare, or even as much as only sup∣pose that Clerks were by any other authority, or by that, I mean'd, of the very Emperours themselves exempted generally from lay tribunals, not even (I mean) still from those of inferiour Judges.

And, O God of Truth! how can any knowing Divine, any conscientious Historian, Canonist or Civilian, be so preoccupated as not to acknowledge; or so blind as not to see it cannot be any way probable, that the Fathers of those primitive and purer ages, should attribute any such power to themselves, as by their own proper authority to exempt others, or even themselves from that subjection, to which as well themselves as all other Clerks were ante∣cedently bound by the positive law of God himself; as not only St. Augustine teaches in his exposition of the thirteenth chapter of St. Paul, to the Ro∣mans, but all other Fathers generally who treat of this subject, or expound that chapter.

But to clear this matter throughly, we must observe Those ancient Fathers (with whom Ecclesiastical Discipline, whereof now there is so great neglect, did sincerely and severely nourish) used their utmost endeavours that Eccle∣siasticks should not onely by their doctrine instruct the people but also by their probity of manners and innocency of carriage in all things. And there∣fore

admonish'd all Clerks nay enjoyned them, in their own conciliary Canons, and sometimes also under heavy Ecclesiastical Sanctions or Censures, That none of them should presume to convene or charge an other Clerk in any cause, either criminal or civil, before a secular judge: but either by the in∣tervention of friends should compose all their own differences, or certainly, if they would not, or could not do so, that they should at least suffer all to be determined by Episcopal Iudgment, acquiescing therein. And both advised and ordained so in imitation of St. Paul himself, and for the very self-same reason, or certainly not unlike to it, this great Apostle had when writing to the Corinthians. 1. Cor. 6. and forbidding them to sue one an other before heathen Iudges, he gave therein a rule to all Christians generally for that time, as well Laicks as Clerks. Which reason, appropriated to our present purpose of Clerks onely, is, That if or when it should happen that Clerks should fall (out of human frailty) into such imperfections or sins as other men are subject to, and yet are scandalized at mightily when committed by Clergie∣men, they might be with farre more secrecy, and much less scandal corrected by their own proper Bishops and other Ecclesiastical Superiours: and conse∣quently that such deviations of Clergiemen should not come to the know∣ledge of the vulgar, which commonly judges of the doctrine by the life or conversation of the Doctors, and is apt enough upon such occasions to laugh and scorn the persons themselves, and not seldome too their very sacred fun∣ction it self. Besides that Clergiemen (who by their calling should be, in a very special manner above others, careful to cherish peace and concord, and be themselves by word and deed paterns of charity and patience to others) should not by their own example or by their own sueing of others or of one an other in the secular and publick Courts, rather shew the way to contenti∣on and strife then lead to christian peace and patience.

Whereby as it may be easily understood, the Fathers did not by such ad∣monitions or by such decrees lessen, or intend to lessen (as indeed they could not, if any of them would, and certainly none of them have willed so to lessen) the proper civil power of the secular Iudges to heare and determine the temporal either civil or criminal causes of Clerks, when brought to their tribunals, and brought so either by the free access of the Clerks themselves, or by their constrained or commanded appearance when called or summoned by the same Iudges. For to have done so or intended so, would have been to take from Princes and Magistrats that right and authority which the law of Christ doth not permit any admonitions or any decrees of the Fathers, not even in or by their most solemn Councils whatsoever, to take from the said Princes or Magistrats. The Fathers therefore by such decrees did partly forbid that Clerks should not sue one an other, and partly too that neither should they sue a meer layman, before a secular Iudg. For this also of not sueing laymen some Canons have. And the Fathers by those decrees ordai∣ned Episcopal punishments against all Clerks that would not observe those decrees. And this is all that may be gathered out of any or all the Canons of Councils alleadged by our adversaries. Now who sees not that all this might be justly and lawfully ordained by the spiritual Fathers of the Church, by their Ecclesiastical Councils and Canons, without any the least diminution of the former civil power of the lay Iudges over Clerks? For so a good na∣tural Father in the civil commonwealth that hath many children, may com∣mand them all, and also forbid them under a private domestick punishment, nay even under that of disinheriting them, that they contend not or sue one an other before a publick Judg, about any quarrel amongst themselves; but leave all such differences to himself their Father, or to the private domestick judgment of their other Bretheren. And may command this without any prejudice at all to the publick authority of the publick or legal Judges. And therefore so too may the spiritual Fathers of the Church command those who are, in a special manner, and by a special tye and calling, their spiritual

children, such as all Clerks are, and may command them too under such pu∣nishments or penalties as are proper to their said spiritual Fatherhood, not to the one an other, or even any at all before a secular Judg. And yet by no means thereby lessen or intend to lessen the power of such Judges over Clerks or their causes whensoever convened or brought either by election or coaction before them; but onely to abridg•• the Clerks themselves of their former liberty of going so freely unto them as they used to do. Which any rational person may easily judg not to be an Exemption of Clerks from secular Judg∣es; but a provident course to keep them in better order, and as well as may be to avoid scandal.

And that my bare assertion may not be given for this my interpretation, I thought it worth my labour to set down here, and at length distinctly those very Decrees of Councils, which Bellarmine l. 1. de Cleric. c. 28. Prop. 3. pleads against us, though he gives there some few words onely of some of them, and of the rest none at all.

The first Council then which decreed any thing concerning this point, was the third Council of Carthage, held Anno Domini, 307. St. Augustine being one of the Fathers and subscribers of it. Whereof the 9. Canon is of this tenour and very words.

Item placuit ut quisquis Episcoporum, Praesbyterorum, & Diaconorum seu Clericorum, cum in Ecclesia ei crimen fuerit intentatum, vel civilis causa fuerit commota, si relicto Ecclesiastico judioi••, publicis judiciis purgari ••••luerit, etiamsi pro ipso fuerit prolata sententia, locum suum amittat, & hoc in criminali judicio. In civili vero perdat quod evicit si locum suum obtinere voluerit. Cui enim ad eligendos judices undi{que} patet authoritas, ipse se indignum fraterno c••nsorti•• judicat qui de universa Ecclesia male sentiendo, de judicio seculari poscit auxilium: cum privatorum Christianorum causas Apostolus ad Ecclesiam deferri, at{que} ibi determinari praecipiat.

Also we have ordained that if any Bishop, Priest, Deacon, or other Clerk being charged in or before the Church with a crime, or having but even a civil suit commenced against him, shall decline Ecclesiastical Judgment, and choose rather to have his cause tryed in pub∣lick Courts or Judicatories; though he have sentence given for him, yet he shall loose his place; and this in a criminal judgment. But in a civil, that he forgo what he hath wonn, if he desire to hold his place. For he that is at full liberty to choose his Judges where he will, shews himself unworthy of the fellowship of his bretheren, when judging ill of the whole Church, he sueth to secular judicatories for help, whereas the Apostle com∣mandeth that the causes of private Christians be brought to the Church and there determined.

Is there I beseech you any word here, out of which may be gathered by any probable consequence, That this Council intended to exempt Clergie∣men from the jurisdiction of secular Magistrats? or to declare that no Laicks are lawful Judges in any causes of the Clergie? So little of any such matter, that on the contrary, the whole tenour shews plainly enough, those Affrican Fathers beleeved that Laicks were always very legal and competent Judges in the politick or temporal causes of Clerks And shews plainly enough, those Fathers endeavoured onely by this Canon to bridle the stubborness and restrain the giddiness of such Clerks as when their causes were already begun to be debated in the Church before Ecclesiastical Arbiters, did nevertheless without any cause and before sentence renounce them, and run to the secu∣lar Judges for a determination. In which case yet this Council disallows not the sentence given by the secular Judge, nor pronounceth him to be no com∣petent Judge; but onely for punishment of the levity and improbity of such a Clerk prescribes him to quit the benefit of such a sentence or els to loose his place. But that those Fathers at the same time acknowledg'd the civil Magistrats to be lawful Judges of Clerks, may hence be sufficiently evicted, that they restrained this decree to that case onely wherein a crime is in the Church, that is, before an Ecclesiastical Judge charg'd on a Clergieman, or a

civil suit commenced against him in the Church, quo crimen Clerico in Ecclesia fuerit intentatum, aut civilis causa commota. Out of these two cases therefore it was lawful for a Clerk, notwithstanding this Canon, to have recourse to lay Judicatories and secular publick Judges.

How clear soever this matter be, yet Bellarmine would needs argue against it in his book against William Barclay, cap. 34. where he tels us,

that himself sees in this canon many things for the exemption of Clerks. Primum enim (sayes he) aper••è damnant Patres recursum ad judicia secularium Magistratuum: quod certe non facerent, si seculares Magistratus omni ex parte legittimi judices Ec∣clesiasticorum fuissent, &c. For first (sayes he) the Fathers openly condemn a recourse to secular Magistrats: which truly they would not have done, if the secular Magistrates were in all respects lawful judges of Ecclesiasticks. For what sin or fault had it been to appeal from the judgment of the Bishop to the judgment of the President of the Province, or of the Prince himself, if the President or Prince were a lawful Judge, not onely of the Clerk but also of the Bishop? Next, this Council rescinds the sentence of the secular Judg pronounced against a Clerk, forasmuch as the canon decrees that a Clerk absolved in a criminal cause by a secular Judg shall loose his place; and in a civil cause, shall loose that which was adjudged to him: and so shall in neither of both causes reap any benefit by a sentence pronounced in his be∣half by a secular Judg. For albeit the Fathers decree so by way of punish∣ment, yet the punishment had been unjust, if it had not been a crime for and in a Clerk to acknowledg any secular judgment. Lastly, because Barclay sayes this Council doth reprehend onely those Clerks that after a cause begun to be discussed before an Ecclesiastical judg transferre it to a secular (which may seem to be injurious to Ecclesiastical judges) let him see what the Council of Milevi, of the same age, and celebrated in the same Affrick sayes. For thus it speaks in the Nineteenth canon. Placuit ut quicum{que}, ab Imperatore cogniti∣nem judiciorum publicorum petierit, Honore proprio privetur; si autem Episc••pale judicium ab Imperat••re postulaverit, nihil ei obsit. It hath been our will, that whoever shall of the Emperour demand the cognizance of publick judgments, shall be deprived of his proper Honour; but if from the Emperour any demand Episco∣pal Audience, that such demand shall not disadvantage him. Where we see the Fathers do not treat of a judgment already begun in the Court Ecclesiastical, but absolutely prohibit Clerks under a most grievous penalty that they shall not have recourse to the Emperour to demand any secular discussion: and yet do licence the recourse of Clerks to demand Episcopal Audience; to wit, for avoiding secular judgments. Hetherto Bellarmine.

Notwithstanding all which, it is always clear enough that not onely nothing at all is decreed in this canon of Carthage for the exemption of Clergiemen from secular Iudicatories, but even very much against it, if the canon be considered without prejudice. For if it had not been lawful, even I mean in point of con∣science, for the secular Magistrate or judg to here the causes of Clerks, where∣fore did not the Fathers in this Council of Carthage forbid under censures the secular Iudges themselves not to admit Clerks to their Courts, or not to give judgment in their causes? But here is not a word against the judges that do so. Besides when the Fathers give the reason of their said decree forbid∣ding Clerks to go spontaneously of themselves to try their causes in secular Iudicatories they said not, they decreed so because Laicks were not lawful judges in the controversies of Clerks; but quod ipse se indignum fraterno con∣sortio iudicat, cui cum possit per Ecclesiastices judicari, de universa Ecclesia male sen∣••iend••, de judicio seculari poscit auxilium, because he renders himself unworthy of fraternal society, who, whereas he might be judged or have his case de∣termined by Ecclesiastical judges, men of his own fraternity, entertains an ill opinion of the whole Church, when he desires help of the secular judges. I say therefore it is clear enough, these Fathers believed that the secular Ma∣gistrate or judge, might without sin, and for what concern'd himself or his

own person, lawfully determine of the causes of Clerks, whereas condemning Clerks, who leaving their Bishop go to the lay Court or Bench, they do not therefore (or at all for any other reason) condemn the secular judg himself ad∣mitting such Clerks: nor condemn the Clerks themselves upon account of having recourse (ad judices nonsuos) to judges that were not their judges; but on this other account onely, that whereas they might be judg'd by Ecclesiasticks, & yet would not, they did thereby render themselves unworthy of Ecclesiasti∣cal Society. For it was (by the laws) in the power of a Clerk in controversy with an other Clerk to sue him before the Bishop, or before the judg: which was it these words of this canon did mean, Cui enim ad eligendos judices undi{que} patet authoritas, &c. And Clerks might be convented before the judg Ecclesiasti∣cal; but yet so, as a Laick Plaintiff was not bound to make use of the Court Ecclesiastical. Which is it we read enacted also by Martianus the most Ca∣tholick Emperour (some few years after the date of this Carthage Council) in his law Cum Clericis. 25. Cod. de Episcop. & Cleric. where it is said, that if the Actor will not convent a Clerk before the Bishop, he may convent him before the Prefect of the Praetorium.

And yet the Fathers of Carthage had reasons enough to forbid Clerks to choose spontaneously this way of secular Iudicatories: videlicet, that they should not be thereby made rocks of scandal to seculars (who as the man∣ner is, would from the pleas and contestations of Clerks take occasion often to fall into vile detraction of the very order of Clerks) and that such as should be exemplars of charity to others, should not fall into such contenti∣ons as they would not suffer to be taken up or composed amicably or peace∣ably and without noyse by their own Ecclesiastical brothers or superiours.

Which were the very genuine reasons moved the Apostle when he either commanded or advised the Corinthians. 1. Cor. 6. to forbear sueing one an other in the publick Iudicatories of Heathens. In imitation of which these Carthaginian Fathers themselves declare they made this canon; Cum (say they) privatorum Christianorum causas, Apostolus ad Ecclesiam deferri, at{que} ibi determinari praecipiat. But it is very certain the Apostle did not forbid the Corinthians, to appear in publick Courts and before the lay Heathen Imperi∣al Judges, when summond by these judges, or called before them by any other, nor did either command or advise the Christians not to obey the sentence of these very Heathen judges in any temporal cause whatsoever, civil or crimi∣nal. Which not onely St. Thomas and Lyranus do expresly teach in their Commentaries on that passage to the Corinthians; but our most eminent Cardinal himself is forced also expresly to confess in his foresaid Book against Barclay, cap. 20. Therefore neither do the Fathers of Carthage forbid Clerks when so called upon, to appear before and stand to the sentence of the lay Judges; albeit they forbid Clerks to go of themselves freely or spontaneously to secular Iudicatories, or to sue one an other in such Courts. But let us examine yet more particularly what the Cardinal objects.

He sayes first, that these Fathers openly condemn the recourse of Clerks to the judgments of secular Magistrats. They do indeed; but then onely when a Clerk may without any such recourse have his cause decided by an Ecclesiasti∣judg. And in such case they condemn the contumacy of such a Clerk in re∣linquishing, and contemning also thereby all his own brethren collegues, and Fathers; but in no case condemn the lay Plaintiff or Actor that draws a Clerk to the forum seculare or lay Court, nor in any case at all condemn the lay Magi∣strat or Judg that pronounceth judgment either against or for a Clerk. As for the sin or fault which Bellarmine desires to know what it should be com∣mitted by a Clerk who relinquishing his own Bishop goes freely of himself to the secular President for Justice, if the President be a lawful judg of the Clerk or of his cause; I have already said it was the sin of contempt of the Church, and of scandal to others, &c. That I may pass over in silence the

sin of disobedience and contumacy against this very Council whom other Clerks should observe as their Fathers, and consequently their canons too as the most religious commands of their Fathers.

In the second place he sayes, The Fathers rescind the sentence of a secular judg pronounced against or in the cause of a Clerk. Nothing less; But onely punish Clerks transgressing their canon, and punish them onely too in wayes or by means or penalties sutable to their own jurisdiction. For it is proper to the jurisdiction Ecclesiastical to judg whether a Clerk be worthy of that place he holdeth in the Church. This canon therefore punisheth the disobedi∣ent Clerks; but rescinds no sentence of the secular Judg. For it sayes onely thus. Si pro ipso fuerit prolata sententia, locum suum amittat; & hoc in criminali judicio. If he have the sentence for him, let him loose his place; and this in a criminal judgment. Behold how they call not in question the sentence of the Iudge, nor command that it should be retracted or revised, or that it should be discussed again in the Court Ecclesiastical, whether the crime was justly charged or no, after it was determined by the secular Court. But only depose the Clerk that in contempt of this Canon made choice to be tryed and purged rather in the secular Court then in the Ecclesiastical. In civili vero perdat quod evice∣rit, si locum suum obtinere voluerit. But if it be a civil action, let him loose what he hath w••n by such a sentence, if he will hold his place. Is this to rescind the sentence of the secular Iudge? Certainly, even the most privat lay person may to his gifts or legacies add the like conditions: as, for example, that the Legatee or Heir, shall not sue before a Iudg for the legacy or inheritance. Can such a private man therefore be said to have rescinded the sentence of the judg¿ If to private men it be lawful to bereave such as they think fit of the benefit of their own free bounty, how much more in reason must we not deny the Church a power to deprive such of her own favours as will not per∣form the conditions enjoyn'd by her for the continuance of such favours?

Thirdly, against that which is said by Barclay, and which I too have said above, that this canon was made by the Fathers to restrain the giddiness and rashness of such Clergiemen as would appeal from the Church to a secular Judge, after the cause had been begun to be discussed in the Church: against this, I say, of a provision made here for such a case only of a judgment al∣ready begun in the Court Ecclesiastical, and nevertheless before any judge∣ment given, transferr'd by a caprichious Clerk, Bellarmine argues, by object∣ing the Council of Milevi, Concilium Melevitanum (and it must be the se∣cond of Milevi, under Arcadius and Honorius) where it is prohibited (in the ninth canon) not that Clerks transfer to secular Courts a cause begun al∣ready in the Church, but absolutely prohibited, that by no means they go to the Emperour to demand of him secular Judges. But the answer is obvious. 1. That divers canons may be made by divers Councils. And that it is most evident, that whatever the Fathers of Milevi ordained in the case, those of Carthage ordained no other then what William Barclay said, and what I too have after him said, without any kind of interpretation or para∣prase of the Council, but in the very words of the Council or Canon it self. For these are the words precisely of that Canon: Cum in Ecclesia ei crimen fuerit intentatum, vel civilis causa fuerit comm••ta. Let any one say now for Bellarmine that ought else is decreed by the Canon, then what is against such Clerks as transfer a cause already begun in the Church. 2. That for that Council of Milevi; albeit the Fathers prohibit in the Canon cited out of it, that Clerks desire no secular judgment of the Emperour: yet they prohibit not the Emperour himself to assign lay Judges to a Clerk, if his Imperial Wisdom think it fit to assign such. Nor even prohibit Clerks to answer, if called upon by such lay Judges, and obey their sentence as binding them. So that both Councils, that of Carthage, and this of Milevi, say the very same thing in this matter, without any other difference, but only that this of Milevi extends the prohibition further, that is, not only to the transfer∣ring

of causes already begun before, or in the presence of an Ecclesiastical Judge, but even to causes not so begun. For it simply, or absolutely pro∣hibits Clerks to transferr, as much as in them lyes, any civil or criminal cause whatsoever, whether so begun or not so begun, to secular Judges. Where yet it is apparent there is nothing at all for the Immunity of Clerks from se∣cular Judges; being the command is only to Clerks not to demand such lay judges, and no command to, no restriction at all of the lay Judges to pro∣ceed ex offi••i•• when the causes of Clerks are brought before them.

The second Council that prescribed any thing in this matter, was that tru∣ly Oecumenical or General of Chalcedon (for the former of Carthage, though of very great authority, was but a National Council of Affrick, however canonized after by approbation of truly General Councils) held in the year 451, under Martianus the Emperour, and Pulcheria the Empress, who were both present, and often sate in it. Wherein the ninth canon, made for discip∣line and regulation of Church affairs, or those of Clergymen, was this. Si quis Clericus adversus Clericum habeat negotium non derelinquat preprium Episcopum & ad secularia judicia non concurrat, sed prius negotium agitetur apud proprium Episc••pum: vel certe si fuerit negotium ipsius Episcopi, apud arbitros ex utra{que} parte electos audiatur negotium. Si quis vero contra ipsius Provinciae Metropolitanum Episcopum Episcopus sive Clericus habeat controversiam pergant ad ipsius Diaecesis Primatem, aut certe••ad Constantinopolitanae Regiae civitatis sedem ut eorum ibi ne∣gotium terminetur. If any Clerk have a controversie with another Clerk, let him not leave his proper Bishop, nor run to secular Iudicatories. But first let the matter be agitated before his proper Bishop; or certainly, if the con∣troversie be with this Bishop himself, let it be heard by arbiters chosen by both sides. But if any Bishop or Clerk have a controversie with, or against the Metrapolitan of the Province, let them go to the Primate of the Dio∣cess, or certainly to the See of the Constantinopolitan Royal City, that the business may be ended there. And this is all this canon sayes. Where it is plain enough, 1. That the Fathers direct their speech to Clergiemen only, prescribe a rule to them only; but none at all to lay Magistrats or Iudges, not even to the subordinat inferiour Iudges; so little do they meddle with, or ever as much as thought to meddle with the supream. That although they bid Clerks not to go first to secular Iudgments; yet they do not bid them not to go at last, or in the next or second instance to such, if they cannot agree. That even to the Clerks themselves they prescribe only in such cases, as a Clerk have a controversie with another Clerk; but not in case a Clerk have a quarrel with a Laick, or a Laick to him. 2. That they declare not here, enjoyn or prescribe, that it was not, is not, of shall not be in the po∣wer of a lay Judge to determine of the causes of Clerks, one against ano∣ther, or of that of a Clerk against a Lay-man, or of a Lay-man against a Clerk, when either voluntarily, and by the parties themselves brought before him, or when by his own authority, or by due course of law, or by sum∣mons from him, to either or both parties, they appear in his Court. So that this Canon meddles not at all with the power, authority, or jurisdiction of the lay Magistrates or Judges: but only prescribes a rule to the Clerks themselves, that themselves should not freely or voluntarily sue one another, at least in prima instantia, in secular Judicatories, and (as we may justly pre∣sume, upon the same grounds, and for the same ends we have before noted, the Fathers of Affrick did in imitation of St. Paul, or of his advice, or com∣mand as you please, to all Christians in general to abstain from suing one another in heathen Judicatories, least otherwise they would questionless be∣tray their religion, and belye it before the haters and persecutors of it. 3. That in case there were (as there is not) any word or matter in this ca∣non of Chalcedon, restraining any way the Jurisdiction of even inferiour lay Magistrates or Judges; yet it would be to no more purpose alledged against me, or against any thing I have said (before in this Section) concerning even

the very same inferiour lay Magistrates, and their Jurisdiction over Clerks in politick or temporal matters. For the Canons of this Council (as the Faith of this Council) had the approbation and joynt concurrence, and the autho∣rity of the supream civil power, of the Emperour himself, there in person, to give them force and virtue where-ever the sole authority spiritual of the Fa∣thers was not sufficient, or might peradventure be said by any not to have been sufficient. And what I have said above, was, that no canon of the Church, or of any Council approved, or allowed in so much by the Church, can be produced, out of which it may appear, that the Fathers of the Church, the Bishops, did ever, by their own proper Episcopal Authority, exempt Clergiemen from the Jurisdiction of as much as the inferiour lay Magistrates, or declare them exempted so. 4. That Iustinians foresaid 83. Novel (which was made by him near 200. years after this Canon of Chalcedon, and notwithstanding this Canon of Chalcedon was still in force, and Iustini∣an himself a great reverencer and observer of all was concluded in that great Council) shews the word prius in this Canon must be interpreted so as I have above, of the first Instance, or with relation to a posteriour judgment, which might be before the secular Judges, in case the parties could not agree. For so the said Novel of Iustinianus, made in favour of the Clergy, expresly decrees, that Clergymen should first be convened before their own Bishops, and af∣terwards before the civil Judges. And therefore being it is just for us to sup∣pose the word prius in this Canon of Chalcedon was not idlely or superfluously set down by so many learned and worthy men as were those 630. Bishops, who composed or enacted it: we must also from hence rationally conclude, that the civil Jurisdiction of even secular subordinat Judges over the Clergy is not weakned by this Canon, but rather confirmed.

The third Council (in order) of those alledged by Bellarmine, is that of Agatha, or (as others call it) Agde, Concilium Agathense, held in the year 506. where the Fathers convened there made this Canon of Discipline, which is the two and thirtieth of this Council. Clericus nec quenquam praesumat apud secularem Judicem Episcopo non permittente pulsare. Sed si pulsatus fue∣rit, non respondeat, nec proponat, nec audeat criminale negotium in judicio saeulari proponere. Si quis vero secularium per calumniam Ecclesiam vel Clerum fatigare tentaverit, & convictus fuerit, ab Ecclesia liminibus & catholicorum communione (nisi digne paenituerit) coerceatur. Let no Clerk presume without the Bishops leave to sue any in a secular Judicatory. And if he be sued, let him not an∣swer, nor propose, nor dare to propose a criminal matter in a secular Judge∣ment. But if any secular shall attempt by calumny to vex the Church or Clergy, and shall be convicted hereof,, let him be driven out of the Church, and from the communion of Catholicks, unless he repent worthily. And this is what this Council ordained, and the whole tenour of this Canon.

Concerning which, the Reader is to observe first, that Gratian changed the letter and sense of it, in his Decretum. 11. q. 1. Can. Clericum. (whether of purpose and willingly, or whether ignorantly, or perhaps that he had another, but false copy of this Council, different from that of all others, I know not. But sure I am, that instead of the Councils words, which are these I give here, Clericus nec quenquam praesumat, Gratian abuses his Reader with those other words, which quite alter the sense, Clericum nullus praesumat apud secularem Iudicem, episcopo non permittente, pulsare: to the end the prohibition may comprehend Laicks also, or that not even Laicks may sue a Clerk before a secular Judge; whereas in truth, or according as the canon is set down in the Council it self, or all copies published in the Tomes of Councils, it is only for Clerks, without any mention at all of Laicks in that first part of this Canon. Nay, the last part of this very Canon it self shews the Fathers intended not to forbid Laicks not to sue Clerks before a secular Judge; but only not to vex them by lies or calumnies before any Judge. Which indeed the Fathers might justly do, and justly also punish by Ecclesiastical Censures

all such as would otherwise behave themselves towards Church-men, either in a Secular or Ecclesiastical Judicatory, if convicted to have willing∣ly sued them so, or falsely charged them. Nor is it this canon only, as to our business, that Gratian corrupted; but also that passage commonly alledged out of Pope Marcellinus's Epistle ad Faelicem: in eadem causa. & quest. can. 3. where also instead of Clericus nullum, Gratian foists in Clericum nullus.

So that for such Canonists as for what belongs to Councils have onely read the Collections of Gratian, and consequently were deceived by his false reading or quotations of them, we must not wonder if they have fallen into this errour (of the general exemption of Clerks by Councils or Popes) which I here impugne. Though, for all that, I cannot my self but somewhat wonder that Bellarmine would in his controversies l. 1. de Cleric. c. 28. follow this corrupt Reading of Gratianus: and follow it alike both as to that Canon of Agatha and that Epistle of Marcellinus: and not rather follow the true and genuin text in the Tomes of Councils, and even in the very animadversions or castigations added to Gratian himself.

And the Reader is to observe secondly this Council of Agatha was but a Pro∣vincial Council, or at most but a little National of such Catholick Bishops as li∣ved in that part of Gaule or France which was then subject to King Alaricus the Arian Goth. For the number of the subscribers of this Council was only 24. Bi∣shops, & 9. Priests & Deacons who had proxy from such other Bishops as were absent. That consequently the Canons of this Council may not be said to be ca∣nons of the Church, but onely of such particular Churches as were govern'd by those few Bishops in that Kingdom of Alarick: unless it may be shewed that these canons were approved of, received, or (as they speak) canonized again by the authority of some General Council of the universal Church; as we know that divers not onely national but provincial Synods (for example the third of Carthage, and those of Gangra, Laodicea, Antioch, &c) have been. That it is not yet as much as pretended by any that this Council of Agatha was so received of or authorized by any General Council; nor as much as confirmed by the Popes themselves, or by any one Pope. That if the Popes approbation or confirmation had been desired by the Fathers of it, and gran∣ted to it, which yet appears not to have been; no more could be concluded thence but his bare approbation and confirmation of the acts for that Nation or that Kingdom onely for which they were made: unless the Pope had more∣over by his Patriachal or Papal power extended them to other Kingdoms, and that besides they were after approved of and received by the Bishops of such other Kingdoms. That neither Gratian's insertion of them into the body of his Decretum, nor the publication of his Decretum as such, by the ap∣probation, authority or command of Popes, makes them hoc ipso to be exten∣ded or of more binding authority in the nature of laws then they were be∣fore such insertion publication or approbation command or authority; or makes them hoc ipso to be laws for the Catholick Church, but onely to be more authentick: whereas we know there are a thousand authorities alleadg∣ed by Gratian which are not therefore binding laws to the Church.

Thirdly, that whatever may be said of Inferiour lay Judicatories, judg∣ments or Judges, nothing at all can be with any kind of colour inferr'd hence against the supream of the Emperour himself (in any matters whatsoever, laws or canons) whereby his power may be conceived (whether right or wrong) to be any way limited. Because the supream extraordinary and ab∣solute judgment of the Prince is never understood, never signified by or comprised under the general notion or common use of these words secularia judicia: as the Prince himself is not understood by the general or common name of a Judge, or of a secular Iudge; being these words, or the like, ac∣cording to the common use or meaning signifie onely such as are such by spe∣cial office; and not him at all, who by a supereminent power creats both these and all other even much higher Officials. For it is a rule among both

Civilians and Canonists, That the words of any Canons, Institutions, or other laws whatsoever, though Canons or laws of priviledg, must be st••••cti juris and strictae interpretati nis where otherwise a very great inconvenience must follow, or where they derogate to a former uncontroverted right of any third per∣son, and much more when by any other interpretation they derogate to the supream authority either spiritual in the Pope or temporal in the Emperour, and most of all when they ruine and quite destroy either in relation to their subjects: being that in so much they are purely odious, though in other points, where no such prejudice is, they are purely favourable. And Odia restringi, favores autem convenit ampliari, is a rule of the very Canon law, in Sexto. Now who sees not there can be nothing more inconvenient in it self and more odious to Princes then that so vast a number of both men and wo∣men living within their Kingdoms, and going under the name and title of their Subjects, should yet be exempted wholly from their even supream royal power, and in all cases whatsoever, civil or criminal? Pursuant to the former rule is that other which Felinus hath cap. uit. de san••nia. Quoties spe∣cies a ••••••it aliquid generi numquam appellatione generis venit species. Now Iu ••ex secularis, and judicium seculare is a genus: Rex, Imperator &c. and judicium su∣premum Regium, or judicium supremum imperiale is a species. And pursuant also to both rules is the doctrine of that celebrious late Doctor of Paris, Andreas Duuallius, de suprema Rom. Pontif. in Ecclesiam potestate. part. 2. q. 4. p. 264. where notwithstanding his being so great and known a stickler against the ancient School of Paris for the Pope in too many things, yet he writeth thus. Notum est nomine Cleric. rum &c. It is manifest that in any odious matter Bishops are not comprehended under the name of Clerks: nor sometimes (in the same matter) ••ther Religious men under the name of M••nks, ne{que} similiter nomine Dominorum Reges, nor likewise Kings under the name of Landlords, Govern us, or Lords, in regard of the height and Majesty of the Royal dignity, &c. And finally pursuant to the said rules, and their meaning, or scope, it is that we read the same or the like other exceptions and of several other particulars from a com∣prehension under general notions, in Armilla verb. Abbas. n. XI. verb. Cleri∣cus. n. 2. verb. sacerdos. n. 1. Sayrus, tom. 1. l. 3. c. 33. Navarr. tom. 2. commentar. in cap. Finali. de sim••nia, n. 5. Silvester, verb. excommunicatio. 19. n. 82. Parag. Quadragesima tertia. Inn••centius in can. sedes Apostolica. de Rescriptis. Moreo∣ver as it is a general maxime, That in a general concession or priviledge, how general soever the words be, such things are not to be under∣stood as granted, which evident reason tell us that in all probability the Prince or Pope or other Legislator or graunter of such concession or privi∣ledge would not grant by any means if he had reflected or thought on it in particular: so it must be as general a rule, That in a general prohibition of any law or Canon, and how general soever the words be, such things are not prohibited which if reflected on in particular, right reason tells us that in all probability it could not have been the intention of the makers of such a law or Canon to prohibit them.

Out of all which it is evident enough that no Divine, or Canonist may conclude from the prohibition of this Council of Agde, or of this Canon of it, or of this second part of the said Canon, that the Fathers comprehended, or intended to comprehend the supream absolute and extraordinary judgment of Kings or Emperours, under the general notions of secularia judicia; but onely such as were commonly understood by such, those I mean of subordinate inferiour Iudicatories and from which there might be (upon rational grounds and by the concession or permission of their Prince or custom of the Coun∣try even at that very time wherein these Fathers lived) an exemption of Clerks. For who is so bereaved of common sense as to say that the Coun∣cils of Christian Bishops in those days, would be so high or unreasonable, or rather so mad as to prohibit Clerks not to appear at all before the King, Em∣perour, or other supream Magistrate, though called upon and expresly com∣manded

to appear before them? which yet these Fathers must be said to have decreed in this Canon or second part of it, if Bellarmines allegation of it be to his main purpose here, of Exemption of the Clerks by this Canon from even the supream civil coercive power: or if it be against mine here also, which is, that no Canon hath ever yet so exempted them, not even this of Agde: or, which is the same the same thing, if secularia judicia in this Canon reach even to the very supream of the Emperour, or other King, and in all cases and causes temporal, civil or criminal whatsoever. But if Bellarmine, or any other for him, see no absurdity in granting this to have been the meaning of this ancient though onely Provincial Synod of a few Bishops of Guien onely: he must pardon me for not joyning with him in so hard a censure or opinion (of such scandalous consequence) of any Catholick Coucil, especially so ancient, and where according to our own very common doctrine in Schools they give no sufficient ground at all to derive such unreasonable conclusions from their decrees; nor ever (I am confident) as much as once imagined any would be so extravagant as to derive such.

Fourthly, That although we admitted, as we neither do nor can, that the Fathers of Agde, in the second part of this canon (and by these words, sed si pulsatus fuerit non respondeat, nec proponat, nec audeat criminale negotium in judi∣cio seculari proponere) were intended absolutely and generally to forbid their own Clerks in any case to answer in the publick lay Courts, and in criminal causes, notwithstanding the Judges themselves should expresly, and parti∣cularly summon and command them to appear and answer; yet nothing could be concluded hence against either of my above affirmations. First, nothing to prove (as I will presently shew) that which indeed is the only thing to be proved against my main, or rather only purpose: that is, nothing to prove that the Fathers therefore intended that Clerks should not appear and answer, if by the supream secular Judge himself, or by a warrant come immediatly from the King himself, or from his special Delegate in such a matter, they were commanded to appear and answer before him. Secondly, nor any thing to prove, that by the pure and sole authority of the Church, or of any Councils or Bishops, Cergiemen were warranted, as much as in point of conscience, not to appear and answer even before the subordinat in∣feriour lay Judges. Nor thirdly yet, any thing at all to prove that these Fa∣thers of Agde, or other Council declared by that other canon, that Clerks were generally in all Countreys, and in all causes, or all matters, even the most criminal and horrid soever at that time (which was indeed before Iustinians time) exempt as much as by the civil authority of Emperours, or even of other Kings, from all inferiour lay Judicatories: and so exempt, that if in any case these inferiour Judges themselves did ex officio proceed against them, yet they were not bound to answer, or obey, or observe their judge∣ment: or that if those same inferiour Judges gave sentence for, or against them in any temporal cause whatsoever, or in any cause not purely spiritual, such sentence would not hold, when pronounc'd according to the civil or muni∣cipal, either Imperial or Royal Laws inforce in the respective Countreys. Such forbidding of their own Clerks might have been grounded on a particu∣lar custom introduced by the people in that Province of Guien, and by the consent or permission, or connivence or tacit approbation of the former civil Magistrats themselves, or of King Alaricus himself or his Predecessors. And in such case the Bishops there might have justly forbid their own Clerks to ap∣pear even at the summons of inferiour lay Iudges, because the peculiar civil custom of that place, not any spiritual power, or canons of their own did so priviledg them; albeit in all the rest of the world, where the imperial written laws were still in force and strict observance, no law or custom did so privi∣ledge them, or other Clerks at that time (which was before Iustinians time and his law, Novel. 83.) not to appear before the subordinat Magistrats or civil Iudges, when summoned by them in a criminal cause; nor priviledge

the Bishops at all for holding coercive Courts, either in civil or criminal causes, but only by consent of both parties in difference. And that it was in∣troduced so, or that such custom had been so in Guien, and that only pursuant to the humane civil right or priviledge, or exemption derived only from such custom, and to maintain it until it had been legally revoked again by the supream civil power, the Fathers of Agde made that canon, or second part of it: we have all the reasons to perswade us, which perswade us also, and clearly convince us, that Ecclesiasticks are by the law of God, as well as Laicks, under the coercion of the lawful supream lay Magistrate, and of his inferiour lay Iudges too, if not, or where not particularly exempted by him: and those reasons besides, which tell us we must have that reverence to all such Catholick ancient Fathers (and especially in Council together) as those of Agde are confessed to have been (St. Cesarius, the Archbishop of Arles, and Primate of all France, having been their President) and so vene∣rable an opinion of them, as not to fix, or give such a sense or interpretati∣on to any of their canons (however only canons of Discipline) as would ar∣gue the canon-makers of ignorance or rashness, or of any perversness at all, or even such their canons of containing any thing, either formally, virtually, or consequentially, against the only infallible divine canons of the law of God: and I mean still, not to give or fix such interpretation to such canons, where we can choose,, that is, where the words are not so specifical and particu∣lar as to require it. Now it is plain enough the words above-rehearsed are not so specifical, or so particular as to require a contrary interpretation to that of them I have given here. And yet that it was so, or that in pursuance, and by virtue of such a peculiar custom, only of that Province, or that little Kingdom there of Guien, and of the supream civil Magistrats pleasure, per∣mission, approbation and consent, the Fathers of Agde made this canon, or second part of it, forbidding Clerks to answer in a criminal cause before lay Judges, to wit, before inferiour lay Judges: we have secondly, a sufficient other argument out of the first part of the same canon, or out of the sense and natural consequences of it, if compared with the practice of the Christi∣an world in all other parts, both at that time, and at this. For the first part being, that no Clerk shall presume to sue a lay man before a lay Iudge with∣out the Bishops licence: and this importing as much as, that an Ecclesiastical Plaintiff shall not without his Bishops leave conve••e a lay Defendent before his own proper lay Judge, even, I say, in a meer lay cause or crime: and this consequently being against the general rule, Qu••d Actor sequitur Forum Dei: it is plain enough, that if any will maintain those Fathers intended else here, then only to prescribe to Clerks the first peaceable way they should take for righting themselves, by letting the Bishop know the wrong done them, to the end he might call the lay pretended injurer, and try whether he could induce him fairly, or by fatherly admonitions, if first he had found a real in∣jury done by him to the Clerk (which also was christianly ordained as a rule by the Council of Tribur. can. 20. a German Council of two and twenty Bi∣shops held in the year, 895 under Arnulphus the Emperour: and indistinctly ordained by this Council for lay men also to observe, in case they pretended injuries done themselves by any Clerks:) I say, it is plain enough, that if any pretend the Fathers of Agatha intended ought else, it must consequently be granted this canon of theirs was not formed by them as of any matter in their opinion belonging to Catholick Faith, or Laws of God, or in their opinion also as much as enacted formerly in other parts by any civil or imperial, or ge∣neral institution, or constitution made by the Christian Emperours of Rome or Constantinople; but only formed by them (that is, by these Fathers of Aga∣tha) in pursuance, and by virtue only of a local custom of Guien, introduced by the command or connivence of the politick Magistrates of that little Kingdom or Countrey, as regarding only the external politick administrati∣on, direction or government of Churchmen (which external politick go∣vernment

of the Church varies not seldom, according to the variety of Times, Kingdoms and Provinces.) And my reasons for saying so, or for say∣ing this to be plain enough, are, I. That at that very time it was otherwise by law and practice of the great Roman world, or Empire in all other places generally; being we know out of the imperial laws then in force, and out of Ecclesiastical History, that Clerks being summon'd to the civil Courts, did generally in other Provinces both answer and appear; without any re∣luctance, or prohibition from Councils. For this Council of Agatha was not held within the bounds (at that time) of the Roman Empire; but under Alarick the Gothish King, who at that time held Guien by hereditary, and as formerly, & by concession too of Roman Emperours, dismembred from the Empire, and conferr'd on his Predecessors without any supremacy reserved to the Empire. Which was the reason, that in the beginning of the acts of this Council we find no mention at all of the Emperour, but of the King. Cum Dei nomine ex permissu Regis, in Agathenscm civitatem sancta Synodus convenisset, &c. Ibi{que} flexis genibus in terra pro regno ejus, pro longaevitate populi Deum de∣precaremur, &c. 2. That the above first part of this 32. canon of Agatha (as likewise that whole one and twentieth canon of Tribur, if construed to put a stop to Clergymen from following or acting in the forum of the lay Defen∣dant) is now at this time, and hath been these many ages past, abrogated by the common consent, or custom of all people and nations. Whereas the common law is now, and hath been so long, that a Clerk at difference with a Lay-man, if he will be righted by law, must commence his suit in the lay or civil Judicatory. As we may see expresly declared to have been still the law, cap. si Clericus. 5. de Foro competenti: where the Pope (Alexander the Third) hath thus decreed. Si Clericus Laicum de rebus suis vel Ecclesiae impetierit: & Laicus res ipsas, non Ecclesiae esse aut Clerici sed suas proprias asseverat, debet de rigore juris ad forensem Iudicem trahi. Cum Actor forum Rei sequi debeat; licet in pleris{que} partibus aliter de consuetudine habeatur.

Therefore if these words (or first part of the canon of Agatha) Clericus nec quenquam praesumat apud secularem Iudicem, episcopo non permittente pulsare, are neither according to the common law, ciuil or canonical, of the christian world, nor otherwise ever yet have been observed but out of custom only in so me or even many places, as at that time of the Council of Agatha it was in Guien: how can we esteem otherwise of the following words, or second part of the same canon, Sed si pulsatus fuerit, non respondeat, &c. being there is no dif∣ference made in this canon it self. Or who can affirm this second part was more firmly enacted by this Council, or more generally observed by the Faithful? Or otherwise then out of a civil custom, and in pursuance, and by virtue only of the supream civil power, authority, approbation, permission or con∣nivence in that Countrey? And consequently, who can rationally make it an argument of the exemption of Clergymen by the sole pure Episcopal Autho∣rity from as much as the subordinat civil Iudges? Nay, or an argument of their general exemption by the civil authority it self in other parts of the world at that time, which was before Iustinians? So little doth any part of this canon argue the exemption at any time of Clerks, either in other parts of the world, or in Guien it self, from the supream civil Magistrate by any kind of authority imperial or Episcopal.

The fourth Council alledged for this exemption is, that which they call Concilium primum Matisconense, held in the year, 576. as Barclay thinks, or 581. as Spondanus, or certainly, 532. as the printed Acts. A Provincial Council it was of one and twenty Bishops, Priscus Archbishop of Lyons presi∣ding. And as the Acts do shew, called it was at the desire of King Gunthe∣ramnus, who was one of the three brother Kings (grand children to Clodove∣us) that devided France amongst themselves, and left Orleance to him for his seat. And all the Canons of it were in matter only of Discipline. Amongst which, the eight is in these words. Ut nullus Clericus ad Judicem secularem,

quemcum{que} alium fratrem de clericis accusare, aut ad causam dicendam trahere, quocumqu; loco praesumat: sed omne negotium Clericorum aut in Episcopi sui, aut in praesbyteri, aut Archidiaconi praesentia finiatur.

And the fift and last Council alleadged in this matter by Cardinal Bellar∣mine l. 1. de cleric. c. 28. ut supra, is that which in order is the third of the Councils of Toledo, and was held in Aera 627. being the year of our Lord & Saviour Christ (not 589. according to William Barclays computation; but) 593. according to Baronius, and his continuator Spondanus Bishop of Apamia. It is the 13. canon of those of Discipline (or external reformation of the Cler∣gie and people, made in this Council) which is pretended by the Cardinal, as to his purpose. And I confess this Council is of as great authority, as an universal of all Spain; and not of Spain alone, but of the Bishops also of the Province of Narbon in France (subject at that time to the Goths) must be; which therefore in Spain and as to Spain was stiled Concilium Ʋniversale; having also had 70. Bishops that subscribed; although not therefore a General, Universal, or Oecumenical Council, simply such, or at all such even for Discipline as to other Catholick Churches, but in as much as received by them; however several of its canons be inserted in Gratian, & this particularly, where∣of our present controversy is, related 11. q. 1. cap. Inolita praesumptio. And I confess too that Gratian hath truly related word by word this 13th canon, as it is in the Council it self: being this which I give here at length. Inolita praesumptio us{que} adeo illicitis ausibus aditum patefecit, ut Clerici Conclericos suos relicto Pontifice suo ad judicia publica pertrahant. Proinde statuimus ut hoc de caetero non praesumatur. Si quis hoc praesumpserit facere, & causam perdat, & a com∣munione efficiatur extraneus.

Out of both these Councils, that is out of that eight canon of that first Matis∣conensian Council, and this 13. canon of the third Toletan, our learned Car∣dinal endeavours again to impose on his unlearned Readers. But not so much in his great work of controversies l. 1. de Cler. c. 28. (where he onely or at least commonly cited the bare chapters, and not as much as the material words of Councils: so farre he was from composing arguments) but in that other book he writ long after against D. W. Barclay, and in defence of his foresaid Controversies, and particularly of what he taught therein, or in his often quoted first book de Cleric. c. 28. It is therefore in this reply of his (which he also entitles, as Barclay did his own book against him, De potestate Papae in Temporalibus) and it is in the 24. chapter of it, and after so many other arguments (weak enough, as I have already shewn them to be) fra∣med, and replyes made against William Barclay, on pretence of those other councils and in behalf of his own allegation of them: it is I say in this little and last beloved piece of his old age he argues thus interrogatively or Socra∣tically out of both these last Councils. Si Laici Magistratus &c. If (sayes he) Lay Magistrats were legal Judges of Clergiemen, by what right, law, or title could the above Matisconensian Council decree that all causes of clerks should be determined in the presence of the Bishop, or Presbiter, or Archdeacon? And how could this Toletan Council also, with so great asperity of words, tearm it praesumption and unlawful attempts in Clergiemen to have recourse to secular Iudicatories? And how lastly would this same Council dare to re∣scind or annull the sentence of the secular Judg? and, besides, to excommu∣nicate the Clerk that procured such sentence, or sued any other Clerk in a secular Court or Iudicatory? For so much do these words import. Causam perdat & a communione efficiatur extraneus, let him loose his cause, and be made a stranger to communion.

But the answer is facile enough and clear. 1. That neither of both Councils or canons determins any thing against the secular Judge himself, or against his having still a power of Iurisdiction to judg the causes of Clerks when called or come before him; but onely prohibits Clerks themselves to have recourse of themselves, or freely of themselves to sue one an other in secular Courts,

as hath been said before to the canon of Carthage. And for prohibiting such voluntary recourse of Clerks, that these Fathers of Matiscon and Toledo had respectively the same rights or authority which those of Carthage, or even those of Chalcedon had, even that very same which St. Paul had, when he either commanded or advised his Corinthians not to sue one an other be∣fore Heathen judges, &c. And therefore that these Councils do rather con∣firm then any way infirm the jurisdiction at that time yet of lay Judges. 2. That Bellarmine is much out of the way in thinking (if ever he thought so indeed) that by these words, & causam perdat, the Fathers of Toledo re∣scind or annul the sentence of the secular judg, by their own proper Episco∣pal or spiritual authority. For, and for what belong'd and was necessary to such rescission, or annullation, strictly taken, the Fathers (in making this canon, as likewise in making any other such (or that would or should re∣quire a politick civil power properly such in the canon-makers) derived their authority from King Recaredus himself, at whose command this third Coun∣cil of Toledo was called, and therefore sate in it himself and made the first speech to open it, and several speeches after, and finally confirmed it with his own subscription in these words. Flavius Recaredus Rex hanc deli∣berationem, quam cum sancta definivimus Synodo, confirmans subscripsi. Having also before his said subscription premised this declaration or admonition to all concern'd: Praecedente autem diligenti & cauta deliberatione, sive quae ad fi∣dem conveniunt, sue quae ad morum correctionem respiciunt, sensus maruritate, & intelligentiae gravitate constant esse digesta. Nostra proinde authoritas hoc omnibus hominibus ad regnum nostrum pertinentibus jubet, ut si qua definita sunt in hoc Concilio, acto in urbe Toletana, anno Regni nostri faeliciter quarto, nulli contemne∣re liceat, nullus praeterire praesumat. For so it hath been usual that where the civil and Ecclesiastical power agree well together in making laws, each or both do make such use of one an others authority, that as to the words, the Church sometimes doth seem to speak as having civil jurisdiction, and the Politick or secular civil power also to make such laws as are of Ecclesiastical Notion. Neither indeed doing so or seeming so by vertue of its own proper innate authority; but by that borrowed from the other, or as being certain of the others approbation and ratihabition. Which was the cause that Re∣caredus the foresaid King of Spain, though a meer layman, ordained in his confirmation of this Toletan Council, & in his own name too, that if any person Concilii observator esse noluerit, superba fronte majorum statutis repugnans, si Epis∣copus, Praesbiter, Diaconus, aut Clericus fuerit, ab omni Concilio excommunicatio∣ni subjaceat: What? is the power of excommunication in a lay Kings hands? Or did Recaredus the very first Catholick King after those Arian Gothish Kings of Spain, a King so truly Catholick and pious, as he is confessed to have been, did he usurp the rights and proper powers of the Church, and even in that very Edict unto which the Fathers of this Toletan Council did themselves subscribe themselves? Nothing less. What he did in this respect or by such words, was by consent of the Fathers: nor in so much did he assume peradventure as much the person of a law maker, as of a publisher of that law which in this particular of excommunication was onely made by the Fathers. Though withal I confess that a secular Prince may by his own pro∣per supream and even still meer civil power, make a law commanding, or en∣joyning the Bishops to excommunicate in certain cases, and a law besides ordaining some temporal punishment for such as without any just cause, or against the known canons of the Church should excommunicate. For to say so we are not onely warranted by natural reason, or consideration of the pro∣per office of the supream civil Magistrate (which consists in taking care that all degrees either civil or Ecclesiastical under his charge do justly and religi∣ously discharge themselves) but also by the canon De illicita. 24. q. 3. taken out of a Paris Council where the Fathers speak thus. De illicita excommuni∣catione Lex Iustiniani Imperatoris Catholici, quam probat & servat Catholica

Ecclesia, constitutione c. XXIV. cap. eccl. 1. decrevit ut nemo Episcopus, ne∣mo praesbiter, excommunicet aliquem antequam causa probetur &c. In which law of Iustinian it is also very observable that he prescribes meer ecclesiastical punishments to be undergone by the transgressors of it. Is autem qui non legittime excommunicaverit, in tantum abstineat a sacra communione tempus, quan∣tum majori sacerdoti visum fuerit, &c. On the other side it hath been often seen that the Fathers themselves assembled in Councils, made ordinances or canons in matters belonging properly to the politick administration: as, to wit, be∣ing certain the Prince would by his own proper authority approve of such canons, and consequently give them that force, which the onely spiritual power could not: or as knowing that by the civil laws or customs of countries such matters ought to be observed, but wanted nevertheless for their more conscientious and careful observance the admonition of the Fathers, and the severity also of Ecclesiastical censures threatned against the infringers. Which to have been so indeed may truly and clearly appear even out of this very Council of Toledo, where, annuente & consentiente Rege, some politick canons were made by the Fathers: and may appear also out of that former of Ma∣tiscon; wherein the 14 canon is, Ʋt Iudaeis a caena Domini us{que} ad primum diem p••st Pascha, secundum edictum bonae Recordationis Domini Childeberti Regis, per plateas aut f••rum, quasi insultationis causa, deambulandi licentia denegetur. 3. That if we did absolutely grant without reserve that by the royal autho∣rity of King Guntramnus, in this first Council of Matisconum, and of King Recaredus in that of Toledo, the jurisdiction of subordinate inferiour lay Judges over Clerks had been totally extinct in the respective Kingdoms of those two Kings; yet nothing hence for the exemption of Clerks from the very supream royal power in it self, and in all cases or causes. Nor any thing to prove such exemption from inferiour tribunals, whatever it was, to have proceeded from any power of the Church; or even from any temporal pow∣er of Kings before Iustinians time, and Novels in favour of Clergiemen: for both these Councils were held after Iustinians Raign.

4. And lastly that Bellarmine was not wary enough in alleadging that first Council of Matisconum. For besides that what he alleadgeth out of it, hath not as much as any seeming argument for his purpose, but that simple Quere, which every novice could answer: he hath moreover given his Readers occasion to tell him, that of all Councils he should ever beware to touch on this of Matisconum: being the seventh canon of it is so clear and express against his pretence of divine right or divine law (for the exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the lay Magistrate) or indeed rather of any law at all, even meerly humane either civil or Ecclesiastical, for their exemption in all crimes, or in all those which are in the canons stiled lay crimes, crimina laica, that murther, theft, and witch∣craft, are by name excepted by this very Council, and in the seventh canon from any such priviledge of Ecclesiastical Immunity or exemption from the lay Judges, however the criminal be a Clerk; as may appear to any that is not wilfully blind out of this VII. canon it self, being as to the tenor of it, word by word, at leingth what I give here. Ʋt nullus Clericus de qualibet causa, extra discussionem Episcopi sui a seculari judice injuriam patiatur, aut custo∣diae deputetur. Quod si quicum{que} judex abs{que} causa criminali, id est, homicidis, furto, aut maleficio, facere fortasse praesumpserit; quamdiu Episcopo loci illius vi∣sum fuerit, ab Ecclesiae liminibus arceatur. So at that time the Fathers of this Matisconens•••••• Council thought it not against any law divine or humane, civil or Ecclesiastical, to acknowledg the jurisdiction of even inferiour Judges over Clerks accused of or as much as accused of murder, theft, or witchcraft, and consequently nor to leave them in such causes to the punishment prescribed by the law. And what think you then? would these Fathers have any more privi∣ledged such Clerks as should perchance be found guilty of, or charg'd with sedition, rebellion, hostility, or any other undenyable treason against the King, State, or People? Or did these Fathers, think you, harbour at any time

the least thought of a priviledge from God or Church, or Prince or people to Clergiemen guilty of moveing subjects to take arms against the King him∣self and his laws?

And these being all the Councils alleadged by the learned Cardinal in his controversies de Cleric. l. 1. c. 28. and those other Councils after added by him in his foresaid other last peculiar little book de potestate Papae in tempora∣libus, against William Barclay (undoubtedly because upon after thoughts he found the former in his controversies not convincing at all: as no more will you those his additional ones) being also already and at large (both in my general Answers to them all together, and in my particular answers to each a part) cleared by me abundantly in my LXIV. and LXIX. Section, where the Reader may turn to them back again if he please (for those additional Councils are no other then Lateranense magnum sub Innoc. III. cap. 43. Con∣stantiense, Sess. 31. Lateranense ultimum sub Leone X. & finally the Council of Trent. Sess. 25. c. 20. de Reformat. All which I have, though upon another occasion, considered in my said former LXIV. & LXIX. Section:) therefore, to perclose this present Section, I find my self obliged onely further to take notice of what the Cardinal sayes, nay indeed gives for the second main proof of his third Proposition, l. 1. de Cleric. c. 28. which third Proposition is (as I have be∣fore noted) in general tearms this, Non possunt Cerici a judice seculari judica∣ri, etiamsi leges civiles non servent. For after the Cardinal had briefly quoted the Councils of Chalcedon, Agatha, Carthage, Toledo, and Matisconum, and of these five Councils had framed his first argument for that his so general third Proposition: and then for a second argument pretended, first, the constitu∣tions of Emperours Novel. 79. 83. and 123. but immediatly after acknowledg∣ing these Imperial constitutions did not reach the exemption of Clerks at least in criminal causes from some even Inferiour or subordinate lay judges; but expresly subjects them still in such causes to the Praetors and Presidents: he, at last, for a second proof of his said Proposition (to wit, as it relates to criminal causes) relyes wholly and onely on the authority of the canon law: and for canon law in the point, brings no other proof then a general and bare allegation of three Popes, Caius, Marcellinus, and S. Gregory the Great, with∣out as much as giving us their words, but telling us onely that what he sayes of canon law in the point, is perspicuous out of the Epistle of Pope Caius to Bishop Felix, & out of the first Epistle of Marcellinus, and out of the XI. book of the Register of S. Gregory, ep. 54. ad Ioannem Defensorem: and lastly to compleat this his second argument assumes this other Proposition as a maxime, That the civil law must yield to the canon law: whereas (sayes he still consequently) the Pope may command the Emperour, especially in such matters as concern the Church.

This strange way of argueing in a matter of such consequence, out of au∣thorities or quotations of books or chapters, the words not given to the Reader (which yet is familiar with this great Clerk, especially where he finds the authorities or words of the text, if seen at length, not to be much to his purpose) hath put me to more trouble then I would be, and then I knew the argument deserved. However I took the pains (as I have also in all other material quotations of his) to turn to the canons, books, or places quoted, and see the words of those three Popes. Which indeed, concerning the two former, as they are alleadg'd by Gratian XI. q. 1. c. 1. I find to be these, of Caius, first. Nemo unquam Episcopum apud Iudicem secularem aut alios Clericos accusare praesumat. And these too: ead Caus. and quest. cap. 2. Nullas Iudi∣cum, ne{que} Praesbiterum, ne{que} Diaconum, aut Clericum ullum, aut juniores Ecclesia sine licentia Pontificis per se distringat, aut condemnare praesumat. Quod si fecerit, ab Ecclesia cui injuriam irrogare dignoscitur, tamdiu sit sequestratus, quous{que} reo∣tum suum agnoscat & mendet. And next I find the words, of Marcellinus, to be these other: ead. caus. & quest. cap. 3. Clericum eujuslibet or dinis abs{que} Pontifici•• sui permissu nullus praefumat ad seculd••am Indicem att••here: ne•• L•••• q•••••• libet Clericum liceat accusare.

To which my answers are, 1. That Caius having suffered Martyrdom in the year of our Lord 296. and Marcellinus being chosen the same year, nay within eleven days after the passion of Caius, they are both consequently of the number of those Popes, whose Decretal Epistles, or such as go in their names, are not by learned men even of the Roman communion, esteemed other then meerly supposititious, or at least corrupted: and therefore such as cannot be alleadged for good or certain proof in any matter.

2. That these two Popes having lived and dyed before the first liberty of Christian Religion under Constantine, were it certain they had really pro∣hibited the lay Judges to proceed in any causes of Churchmen; nay which is more, expresly declared that such lay Judges had no kind of Iurisdiction over any Clerk in any matter soever; and were it also granted that such their sole prohibition or sole Declaration were hoc ipso a canon of the Catholick Church or obliging it in general as much as any canon of even a general Council, (each of which particulars is so farre from being certain or being granted, as in the opinion of great Divines none of all three is any way pro∣bable) yet any judicious man will see plainly that by secular judges here we must not understand such Judges as were truly such by the publick authori∣ty of Emperours, Princes and laws; but onely such as were by a compro∣mise onely or submission of the Christian Litigants, and by the private au∣thority of the Churches or Congregations, according to that of St. Paul, 1. Cor. 6. appointed to determine amongst themselves the differences of those of their own Religion; and consequently such as were rather voluntary ar∣biters, then Judges simply or properly such, with coercive power. For who sees not it had been most imprudently, or rather indeed madly done, to have prescrib'd meer humane and also unnecessary laws to those heathen Imperial Judges, that put all to death whom they knew to observe as much as the very most necessary most divine law of God himself? Or shall we attribute such madness to men farre less prudent then we must suppose the wisest men in the world, those holy and great Pontiffs of Rome? And being we cannot, how then doth Bellarmine alleadg this prohibition of Caius and Marcelline? Or must it follow that because these Popes commanded that none of the secular Christian Judges appointed by the several private Christian Congregations, should presume to judg of Clerks without the Bishops leave: therefore the same was intended, or given as a rule to the publick heathen Judges commis∣sion'd by the supream absolute civil and coerecive power of Emperours? The general persecutions against all Christians generally, both Clerks and Laicks, were continued long after the days of Caius and Marcelline, throughout the Roman Empire, which till Dioclesians surrender was heathen. And so long the Popes could not make laws of Discipline for the Judges appointed by that Empire. Nihil ad nos de iis qui soris sunt judicare, sayes the Apostle him∣self: who certainly had no less power then any Pope.

3. That for the former quotation of that either pretended or true Epistle of Caius, it is not material. The jurisdiction of civil or Imperial heathen Judges over Christian Clerks and Bishops too, might be very well acknow∣ledged by Caius notwithstanding he had thought it convenient for avoiding scandal to forbid all Christians not to presume to accuse any Clerk before heathen judges. St. Paul forbade all Christians generally, and consequently the very Laicks, not to accuse even other Laicks before such heathen Judges; yet no man sayes that St. Paul thereby meant that Christian Laicks were ex∣empt from the jurisdiction of those Judges. And that for the later quota∣tion also out of the same Epistle of Caius (which Gratian gives in the second place, or second chapter of his foresaid eleventh cause and first Question:) it is mark'd with a Palea in Gratian himself: and therefore also is of no autho∣rity, no valew at all, according to the doctrine of many Canonists; which doctrine must be disproved before any such allegation can be urged.

4. That for Marcelline's canon (whether false or true) I have before ob∣served how Gratian hath (if not corrupted, at least) misquoted the text: which is not, as he hath it, Clericum cujuslibet ordinis nullus praesumat accusare &c. but (as it is in Concil. 3. Aurel. & in Panormia) Clericus nullum praesumat accusare. And that being so read, it concludes nothing to Bellarmine's pur∣pose, if not a gener••l exemption of all persons generally, as well Laicks as Clerks, from secular Judges, and for what onely would concern a suit com∣menced by a Clerk. Which yet is not to Bellarmines purpose at all, nor at all for any exemption of either Laicks or Clerks from the jurisdiction of se∣cular Judges; but onely for a restriction of Clerks from scandalous litigious∣ness; as I have also before in other cases or in my answers to the canons of Carthage, Chalcedon, Matiscon, &c, observed. Besides, that however it be read, the last passage of it, or this, Nec Laico quemlibet Clericum liceat accusare, shews plainly it cannot be a true canon, but a manifest corruption and con∣tradiction of all canons, if without any gloss understood, as the bare words require. For who ever yet asserted it unlawful for a Laick to accuse a Clerk, at least before the Bishop, when there is just cause?

5. That for the text of St. Gregory the Great, in his 54. Epistle ad Ioan. De∣fens, and l. XI Registri, I have consulted that too, and read the whole Epistle through, and have been for all my pains so farre from finding as much as one word of any such matter as Bellarmine quotes it for (the exemption of Clerks ••••••m all civil power, both subordinate and supream, by the canons of the Church:) that I must perswade my self our learned Cardinal never once turned to that Epistle, or read it with his own eyes when he remitted us to it. For I will not charge him with imposture. Which yet any must do that will grant or suppose he had read this Epistle himself, and not taken that sense of it (he gives us) upon credit. Whereas it is plain in the whole tenour of this Epistle, that although St. Gregory prescribe to this Iohn the Defender, whoever he was, going to Spain, that he should relieve a certain Presbiter (whom he names not otherwise) who had been wronged: and a certain Bishop, whom he names Ianuarius, who had been violently drawn out of a Church by some infe∣rior civil Magistrats: and another Bishop also, called Stephanus, who had been likewise violently forced to judgment, either to a secular judg, or to other Bi∣shops that were not of his own Province, or rather both, in some civil or cri∣minal case, and without the permission of the Emperour: yet St. Gregory pleads onely in all these three cases (for the said Iohn's warrant to relieve them so) the civil laws of the Emperours Leo Augustus, Iustinian, Arcadius, Honorius, and Theodosius (which laws the Saint quotes expresly and at large all a long that Epistle, and disputes, out of them onely, there, to prove the foresaid Praesbiter, and foresaid Bishops Ianuarius and Stephanus wronged:) being these Imperial laws expresly ordain, 1. That the causes of Presbiters be first decided or brought before the Bishops. 2. That none be drawn by violence out of any Church by the secular Magistrats for any crime whatsoever, except onely that of treason against Majesty, and except also the Churches of the Royal City of Constantinople, where the Prince himself resided, and when it pleased him to give orders for pulling any criminal out of them: and moreover or∣dains that it be treason to break these laws of Sanctuary. 3. That no Bishop could be forced to a civil or military Judg in either a pecuniary or criminal cause, or to appear even before other Bishops then his own Metropolitan. But alleadges not as much as a syllable of any canon or institution made by the Church it self or by Ecclesiastical power in any of these cases; not even from the first word of that Epistle to the last. The very beginning of it being this: De persona praesbiteri boc attendendum est, quia si quam caeusam habuit, non ab alio teneri, sed Episcopus ipsus adiri debuit, sicut novella constitutio manifesta quae loquitur de sanctissimis & Deo amabilibus ac reverendissimis Episcopis, Clericis, & Monachis. Iustinianus Augustius Petro gloriosissimo Praesecto Praetorio. Si quis con∣tra aliquem Clericuni, aut monachum, aut Diaconissam, aut monastriam, aut assistri∣am,

habeat aliquam actionem, adeat prius sanctissimum Episcopum &c. And some, what after, and concerning the case of Ianuarius in particular, proceeding thus De persona Ianuarii Episcopi, sciendum est graviter omnius & contra leges esse actum, ut violenter de Ecclesia traheretur, dum si quamlibet aliam injuriam a quccum; Episcopo in Ecclesia passus fuerit, injuriantem lex capitali poena percutiat, & sicut Majestatis reum omnibus det accusandi illum licentiam, ut hujus serie loquitur Codieis libro primo, titulo sexto, constitutione decima. Imperatores Arcadius & Honorius Augusti Theodoro Praefecto Praetor. Si quis in hoc genus sacrilegii proru∣perit, ut in Ecclesias Catholicas irruens, sacerdotibus & ministris, vel cultoribus ipsis, loco{que} aliquid importet injuriae, quod geritur, a Provinciae Rectoribus animad∣vertatur: at{que} ita Provinciae moderator, sacerdotum & Clericorum, & Catholicae Ecclesiae ministrorum loci quo{que} ipsius & divini cultus injuriam capitali in convictis seu confessos reos sententia noverit vindicandum. Et post pauca: sit{que} cunctis lauda∣bile factas atroces sacerdotibus aut ministris injurias, veluti publicum crimen in∣sequi, at{que} de talibus reis ultionem mereri &c. Data VI. Kalend. May, Mediolani, Honorio Augusto quater, & Eutychiano ter consulibus. Libri suprascripti titu. XV. Constitut. III. Imperator Honorius & Theodosius Augusti. Ionio Praefecto Praetor. Fideli ac devota preceptione sancimus, nemini licere ad sacre-sanctas Ecclesias confu∣gientes abducere, sub hac videlicet definitione, ut si quisquam contra hanc legem ••••∣nire tentaverit, sciat se majestatis crimine esse retinendum. Data Kalend. Aprilis, Honorio Septies, & Theodosio tertio consulibus. Item ejusdem titul. constit. V. Imperator Leo Augustus Eurithrio Praefecto Praetor. Praesenti lege decernimus per omnia loca valitura, excepta hac urbe regia in qua nos divinitate propitia degentes, quoties usus exegerit convocati singulis causis at{que} personis praesentanea constituta praestamus, nullos penitus cujuscum{que} conditionis de sacre-sanctis Ecclesiis orthodoxae fidei expelli, aut trahi, vel portrahi confugas. Et post pauca: Qui hoc moliri aut facere, aut nuda cogitatione saltem at{que} tractatu ausi fuerint tentare, capitali & ultima supplicii animadversione plectendi sunt. Ex his ergo locis, eorum{que} finibus, quos anteriorum legum praescripta sanxerunt, nullos eiici aut expelli aliquando pati∣mur, nec in ipsis Ecclesiis reverendis ita quemquam detineri atque restringi, ut ei ali∣quid aut victualium rerum, aut vestis negetur, aut requies &c. Data pridie Ca∣lend. Martii, Constantinopoli, Le••ne Augusto tertium Consule. And after this again, and concerning the other Bishop Stephanus and his case, proceeding further thus: De persona Stephani Episcopi ad hoc attendendum est quia nec in∣vitus ad judicium trahi, nec ab Episcopis alieni Concilii debuit judicari, sicut novel∣la quaedam traditio quae de Episcopis loquitur, continet. Ait enim: sed ne{que} pro qualicum{que} pecuniaria vel criminali causa ad judicem civilem sive militarem invitum Episcopum producere, vel exhibere citra imperialem jussionem permittimus, sed ju∣dicem qui tale aliquid, sive ex scripto sive ex non scripto praesumpserit imperare, post cinguli privationem XX. librarum auri poenam exolvere jubemus Ecclesiae cujus Episcopus produci aut exhiberi jussus est: executorem similiter post cinguli privatio∣nem & verberibus subdendum, et in exilium deportandum. Item post multa: si autem & a Clerico aut Laico quccum{que} aditio contra Episcopum fiat propter quamli∣bet causam, apud sanctissimum ejus metropolitanum secundum sanctas regulas et nostras leges causa judicetur Et si quis judicatis contradixerit ad beatissimum Archiepiscopum & Patriarcham Diocesees illius referatur causa: et ille secundam canones & leges huic praebeat finem. Finally, (but yet moreover, after quoting the law of Gratianus, Valentinianus, and Theodosius, out of the Code, l. VII. ti∣tu. XLVII. constit. III. in the point of nullity of a sentence, when pronounced a non suo Iudice: and the laws of Arcadius & Honorius, C. l. IX. titu. I. censtit. XX. in the point of accusation made by Servants or Slaves, except only the case of treason, or crime against Majesty; and the judgment of Modestinus the Lawyer, ad legem Iuliam Majestatis, l. Famosi. lib. Pandectarum XLVIII. in the point of credit not to be given to such accusers, even in such a crime, if the life or esteem of the accused was not such before as might render him suspected; and another Novel Constitution (as he calls it) which is, Au∣thent. de testib. Parag. Et hic vero) in the point of not condemning any by, or

for testmonies of witnesses, to near which he was not called, and of not re∣ceiving the testimonies of vile persons, sine corporali discussione.) as he begun with, and proceeded all along only out of the civil laws, so he con∣cludes (at last that whole epistle) out of the same civil laws. tit. XLIV. lib. C••di••is. in the point of giving sentence in writing, quia scriptis debuit judica∣••i. Nam ibi inter alia dicitur at{que} praecipitur, ut sententia quae sine scripto dicta fuerit, ne nomen quidem sententiae mereatur, sayes Gregory, putting a final per∣close to this 54 epistle, ad Joan. Defensor. l. XI. Registri.

And this being the whole tenour, as to the substance, of that letter of St. Gregory, and not as much as any one Canon at all, as much as related unto by him therein from the first word to the last (but only those canons in general which concern the order of Appeals in a Bishops cause) not in that of other Clerks) from the Metrapolitan to the Patriarch; and yet these Canons too related unto here not by Gregory, but by Leo Augustus himself, and this also according to former civil laws of other Emperours, and with so many exceptions still (particularly for the cases of treason against Majesty, and of a special warrant from the Prince himself to a lay subordinat Judge:) who sees not that Bellarmine had no kind of ground in this Epistle to abuse his Reader with quoting it, as containing some argument to prove that al∣though the civil law, or Novels of Iustinian did not generally exempt Clerks in criminal causes from all publick or civil Judicatories, yet the canon law did exempt them so, or in such causes from all such Tribunals, even the very supream?

But as for that other proposition, which, to compleat his second argument, he assumes as a maxime, That the civil law must yield to the canon law: and for that also, which to prove this maxime he further sayes, That the Pope may command the Emperour, especially in such matters as concern the Church: which say at present of each a part, and both together, and of this manner of ar∣guing is, that in all I see nothing alledged or proved (I mean to his pur∣pose here) but ignotum per ignotius: and that my following Sections will fur∣ther shew, that in his sense, or as applyed to his purpose, or at least is neces∣sarily inferring his Thesis, or grand proposition or assertion of his Ecclesiasti∣al Immunity, both maxime and proof are absolutely false: and yet, and moreover consequently, that his ratiocination or discourse composed of both is nothing else too but falsum per falsius.

However, because neither the truth or probability, as neither the untruth or improbability of any thing before said by me in this present Section, de∣pends of the truth or falsity of either that maxime, or that other proposition assumed to make good that maxime; being the dispute hitherto hath not been whether the Church could heretofore make (or hereafter can make) such canons as Bellarmine would have for such exemption: or consequently whether in such case, the civil laws, being contrary, must, and ought to yield, and be corrected by the canons; or whether, in such case too, that maxime and proposition assumed to prove it, might not be alledged, and ought not to be admitted as out of controversie; but the dispute hitherto in this Section having only been of the fact of the Church, not of the power; that is, having been, whether indeed she hath either justly or unjustly, right or wrong, validly or invalidly, made at any time already, or heretofore until this very present any such canon: and because I perswade my self that I have sufficiently enough, and very clearly too, solved all that ever Bellarmine al∣ledg'd (either in his great work of Controversies, and even in the very last edition of that great work, or in his little book writ after of purpose by him, De Potestate Temporali Papae adversus Gulielmum Barclaium) for any such canon hitherto made: I will now finally conclude that wherewith I begun this Secti∣on: which is, that neither by the Canons of the Church, there hath ever been yet any such exemption as Bellarmine pretends (or his Schollars in this, the Divines of Lovaine) of any Clerks whatsoever, Priests, Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs,

&c. from the supream civil, temporal or lay power, or Magistrats, under which or whom they live. And I conclude also my two several Affirmations immediatly following that Assertion, and given or made there so immediatly, as further illustrations of my meaning.

And to this conclusion add only here, That I have taken, so much pains in examining the canons alledg'd by our great Cardinal; not indeed out of any purpose, desire, or inclination to exagitat the priviledges of Clergiemen: or that I do at all, or would envy them such priviledges, or endeavour to lessen the reverence or esteem due, or the honours or favours done or bestowed on their sacred functions and persons (which any one may easily believe that knows me to be one of them my self, through Gods mercy and favour to me, how otherwise undeservedly soever.) But that, next to that of speaking all necessary truths, as it becomes a man of my profession, in defence also of this so certain and christian truth of Clergiemens not being exempt from the su∣pream secular civil Power: as likewise of so many other annexed, not only ne∣cessary, but holy, but Apostolical and Evangelical Truths, which the ignorance or interest of so many late Schoolmen, hath so much obscured:) I would as an humble Son of the Church, and as a concern'd member of that most sacred body of Churchmen, with all due respect admonish them not to be ungrate∣ful to their so great, so good, and true, and proper benefactors, the secular Princes; who only were they indeed that bestowed on them originally, & con∣tinue still what ever true exemptions they have, how great soever (as without question they are very great; and I from my heart wish they may be greater, so as not abused, but all used to the glory of God, and the more holy exer∣cise of their sacred function.) For being it appears evidently out of what I have hitherto said since I begun this particular of exemption, and shall yet farther out of what follows till I end it, that secular Princes were, and are the only true Donors, Patrons, Defenders, and Protectors of the said ex∣emptions, liberties, and other worldly priviledges: and that the canons of the Church in such matters had no subsistence, but in the former laws or good pleasure of Princes: certainly it must follow, that the Clergie is ever∣lastingly bound to acknowledge the Princes as such; and, with all grati∣tude, all hearty submission, reverence, and obedience, to acknowledge their supream temporal power and Lordship even over themselves as well as over the Layety, and even also as continuing still over both the very same it was in the beginning over both: and never to deny from whence, or whom they had their freedom, or that it was from the secular Princes they had and have it still. Which yet some do, attributing their whole Ecclesiastical Immunity, Exemption or Liberty (as they call it) to the canons; that is, to the consti∣tutions of Popes and Councils. Then which indeed nothing more ungrate∣ful can proceed from ungrateful hearts: being it is so clear and perspicuous to any that will not willingly shut his eyes, at least to all men of learning (such as Clergymen, especially Bishops and Priests ought to be) That it is not from the Pontiffs, but from the Princes, nor from the canons, but from the laws, the Clergy have received all the temporal exemption they have, what∣ever it is they truly have.

Which to be so certainly true, that it could not otherwise be, or that not only it is not the Pontiffs or Canons, or any power of the Church that hath de facto given such exemption to Churchmen as they have, but also that de jure no Pontiff or Pontiffs, not even the very Prince of Pontiffs himself the Pope of Rome, nay, nor even the universal Church it self, as properly and purely the Church, could by any proper Pontifical, Sacerdotal, or Church-power, or any whatsoever, without the consent of the secular Prin∣ces and supream civil power, give and grant this very exemption which the Clergy enjoys (in some cases, or many, or most, or even all cases whatso∣ever; as you please to think or say) from only the subordinate inferiour Judges, will the more evidently yet appear out of what I am to say further now.

LXIX.

For, by this time, having throughly declared all Bellarmines arguments grounded by him on either holy Scriptures, imperial Constitutions, or Church-canons, no more remains now of my particular proofs, or grounds for my defiance to the Doctors of Lovaine (above LXII. Section) but that I clear also the arguments pretended only from natural (or Theological) reason for the expediency and necessity of such exemption, or of such a power in the Pope, or Church to grant such exemption of Clergymen from the very su∣pream civil power, even in all kind of temporal causes whatsoever, and even without, nay against the will of secular Princes. Wherein truly (however over and over again considered by me) I find so little difficulty, that I dare again repeat here that very last passage of my defiance (LXII. Section) which was, and is, That I defied those of Lovaine, or any other Divines or Canonists in the world, to shew as much as one convincing, or even probable argument of natu∣ral reason, to prove a power in the Pope or Church to exempt Clergymen from the cognisance and coercion of the supream civil Prince, or laws under which they live as Citizens or Subjects, or live at least as reputed Citizens or Subjects.

But now to draw near my said particular grounds, or reasons of this last part of my general defiance in the above LXII Section, I believe the Reader will be perswaded I shall give sufficient, if I produce here all the very choicest natural (or Theological) reasons, which all the very best Divines and Canonists of Bellarmines way have yet alledg'd, where of set purpose they handle this subject; and if withal I give them every one such clear solutions as will leave no place for any material reply. And I suppose still, that Bellarmine hath for his own sake fixed on the very best Divines and Cano∣nonists of his way, where he gives a list of such of both professions as maintain this power in the Pope. It is not in his great Works of Controversie, or any edition of them, or of his books there de Clericis, but in his foresaid latter little book de potestatae temporali Papae, in temporalibus cap. 34. that he gives a list of those he found most to his purpose; even of those very Divines and Ca∣nonists, who (as he himself there both rightly and materially notes) main∣tain Ecclesiastical Exemption to be not de jure divino, but de jure positive humano. For that all such other Divines, or such other Canonists as main∣tain on the other side, that Ecclesiastical Exemption is de jure divino, do, and must consequently hold, that even the Pope hath either such a power to ex∣empt Clerks so, or at least hath a power to declare them so antecedently ex∣empted by God himself; no man doubteth, and Navarre expresly teacheth cap. Novit. de Judiciis. notab. 6. n. 30. But that the very same of the Popes power is taught also by the former, who hold the exemption of Clerks not to be de jure divino, is manifest (sayes Bellarmine, ubi supra) out of Franciscus Victoria. Relect. de Potestate Eccles. q. 6. prop. 5. Dominicus Soto. in 4. dist. 25. q. 5. art. 2. Martinus Ledesma, in Quartum, parte 2. q. 20. art. 4. Dominicus Bannes in 2. 2. q. 67. art. 1. and Didacus Covarruvias, pract. quaest. cap. 31. con∣clus. 3. & 4. And it is not unworthy our observation to note the very words of Dominicus Sotus, and Did. Covarruvias's assertion hereof, in the places now quoted. Papa potuit (sayes Dominicus, conclus. 6.) inconsultis Principi∣bus, & debuit Clericos ab eorum exactionibus & foro excipere: cui quidem ex∣emptioni Principes contravenire nequeunt. And (sayes Covarruvias conclusione 4.) Quamvis exemptio Clericorum a jurisdictione secularium jure tantum humano sit introducta, Princeps tamen secularis, ut cum{que} summus sit, non poterit huic immuni∣tati aut exemptioni, propriis legibus propria{que} authoritate derogare.

So farr the learned Cardinal hath helped us on in this matter, by giving us to our hand the authors and places quoted; albeit only to shew (against William Barclay) that himself was not single in asserting such a power to the Pope. But for these natural reasons (or theological, if you please to call

them so) which to solve is my business at present, he hath left his Reader to seek. Which makes me say, that he hath not at all removed the cause of Barclay's admiration, as he ought to have done. Barclay admired that so learn∣ed and so judicious a man as Cardinal Bellarmine should maintain, that the Pope could exempt the Subjects of Kings from all subjection to Kings, and this without any consent from the Kings themselves: adding, as a further cause of his admiration, how it was confess'd, that before such exemption by the Pope, those very persons so exempted by him or attempted to be so exempted, to wit, the whole Ecclesiastical Order of Clerks, and even as well Priests, Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, and the very Pope himself, as other the most inferiour Clerks were all of them primitively, originally, and even by the very law of God, subject to the secular Princes in all poli∣tick, or civil and temporal matters: and yet, as a further cause adding also, that the law of Christ, submitted unto in Baptisme, deprives no man of the temporal rights he had before baptisme: and consequently deprived not (for example) Constantine the Great, when baptized, of the lawful power he had before he was baptized, over the Christian Clergy. Now that Bellarmine should go about to disswade Barclay from his admiration, because, forsooth, he quotes five School-men, that is, four Divines, and one Canonist, who taught the same thing, and produces only the bare words of the Assertion of two of them on the point, but no reason at all of theirs, or of any others, or of his own for such assertion, may seem to men of reason a strange way of perswading another man, and master too of much reason. As if Bar∣clay should cease therefore any whit the less to admire so gross an errour in Bellarmine, that some others also had fallen into the same errour, before, or after, or together with him. Nay, if Bellarmine had not preposterously fixed on those very men for his companions or patrons, who contradict them∣selves so necessarily (that is, at least virtually and consequentially) in this matter: or, if he had only fixed on such Divines and Canonists, who speak consequently (however ungroundedly) of the exemption of Clergymen, as of divine right (which, I confess, the generality of Canonists do:) then per∣adventure he might have seemed to have alledged somewhat (though in∣deed very little) to allay Barclays wonderment. For truly, those he al∣ledges betray themselves and his cause manifestly; whereas they hold also manifestly (and at the same time) that the exemption of Clerks is not de jure divino. Which being once granted, who sees not the main difficulties which lye so in their way, as not possible to be removed, for asserting a power in the Pope to make laws for that exemption indepen∣dently of Princes? Who sees not that the Pope cannot make, or impose what laws he please to bereave either Prince or People of their temporal rights, or of what part soever of such rights he thinks expedient or con∣venient? And who sees not otherwise, that he alone must de jure be, ot least may de jure make himself to be the sole supream Prince on earth in all tem∣poral things, at least amongst Christians? And therefore consequently who sees not, that being the Pope is not so, nor can be so, nor can lessen the Princes temporal authority over his own Subjects, where-ever the law of God doth not lessen it (and what I say of the Pope, I say too of the whole Church:) who sees not consequently therefore (I say) that neither Pope nor Council, nor other authority of the Church (if any other be imaginable) can, or could so exempt Clerks from the power of Princes; being that before such exemption all Clerks were subject to Princes, and by the laws of God and nature subject to them?

But for as much as it appears undoubtedly, that Bellarmine was one that did not, or at least would not see these either Antecedents or Consequents; being he sayes in plain terms, and in his own name also (de Potestate Papae in temporalibus supra, cap. 38.) That whether the supream temporal Princes themselves have, or have not, or could, or could not, exempt ecclesiastical

(while in their Dominion▪) from their own supream temporal power (potu∣it tamen & voluit summus Pontifex istos eximere aut jure divino exemptos decla∣rare) yet the supream Pontiff could exempt them so, and hath exempted them so, or at least could declare and hath declared them antecedently ex∣empted so by divine right, that is, by God himself in holy Scripture (or at least in his revealed word; either written or unwritten.) Ne{que} possunt Prin∣cipes etiam supremi hanc exemptionem impedire, That neither can the Princes even supream hinder this exemption: and That all this is the common do∣ctrine of the Divines and Canonists, cui hactenus non nisi Heretiei restiterunt, which none hetherto but heretick's have resisted: and forasmuch also as not onely Franciscus Victoria, Dominicus Soto, Martinus Ledesma, Dominicus Bannes, and Didacus Covarruvias, above particularly quoted, but even the generality of Canonists and late School Divine Writers seem to be of the number of those that with Bellarmine did not or would see the same Antecedents and con∣sequents: and lastly forasmuch as we have already solved all they could say for their contrary assertions, either out of Scripture or out of the laws and canons, nay and out of not onely some other extrinsick authorities of other authors, Philosophers and Historians (I mean for what concerns matter of fact, or the point of Clergiemens having been already exempted so by any whomsoever) but also all the arguments grounded on, or pretended from natural reason, or which Bellarmine framed above for his law of Nature or Nations for the Clergie's being already so exempted: now therefore to fall to that which onely is the proper subject of this present Section, let us consi∣der those other arguments pretended to be of natural reason (or even of Theological reason, if you please to call it so, as it may perhaps be justly called, because suppo••eing some principle of Faith) which we find in other Authors, as in Dominicus Soto and in Franciscus Victoria, for the being of such a power in the Pope or Church, or in either or in both together, as purely such, or as purely acting by a true proper certain or undoubted power of the Church as the Church or as a Church onely. For thus it is they must state the que∣stion, and that they do questionless suppose it stated. Though I confess with∣al that if they had stated or supposed it otherwise, as they do not, or if we did suppose even all the civil or temporal power in the world conferr'd by the world it self on the great Pontiff, or on the Church or Churchmen to make what laws he or they pleased in all civil things, and for all mortal men, and by themselves to govern the world as the onely supream civil Gover∣nours; yet my judgment would be still that even in such a case according to natural reason there could be no power at all in the Pope or Church (as in∣deed none is at present, nor can be at any time in the Princes or people them∣selves or both, or even together with the Church) to exempt Churchmen from the supream civil Magistrat in whose Dominions they live. And yet in the case which is now in being, of the Popes being at present the supream civil Magistrat in Rome, and in the whole temporal Patrimony of St. Peter in some tracts of Italy (for so at least he is in effect, or by actual possession of the rights of such a supream civil Magistrat) he cannot by any argument of natural reason exempt the Clergie of those tracts from his own said supream civil power of them, unless he at the same time devest himself wholly of that very same supream civil power, and quit it absolutely to some other. Where∣of more hereafter in the following Sections: where it will appear that the exemption of Clerks from the supream power of Kings under whom they live and whom they acknowledg to be also their own Kings, implyes a most plain and manifest contradiction. In the mean time let us now to the onely arguments remaining, those natural (or Theological reasons) of the other side for such a power in the Pope or Church.

These reasons (such as they be) I find to be (in all) seven or eight: six whereof are fram'd by Dominicus Soto: and the other two by Franciscus Victo∣ria. Albeit five of those fix are onely to prove the said exemption as to the

persons of Clergiemen: but the rest to prove it not onely as to their persons but as to their goods also. And besides these eight reasons, I see no other in these or other Authors of their way, nor indeed any thing els, not even in Covar••••vias himself, but some few authorities of other Canonists, which are not worth the while, nor at all proper to repeat heer: being such as they nei∣ther belong to reason, nor have on other account any power of perswasion.

The first general reason of Dominicus Soto, proveing this exemption as well necessary as congruous, and both as to the goods, and as to the persons of Clergiemen. Ecclesiastical power (sayes he) is per se, that is, of it self or by its own nature, sufficient, and independent from the civil power. There∣fore it may of it self make all such laws as are either necessary or convenient for its own administration (quae suae administrationi sunt necessariae vel congru∣entes.) But the law of exemption of Clerks both as to their goods and per∣sons from all kind of Secular Magistrats, even the very most supream, is either necessary, or at least very congruent (that is to say, is at least conveni∣ent or agreeable, or meet, or fitting, or expedient) for Church administrati∣on.

Now to prove this assumption, first as to the persons; or to prove it to be even necessary, That the persons of Churchmen should be so exempt, Soto gives four specifical reasons: as immediately after he gives also a fifth to prove it necessary as to their very goods.

The first specifical reason, or medium of Soto to prove it necessary as to their persons. For (sayes he) whereas the Ministers of the Church are con∣stituted according to divine law, it must seem in the next degree of proxi∣mity to the said law divine, that they may not be called upon, or commanded by the secular Judges.

Second specifical reason as to the persons. It may happen that amongst Ecclesiastical causes whereof lay ••en cannot be Judges, some civil matters do intervene. And therefore if Clergiemens persons were not exempt from all kind of secular Iudicatories, they must be in such cases perplexed, not knowing which tribunal to obey when called upon by both Ecclesiastical and secular.

Third specifical reason of Soto as to the persons. It would not be decent, nor have any decorum, that the Ministers of Churches, who are Pastours of even those very Judges themselves, nay and of Kings too, should be as criminals or guilty persons called upon by those Iudges, or bound to appear as such before them.

Fourth specifical reason of Soto as to the persons. Whereas the civil power and Ecclesiastical are in their own natures wholly distinct or different, it is necessary, that as each hath its own proper Ministers; so the Ministers of each have their own proper Superiours.

Hitherto this learned Schoolman as to the persons. But as to the goods of Clergiemen his onely reason is (which is in order the sixth of those rea∣sons) That whereas tributes and customs are paid to Kings in lieu of, or as a recompence for the labours they undergoe in ruleing the Commonwealth, and whereas Clerks undergoe no less in discharge of their own duty, or towards the maintenance of the Church: it seems but a due recompensati∣on that their goods be exempt from all tributs, taxes, &c.

Seventh reason, but given by Franciscus Victoria to prove the necessity of a power in the Church to exempt both goods and persons. The Ecclesiasti∣cal Republick is perfect in it self, and sufficient in it self. Therefore it hath power to make such laws as are convenient for the administration of the Church. And therefore also, if the exemption of Clerks from the civil power, even supream, be convenient for such administration, it hath power to enact such exemption by law.

Eight and last reason, and it is of the same Franciscus Victoria; but as to the persons onely. The Pope may by his own proper authority choose, fix on,

or design, and actually appoint and iustice to Ecclesiastical Ministers; notwith∣standing any contradiction of the civil power: Therefore he may also, ••••on the same ground, or, for the some reason, exempt those Ecclesiastical Ministers from the secular power.

And these are all the arguments grounded on reason, or which as grounded purely or chiefly on reason (the common principles of Faith, or of the ex∣istence of a Christian Church being once admitted, ou•• adversaries bring. But whether any of all be sufficiently convincing, or whether any of all be as much as probable, I mean intrinsecally probable, the indifferent judicious Rea∣der is to give his judgment when I have done my devoire in answering. For I remember what I have undertaken (Section LXII) to shew not onely that no convincing argument of natural reason can be produced, but not even as much as any probable argument of such reason, meaning still by probable that which is intrinsecally such.

Though I do withall advertise here, That no even intrinsick probability, how great soever (so it retain still the true ond onely nature of probability, and arrive not to evidence, and consequently be no more that which is meer probability, but a quite other thing) can serve our adversaries to quarrel against my doctrine which maintains no exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the supream civil Magistrat. For if their arguments, or reasons whatsoever, be but probable, or should I admit any of them to be probable how intrinsecally soever; yet admitting them but as onely such, and not con∣vincing, and further shewing clearly they are not convincing: the consequence of my admitting them for such onely, that is for even intrinsecally probable, and no more, must be also that the tenet grounded on them cannot be certain. And therefore that by the common doctrine of Divines and Lawyers, Princes cannot be deprived of their supream power over Clerks whereof they are and have been alwayes in possession. Because upon or for an uncertain title, or uncertain allegations (and all reasons which are onely probable are uncertain as to us) none may be justly thrown out of a long continued possession, and a possession which was bona fide such, and a possession too which in the case and according to reason, must have at least the same or as much even intrinsick probability for it in point of natural reason as is pleaded against it from pre∣tences of the like natural reason. This being the nature of meer probability of reason, if understood to be such, to inforce by a necessary consequence the like probability of reason producible for the other side of the contradictory. Which advertisement I premise for the less acute or less discerning Readers sake; not that I do my self apprehend any such true intrinsick probability in the propositions or assumptions of any the above reasons (of Soto or Victoria) as inferring their intended consequence: nor that I fear any other judicious uninteressed or unbyassed person will apprehend any such in them; whereas on the contrary, I doubt not my solutions or answers to them will no less clearly, in the point also, satisfie the Reader, then my former to Bellarmine's Scriptures, Laws, and Canons, have.

Therefore to pass by at this time what I could answer in general to all those arguments both of Soto and Victoria, and to all other such of others (if any other such be:) which is, that learned men would in such a matter of so great weight and consequence, and of such infinit prejudice to Princes, and the State Politick universally, expect a demonstration (if not a pure Phila∣sophical one of both Premisses and conclusion; at least a Theological one) and not such pittifull aequivocate Sillogismes, or rather ill assuming and ill concluding Parologismes, to which there are as many clear and convincing answers, as there are propositions, or even almost words. And that it very ill becomes so great Clerks to lay so weak a foundation for so vast a fabrick as they would build thereon, a power in the Pope to exempt all Clerks, nay to exempt so many millions of men and women subjects, and free them all from

that subjection which they all owe to Kings by the laws of God and nature: I say, that to pass by now this general animadversion, and

To answer first in particular to Soto, and to all the particulars of his ar∣gument: I distinguish the Ecclesiastical power which he sayes to be per se, that is, of it self, or of its own proper nature, self sufficient, and independent from the civil. For if thereby Soto understand that the spiritual authority given to the Apostles and Church, viz. that of preaching the word, administring the sacraments, interpreting of scriptures, absolving from sins, excluding contumacious sinners out of the Church, receiving them again when they are penitent, and of doing or discharging all such other functions which are purely spiritual, and are sufficient for eternal salvation of mortals: I confess that Ecclesiastical power so taken is per se, of it self, or of such its own nature, sufficient to attain its own true proper ends, that is, to lead people to salvation, or (which is it I mean) can without any help from the civil power lead unto this great end. And consequently may enact such proportionable laws and san∣ctions as are necessary (in circumstances) to attain this self same happy end. But withall I say that as it is one thing to say (as it must in truth be said) That Ecclesiastical power so taken, and so sufficient for such end, is in such respect in∣dependent from the civil power (because the civil power can neither give it nor take it away) and a quite other thing to say that the persons who have this Ecclesiastical power, are not, or may not, or ought not to be in other respects dependent from the civil power and civil Magistrats: so it is perspicuous, That a law for the exemption of Clerks from the supream civil power, and this law of exemption made also by the very Clerks themselves of them∣selves, and by vertue onely of a pretended power in themselves, and without any consent, nay with manifest reluctance of the said civil supream power and Magistrat, I say tis perspicuous that such a law of such exemption so made, nay indeed or any way made, either without or with the consent of the said su∣pream civil Magistrat, or even by either spiritual or temporal power, or even by both powers together, cannot be numbred amongst such other laws or san∣ctions as are necessary to lead unto or attain salvation. For, who ever yet doub∣ted that Christians whatsoever, Clergie and Layety can or could be saved, not∣withstanding that all Clergiemen were subject still to the civil jurisdiction of even the subordinate lay Judges, and were in all politick or temporal matters or causes whatsoever both civil criminal or mixt of both, convened in civil courts, tryed by the common laws, and received sentence from the lay Judges: as formerly it hath sometimes been & a long time been under not onely Hea∣then but very Christian Emperours? Or whatever others answer, how can Soto in particular say otherwise then that such a law or such exemption can∣not be necessary? For upon one side he teacheth (as we have seen before) that the exemption of Clerks is not de jure divino: and on the other, no man in the world, and consequently nor Soto himself will deny, nor can deny, That all kind of things, provisions, laws, &c, whatsoever, accounted necessary for salvation, must be confess'd to be de jure divino.

But forasmuch as Soto adds, That the power Ecclesiastical may not only enact such laws as are necessary for its administration, but such laws also as are congruent: I would fain know of him what he means by congruent? If laws so agreeable, meet, fitting, or expedient for the due exercise, or execu∣tion of the same true, genuin, pure, Ecclesiastical Power, that without such laws no such due exercise or execution may be of such power; then indeed, or understood in this sense, he sayes right, and speaks truth for so much; yet sayes no more by adding congruentes, then he had before by the word necessa∣riae. But if by leges congruentes, laws congruent, he mean laws which many or most Churchmen conceive, or perhaps others too esteem of, as much con∣ducing to the splendour of the Church, and execution of her commands or of other former or after laws, but not as necessary to either: then (without doubt) or in such meaning of this word congruent, the proposition, univer∣sally

taken, is in it self absolutely or simply false. Because neither Pope nor Church can on any such pretext make laws to the prejudice of the civil rights of others without their own consent; albeit laws which may other∣wise conduce very much to the splendour and majesty of the Church, nay, and also not seldom to the greater perfection of holiness amongst the people. For as the spiritual power ••, in its own kind ordained by God, and obliged to provide carefully for the observance of all the laws of God: so is the tem∣poral power also in its own kind both ordained by the same God, and like∣wise obliged to see a due observance of the same laws of God. And as, not∣withstanding this equal tye on the temporal power, you cannot conclude it may enact laws in meer and pure ecclesiastical or spiritual Church matters, although beleeving at the same time, nay knowing such matters, and such laws in such matters to conduce very much, not to the greatness only of it self in the nature of a temporal power, and to a more effectual observance of its own proper laws, but to the better observance also of the very known laws of God himself: so neither can you conclude that for the like end the power Ecclesiastical may at pleasure enact laws in temporal or civil matters. In the making of laws by either part, there is no difference in that. For though it be true, the Power Ecclesiastical be not bound to obey the tempo∣ral, when this commands any thing against the commands of God; nay, that in such case the spiritual power may substract all its own proper and purely spiritual commodities or benefits from the Temporal: it is also true, that in like manner the Temporal is not bound to obey the spiritual, when (by laws or edicts of the Pope or Church) invaded in its own proper temporal rights: nay, and that, if necessary, it may deprive the Ecclesiastical of all tem∣poral commodities, during such invasion, or until the errour be corrected effectually.

When therefore any law (or rather canon) Ecclesiastical entrenches on the temporal power, though under pretext of a spiritual advantage; as (for example) when it prescribes or circumscribes, or lessens the temporal juris∣diction, which by the law of God was allowed, or when it prescribes in the point of politick affairs or civil customs or manner of living civilly: such prescriptions must not be acknowledged as proceeding from the true spiritual power, but onely from the pleasure and sanction of spiritual or Ecclesiastical persons, not acting in so much by any kind of power in them Ecclesiastical or not Ecclesiastical, other then a meer usurped power: but acting so as the true temporal power, the secular Princes and Magistrats may oppose and correct them: whereas in temporal matters, or in any matters purely civil, which are not necessary to salvation, at least where the civil rights acquired already to a third (and acquired without any injustice) are taken away (without the con∣sent of such third person, or of the supream civil Magistrat and civil laws, by which onely all civil rights are confirmed or infirmed, given at first, or changed after:) it is most certain the Church can do nothing, oblige no man without the temporal powers concurrence. Otherwise who sees not, that if the pow∣er Ecclesiastical make a law for levelling estates amongst the Layety: or a law commanding every secular person that hath any goods, to bestow every year on the poor the one entire half of his profits, nay & actually the one entire half of his lands for pious uses: who sees not, I say, but that such law must in con∣science bind all men? Nay and should it make an other law too for appointing holy devout Churchmen to be superintendents or Stewards under the Pope in every Parish, to dispose of all the goods of laymen, to more holy uses then the laymen themselves do at present? But if neither Soto, nor any other Divine or Canonist, nor Bellarmine himself, nor any sticklers for his opinions will have the confidence to attribute the power of making such laws to the Church, not∣withstanding that such laws if submitted unto & duely executed, might questi∣onless be esteemed by some or many or most or all Churchmen, and by most of other men also, to be very congruent for the greater splendour of the

Church, and more holy & perfect observation of the Gospel: and if to the Church they will deny such a power, and deny it on that account only which I have presently given: how can they but consequently deny to the same Church a power of making laws for exempting all Clerks from Princes, without the consent of Princes? Is not this a law made in a temporal mat∣ter, and a matter unnecessary to salvation? Was not the temporal subjecti∣on of the persons of Clerks, or their subjection to Princes in temporal mat∣ters, a meer temporal duty which (sometime at least) they owed to Princes? Was not the right Princes had to govern and punish them, a meer tempo∣ral right? Was it not formerly acquired, and legally settled from the be∣ginning in Princes? How then could the Princes be deprived thereof with∣out their own consent by any law of the Church? Or if so, why not also of their other temporal rights? and of their other Subjects? and of their Lands, &c? Or could not the makers of such pretend motives of piety, and of the greater glory of God, and greater splendour of the Church of God for making them, and for proving them to be congruent? Nay, do we not know they pretend such motives to assert the temporal Monarchy of the whole earth to the Pope, as if having it de facto or de jure, and even without any such laws. Why therefore may not they proportionable motives for his making in every Kingdom, Province, County, Barrony, City, Parish, Village, Lieute∣nants of his own Ecclesiastical Function? and consequently motives of con∣gruency to transferr all the very individual, otherwise temporal or civil rights of lay-men to Churchmen? and so further consequently exempt all kind of lay-men as well as Clergiemen from the Jurisdiction of meer lay Judge, if not of such as the Pope himself alone would make Judges?

But forasmuch as Dominick Soto (notwithstanding so much evidence against even the congruency of Ecclesiastical exemption from all kind of civil Power, or rather against his ill consequences deduced from his congruency) must al∣so affirm such Exemption to be necessary: let us consider his five mediums to prove this, whereof the three first are to prove it necessary in reference to the persons of Clergymen, as the last is to prove it necessary in reference also to their goods.

Soto's first medium or assumption to prove Ecclesiastical Exemption necessa∣ry in reference to the persons of Clergymen. Whereas Churchmen are divino jure, by the law divine ordained Ministers of the Church, eidem juri proximum esse videtur vt nequeant a Judicibus secularibus evocari, it seems in the very next degree to that law, that secular Judges have no power to summon or proceed against them. And this he further proves out of that saying of St. Paul. Ne∣mo militans Deo implicat se negotiis secularibus; No man warring to God, in∣trigues himself to secular businesses. 2. ad Timoth. 2. But Soto will give me leave here, first to distinguish necessaries, that we may understand one another: & then I will answer directly to his proposition. For of necessaries (as to our present purpose) some are per se et ex rei natura of themselves, and of their own nature, and at all times such to attain the end of such Ecclesiastical Power: and all that are necessary in this sense, are likewise de jure divino war∣ranted by the law of God. For all such necessaries, or all power, means, rules, necessary of themselves, or of their own nature for that end, the Church hath received from God himself, not from any sanctions of Popes or Councils. And others are now and then for a time, or only by accident, occasion or supposition, necessary: that is, are to be necessarily observed, be∣cause they happen to be commanded by the Church, and freely submitted unto by the people: as for example, Fasting-dayes, Holydayes, &c. Now if Soto mean the exemption of Clerks (and I mean too here any kind of ex∣emption of them in temporal matters, or of their persons, goods, lands, or houses, nay or of even the very sacred Churches) to be necessary in the for∣mer sense, he contradicts himself; for he holds Ecclesiastical Exemption to be not of divine, but of humane institution. If in the latter, he touches not

the question. For at present we dispute not whether now that Clergymen have by either the Sanctions of Princes, or Canons of the Fathers, or both, many Exemptions, and (if from the Princes only) whether now when the Church also layes heavy injunctions on us to observe the laws of Princes in this mat∣ter, it be necessary for salvation, and only during such laws, not to violate the true priviledges or exemptions, whatever they be, of Clerks given them by such laws? But the question we dispute here is; whether it be necessary, or whether it hath been alwayes necessary for salvation, that Clerks should have been so exempted at any time or by any law at all (either of God or man, of Prince or Church) for that exemption which is pretended to be now from even the supream civil power? or even for that exemption which is from inferiour lay Judges?

Which distinction and animadversion premised, I answer directly to his proposition, and absolutely deny that it seems so as he sayes, or that the ex∣emption of the persons of Clerks from the civil power seems to be (eidem juri divino proximum) in the next degree of proximity to that divine law whereby Clergimen are appointed by God to be Ministers of the Church. For I demand how that proximity appears by this argument, which yet must be the only argument to prove it? Clerks are de jure divino, by the law of God, Ministers of the Church. Ergo, by the same (or other) law of God, they cannot in civil causes be accused before, or judged by the civil Judges? For even so will I argue for a proximity of divine law in behalf of the ci∣vil Magistrats exemption from the Church in spiritual matters. The civil Magistrats are divino jure, by the law of God, appointed Ministers of temporal things. Ergo, in Ecclesiastical or Spiritual things they cannot be judged by Ecclesiasticks. Besides, we have sufficiently shewed before, that neither can the Pope himself, or Church lay binding commands in all matters which have such or as much proximity or affinity as this of Ecclesiastical ex∣emption hath to the law divine.

For his allegation of St. Paul's saying, That none warring to God intrigues himself in worldly affairs; who sees not the impertinency of it? Did Paul speak or mean this of Clerks meerly? It's plain he mean'd it of all Chri∣stians generally. If then to any purpose of Exemption alledg'd, it must be necessary that all Christian Laicks be exempted as well as Clerks from the civil power. Much different, God knows, was this divine Apostles sense, exhorting that, in as much as lyes in us, we estrange our selves from worldly cares, to the end we may the more simply and perfectly attend the will of God. Besides, its also clear enough, that by these words he no more inter∣dicted the Clergy from civil Judicatories, then from honours, possessions, moneys; all which do no less highly and extreamly involve the lovers, or earnest pursuers of them, in secular businesses. And yet, amongst all Clerks in the world, who will be found, that will believe St. Paul did ever mean it as necessary to salvation, that Clerks should not in any circumstances (and observing all other commandments) modestly and moderatly endeavour to attain honours, possessions, riches, intending still to make good use of them?

To Soto's second argument in reference to the persons (which is, that it may happen that amongst some ecclesiastical causes, whereof lay-men cannot be Judges, some civil causes be mixed: and therefore if Clerks be not exempt from the secular power, it must follow that in such cases they must remain perplexed as called upon by both tribunals, the civil and ecclesiastical, not knowing which to obey) the answer is facile enough and clear, That hence no necessity of their being so exempted follows; but only some greater vexation or trouble in such cases of Clerks, whose fortune it is to be invol∣ved in them. For we see Laicks also, and not seldom, contending about such matters as are partly of spiritual cognizance, and partly of civil: so that they are forced to appear before both the Judges Ecclesiastical and the tem∣poral

Magistrats. And yet no man will therefore say it to be necessary that Laicks be exempt either from the one Court or other.

To Soto's third medium, in reference to the persons (Quod non esset decorum ut Ministri Ecclesiae, qui pastores sunt etiam Iudicum, & Regum, tanduam rei coram ipsis sisterentur, That it would not be honourable, that the Ministers of the Church, who are Pastors even of those lay Judges, even of the very Kings, should be obliged to appear before them as criminals or guilty per∣sons) I answer first, that to be honourable, or decent, is one thing: and to be necessary is another. Secondly, that neither is it undecent. As on the contrary it is neither dishonourable nor undecent that the King, who in the City and Palace beholds all persons whatsoever, Laicks and Ecclesiasticks, both Priests and Bishops, observing himself with all demonstrations of sub∣missive reverence, and with bare heads and bended knees approaching the kisses of his hand, should nevertheless presently after, being gone to Church, lay himself bare headed, and bare kneed too; at the feet of the Priest in the confessional seat: the Priest in the mean time covered still and fitting, and as a Judge of another quality, and in that holy place and function determining of him as a criminal. And as this is not dishonourable, nor undecent to be done by the very Pope himself (for even the Pope too must behave himself so to an inferiour Priest, if he will be forgiven his sins by God) notwithstand∣ing that Soto will confess there can be no kind of undecency that the Pope in another quality should before or after judge that very Priest (who pre∣sently was, or shall be his Pastour in that) and even judge him in the very ex∣ternal Court, and judge him too as a lay criminal, or as guilty of lay crimes: so it must not be dishonourable nor undecent on the other fide for the Priests to be bound to appear, when there is cause, though in another Quality then that of Priests, before those very Lay penitents, of whom they were be∣fore Judges, or to whom they shall be hereafter Pastors in discharging towards them the office of Priests.

To the Fourth reason of Soto in reference to the persons (which was, That whereas the civil power & Ecclesiastical are wholly different or distinct, it must be necessary, that as each of them hath its proper Ministers, so the Ministers of either have their own proper superiours) The answer is that I grant all. Neither do I nor will I at any time deny that Clerks as Clerks have the Pope for their chief Superiour, according to that power which the canons of the universal Church do allow him over all Clerks as such. But forasmuch as Clerks besides that of their being Clerks have also the being, quality, & essence of Citizens or of natural or politick men, or of members of a civil society of other men: what is it in point of reason can hinder them from having an other Supe∣riour, to wit, the King, to govern them in this other consideration as men, or Cittizens, or such members? And certainly otherwise it must be said to be necessary that neither Pope nor Church may ever judg of Laicks in any qua∣lity, or in any cause: whereas it is granted of all fides that Laymen have their own proper lay Superiours, and are under the civil power, which Soto con∣fesses to be wholly altogether distinct from the Ecclesiastical. But since we know that cannot be said, and that on the contrary the truth is, that laymen as they are christians or sons of the Church by Faith and Baptisme, are also, in that quality, subject to the Ecclesiastical Superiours of the Church in matters belonging properly to their cognizance: even so we must by consequence of reason assert this also as a truth. That Clerks, as they are men or cittizens or members of a civil or politick Society, are subject also to the civil or politick Head of that Society, in all matters belonging to his politick or civil headship and government. In which sense or way it is true, and it is we say, That di∣stinct powers must argue distinct superiours. Which yet we have now seen to conclude nothing against us for the necessity of Ecclesiastical exemption, or ex∣emption of the persons of Clerks in temporal causes from the secular Ma∣gistrats.

To answer the fift and last argument of Soto; we must remember, that as it is peculiarly for the exemption of Church mens Goods from the civil Magistrat, or (which is the same thing) from all publick or private asses∣ments, contributions, taxes, o•• burthens whatsoever to be laid on such goods by the authority of any men civil Magistrat, Prince, King, or Empe∣rour: so this Author pleads this exemption also of their goods, to be not onely congruent, but necessary: and therefore concludes it power in the Church as a Church to make a law for it, whether Princes will or not: And we must know that his ground he borrows from St. Thomas; out certainly makes use of it, or derives a conclusion from it against the mind of St. Thomas. That St. Thomas in his commentary on the 13. of the Romans, where he hath it, intends no more by it but to prove the natural equity of Clerks being free by the priviledge of Princes from paying tributs; but expresly de∣nies a necessity for such freedom. That this to be the mind and words of St. Thomas, appears plainly out of the testimony of Franciscus Victoria, Relect. 1. de Potest. Eccles. sect. 7. Prop. 2. where he writes thus. Clerici sunt exempti a tributis non jure divino sed Pri••vlegio Principu••, Hoc expresse dicit D. Tho∣mas super illum locum, Roman. 13. Ideo enim & tributa praestatis. Et dicit hanc exemptionem habere equitatem quam••••••, non autem necessitatem? That Finally however this be certainly true, yet Soto inferrs out of that reason of St. Thomas not a congruency but a necessity. For, as we have seen before, thus he discourseth. Whereas tributs, customs, and other publick taxes are paid to Kings for their maintenance and as a reward or satisfaction for the labours they undergo in the administration of the commonwealth: and whereas Clergiemen take no less pains in discharging their own Ecclesiastical duties: it is but an equal recompensation of such pains, to be exempt from all tributs, taxes, &c.

Now, to answer this argument; where is any thing here to conclude a ne∣cessity, were it even true that Clergiemen take no less pains for the common∣wealth, and were it also true that tis onely as a reward of labours that Kings receive tribute? For the Commonwealth might, as to its temporals, very well subsist in this life, and, even as to its spiritual hopes, be saved in the other with∣out any such exemption of the goods of Clergiemen: as it could no less without any exemption of their persons. But whereas also indeed both the one and the other are absolutely false, how can Soto as much as pretend from either to inferre his purpose? For the truth is, that it is not onely as a reward or satisfaction that publick taxes are paid to Kings, but also as necessary enable∣ments to them for the protection of the commonwealth. Nor is the care, trouble, sollicitude, pains or vexation of Clerks any way neer that which is of Kings. Nor also can the pains of any them be, whatever it be of any (and we know many or most take but little pains respectively) be under∣taken commonly and so directly and properly for the commonwealth as the labours of Kings, are and ought to be, and as natural reason it self re∣quires and shews they must be. Besides doth not even St. Thomas himself expresly teach above, on the 13. to the Romans, that by the law of God Clerks are bound in conscience to pay tribute? (understand you, if not dis∣pensed with by the Princes.) Therefore in his doctrine it is not necessary that they do not pay tribute. And consequently in his doctrine tis not neces∣sary that the Church have power to exempt Clerks from tribute, whether Princes will or not. Moreover, and for the natural equity, or congruity it self, which we confess may be (for the exemption of Clerks from tri∣bute) alleadged out of St. Thomas, and with due restrictions pleaded also from natural reason: doth either tell us, of Soto's even sole congruency for such exemption to be made by the sole power of the Church, and not rather by the Princes themselves? Or will not this allegation of na∣tural equity or congruit•• be satisfied if Clergiemen be freed by the secular Princes themselves? and onely too in such cases as these Princes shall not up∣on

rational and evident grounds find it necessary for the defence of other good of both Clerks and Laicks to sess the Clerks for some time again, and for what they can well spare without any hinderance to divine service? Final∣ly have not Clerks in regard or lieu of their labours received so many other great and rich and excellent, and superabundant compensations, as well by lands and revenues as by other priviledges? or will nothing els serve them but a total exemption from the royalty of Princes and of those very goods and lands too which the same Princes gave them, and which the same Princes continue and protect them in all ways.

Behold, as from, or for what concerns those arguments of Soto, how farr it is from necessary that either the goods or persons of Clergiemen should be ex∣empt by the power of the Church, (nay indeed or by any other) from the supream civil Magistrat. But as an addition to all I have allready said, I demand yet, when it began to be necessary that either goods or persons should be so exempt? For it is manifest that neither hath been allways or in all ages of Christianity from the beginning, nor even from the beginning of those very ages or that very time wherein Christian Religion was by law established pub∣lickly; neither so exempt (I say) by either Pope or Prince. And I de∣mand also, whether before they were exempted, any thing necessary was wan∣ting to the Church? or, after this time, any thing (at all times) necessary accrued to the Church? And as Soto must answer affirmatively to both these last demands, whether he can answer or no to the first: so I must out of his affirmations conclude presently, That neither in the days of the Apostles, nor during five hundred years after, and more, the Church had all necessaries to attain her own proper end; which is no other but salvation. Then which nothing can be said more impious and horrible, by Soto or any other.

To the first reason of Franciscus Victoria (wherein he discourseth thus: that because the Republick Ecclesiastical is perfect, and sufficient for it self, that is, sufficiently empowr'd to attain its own ends: therefore it hath power to make such laws as are convenient for the administration of the Church: and therefore also consequently, if the exemption of Clerks be so convenient, this Republick may enact laws for such exemption.) I answer 1. That for this, which is, a Republick to be perfect and sufficient, or simply to the perfection and sufficiency of a Republick is not required that it may enact all such laws as make for its greater splendour and glory, but onely such as are necessary for its being, safety, and condition. And that I have shewed already heer in this section, That laws of Ecclesiastical exemption are not such, that is, are not necessary for its being &c. nay or either for its well being, safety and conditi∣on, as it drives to its own proper ends. 2. And that if this be not admitted which I say in this my first answer, it must follow out of this reason of Victoria (which himself too, a little after it, confesses to follow) That the politick, temporal, or civil commonwealth, whereas it is also perfect and self sufficient (vz. in its own nature of such a commonwealth) may also make laws to the prejudice of the spiritual, if such laws do seem convenient to the decor and Majesty of the civil. Nay this conveniency doth wholly ruine their purpose. For I demand whether is most convenient, that secular Princes, and for the security of their secular principalities, and greater splendour and Ma∣jesty of them, still retain that civil power over Clerks which the laws of God and nations give them over Clerks; or that the Church, to the end her self may seem or be more adorned and more dignified, bereave Princes of that power, even against their known will, and maugre all their opposition by laws and arms? What if the Church shall find it sometime convenient also, to subtract from the yoake or obedience of Princes, even a great part of the very meerest Laicks to be as emancipated persons or freemen evermore at the pleasure of the Church, ready to serve her as the Patroness of their freedom, and serve her too against their former Lords? That convenient is of too great and too too dangerous extension.

To the second reason of the same Francis Victoria (which was, that the Pope might by his own proper authority choose Ecclesiastical Ministers not∣withstanding any contradiction of the civil power. And therefore may up∣on the same ground exempt such Ministers from secular iudicatories.) The answer is that the reason is vain.

First, because we know that no man is bound to be a Clerk, not even albeit the Pope should elect or appoint him for Clerkship. Or (which is that I mean) that it is not in the Popes power to fix on this or that meer Layman, and force or command him to Clerkship (at least to such Clerkship as hath so many burdens annexed to it by the positive canons of the Church onely.) Although I confess it is in the Popes power, as belonging properly to his office, to choose out of the whole number of such as freely offer them∣selves whom he shall think fittest: and have these ordered and appointed Mi∣nisters of the Church.

Secondly, because we know and that in the primitive Ages of Christianity, when established by law, as the religion of the Empire, such have not been admitted to Clerkship, whom the Emperours prohibited, or by their laws incapacitated, as much as they could, from that course of life. For hence it is we read so many laws (in the Code of Theodosius and Justinian) concer∣ning such as ought not to be admitted to Clerkship, and commanding such to be degraded and secularized again who were admitted contrary to such laws: even laws made by most Christian and most Orthodox Princes, the Ro∣man Emperours Constantine the Great, Valentinian the elder, Arcadius and Honorius, Theodosius the younger, Leo and Iustinian. Tis a clear case, ex C. Theodos. Tit. de Episcop. & Cler. l. 3. l. 6. l. 19. & passim illo titulo. and in the Code of Iustinian, Tit. de Episcop. & Cler. l. 4. l. 12. l. 16. l. 27. & in authen∣ticis Iustiniani collat. 9. Tit. 6. novel. 123. de sanctissim. Episcopis. Nay do not we read how Gregory the Great himself (that no less holy then learned Pope, and zealous Defender of all the true liberties of the Church and canons of the Fathers) admitted in the year 592. nay promulged the law of Mauritius, wherein this Emperour enacted that no persons obnoxious to accounts or debts, nor souldiers also who had not served their full time in the Warrs (that is, so many years as by law they ought before they could sue for a dismiss) should be received to a Monastical life in Monasteries? nay that notwithstanding this holy Pope himself conceived this law to be unjust in it self, that is, taken strictly and generally in all cases and to all such persons and souldiers, yet in his letter on this subject to the same Emperour (which is 16. Epistle. l. 2. Registri. cap. 100.) he signifies his own obedience in recei∣ving or publishing it in divers parts of the world (vz. throughout the Oc∣cidental parts of the Empire) though withall to satisfie his own conscience, he in the same letter expostulate the injustice of this law with the Emperour: concluding nevertheless all that very letter with these words of perfect sub∣mission and obedience. Ego quidem jussioni subjectus, eamdem legeni per diver∣sos terrarum partes transmitti feci, & quia lex ipsa omnipotenti Deo minime con∣cordat, ecce per suggestionis meae paginam serenissimis Dominis nunciavi. utrobi{que} ergo quae debui exolici, qui & Imperatori obedientiam praebui, & pro deo quod sensi minimè tacui. Which import as much as, that having declared to his Impe∣rial Majesty his own judgment of the injustice of that law, and consequently paid to God what was from himself in that business due to God: and yet having at the same time sent that very law according to the Emperours com∣mand into divers parts of the world to be published and observed, he had also paid to Cesar what was herein due to Cesar. Therefore I have (sayes he) on both sides done what I ought, who have done my obedience to the Emperour, and yet have not past in silence what I thought was for the service of God.

Thirdly and lastly, because he concludes nothing at all. For did we grant, that the Pope may at his own pleasure fix on persons, and command and force them to be ordered Clerks against their own will; yet will it not fol∣low

that he may therefore, or indeed upon any other ground, subtract or exempt them from the secular power, either supream or subordinat, unless it be first supposed, that whoever is once a Clerk, is also exempt from the civil power. But here we dispute not whether Clerks de facto, now are so exempted by any law or power; but whether the Pope or Church might de jure at any time exempt them so, even against the contradictory will of all civil laws and and powers. Which that the Pope or Church might or may do, that argument will never prove. Because such exemption is not of the essence of Clerk-ship, nor at all necessarily annexed thereunto: and Clerks might have been chosen by the Pope and other Bishops of the Church, nay, and have been so actually chosen for many hundreds of years, and even, for some hundreds too after the Emperours were themselves Christians, when as yet the same Clerks enjoyed no such exemption by the laws, or otherwise; but were, and by the very laws too of Christian Emperours, expresly ob∣noxious even to inferiour civil or lay Judicatories.

Now the Reader may judge whether I grounded well that last part also of my defiance made to the Divines of Lovaine? That is, whether I had not reason to defye them (as I have Sect. LXII.) to shew as much as any one con∣vincing, or even probable argument of natural reason to prove a power in the Pope or Church to exempt Clergiemen from the cognizance and coercion of the supream civil Prince or laws, under wich they live as Citizens or Subjects, or live at least as reputed Citizens and Subjects?

LXXI.

To cleer all whatever I intended, either principally or incidentally in the former Section LXX: it remains that I tell the Reader briefly, that Bellar∣mine was too too confident also, where and when he said against Barcley (as we have seen above in the said last LXX. Section, immediatly going before this) That not only the Pope could exempt all Clergymen from the supream civil power, or could declare them formerly exempted so by the law of God, but also that he hath de facto already exempted them, or declared them ex∣empted so by the law of God from all Princes and States on earth, even in all politick, civil, criminal, and other causes whatsoever mixt of both. Pe∣tuit tamen & voluit summus Pontifex illos eximere, aut jure divino exemptos de∣clarare, sayes he, adversus Guliel. Barcl. c. 38. For although it be not my task, nor any part of my defiance or undertaking in my above LXII. Section, or any other place in this book, nay though it be unnecessary as well in it self, as for me to shew here, that no meer and sole Papal Canon hath any such thing (for we know that meer papal Canons, or such as are made only by the Pope are not, hoc ipso, canons of the Church, nor also hoc ipso that they are inserted in the Decrees of Gratian, or Decretals of Gregory, or Sixt of Boniface, or Clementines of Clemens, or Extravagants of Iohn the XXII. not to speak of those other late canons of other Popes, whereof Petrus Maffeus comprised a seventh book of Decretals: and my defiance was concerning those canons which are truly and properly, or simply called canons of the Church; videlicet, such as are made by General Councils, or if at first by National or Provincial Councils, or if by the Pope alone, yet after have been canonized by General Councils, or at least generally received by the Chur∣ches: and my assertion of other canons, how otherwise Papal soever, is, (what is too of many Catholick Divines and Churches) that they are not simply the canons of the Church, but canons of such or such particular Chur∣ches, as made or received them; yea, notwithstanding any extension so∣ever of such by his Holiness; and consequently, that no concluding or con∣vincing argument of general right in the whole Church, as no infallible truth, can be derived from them as such:) yet I would here advertise such Readers as are carried away, and hurried into a belief of any thing, which hath

(right or wrong) the papal Authority, or that of a meer and sole papal Constitutions for it; not examining any further the truth of justice of it, or whether the Pope could determine any such thing, or upon what grounds, or in what sense, and by what power he determined it: I would, I say, advertise here such of my Readers, that not only not Bellarmine himself, but no other whom I could hitherto meet or read, hath brought us yet any proof even of this very latter part of his said confident assertion, for his voluit: that is (I mean) for as much a•• any one Popes having by his own pa∣pal Power, or pretence of such power, de facto already, whether right or wrong, exempted so all Clergiemen from the supream temporal Magistrats in all civil and criminal causes whatsoever: or as much as declared them ex∣empted so by any law of God: and for any Popes having done, or willed so expresly, or clearly and indubitably on the very question, either by decre∣tal Epistle, or by Bull, or other Constitution whatsoever defining the case, and commanding all Christians or Catholick Churches to believe this Ex∣emption in Bellarmines latitude, as given so; nay, or even as granted by any power or law whatsoever ecclesiastical or civil.

That Bellarmine hath brought no such proof, the matter is clear enough: being he alledgeth no more to this purpose for either part, but those sayings or decrees of Cajus, Marcelline, Gregory the Great, Symmachus, Iohn the VIII. and both the Innocents: all and every of which I have already answered (as they occurr'd in their proper places) and shewed that none of them is home enough to this purpose. Beside, that I have proved some of them either suppositicious or corrupt: and others to no purpose at all, either this we have here, or that for which they were brought there where I treated them.

And that no other Doctors, Canonists or Divines, of Bellarmine's way have better arguments for his said voluit, or that imported by it, any one may perswade himself that please to read them, where they of purpose treat the matter of Ecclesiastical liberty: and yet more especially where they dispute of the several Excommunications in Bulla caenae, pronounced at Rome yearly and with so much solemnity by the Popes against all infringers whatsoever (even Princes, Kings, and Emperours) of the said Ecclesiastical liberty. Wherein yet the Reader will find no other of any Pope's having so by him∣self, and by his own power exempted Clerks, or having declared them so exempted by the law of God; but either some of those I have already answer∣ed, or some other as little pertinent, if not far yet more impertinent some of them then some of these I have already given. Ioannes Azorius's & Martinus Bo∣nacina's collections of such arguments, or canons of Popes alledged by them and others to this purpose, may serve to judge by of all. For I have diligent∣ly observed all the chapters of the canon law, whereunto they remit us for proof that by the canon law Clerks are so exempted. Azor hath them in his fifth book of his moral Institutions, cap. 12. And Bonacina, who was a professed Canonist, a Doctor V. I. as well as of Divinity, and who seeks no other rule of truth or justice in any matter, but some kind of meer papal de∣termination, hath also quoted them in several parts of his moral Theology, as de Legibus d. 1. q. 1. pu. 6. n. 29. and in oct. decalog. praeceptum, and de Re∣stit. disp. 2. q. 9. pu. 2. and de contrac. d. 4. q. 2. pu. 1. Parag. 1. & finally, Bullae caenae. d. 1. q. 19. pu. 2. And yet besides those texts I have treated already, I find no other, but cap. non minus de Immunitate Ecclesiae. cap. Adversus. cod. tit. cap. Clericis. de Immunîtate Ecclesiarum, in Sexto. cap. Ecclesia sanctae mariae. de con∣stitutionibus. and cap. seculares. de foro competenti. in Sexto.

But none of all these canons have any such matter at all as a clear express and formal, nay or as much as a virtual diffinition of the Popes in the point, or (as to the case) of the persons of Clerks being so exempted, by the Pope himself, or being so declared by him to have been formerly exempted by the law of God, from all even supream civil power in all cases, or even in any temporal cause whatsoever, criminal or civil. For besides, that some of

these canons are not sole and mee•• papal canons, out of General Councils also, or of Councils at least reputed General, and consequently no proofs of the Popes having by, his own sole authority willed so, or exempted so the Clerks, or declared them formerly exempted so by the law of God: it is clear enough.

1. That cap. Non minus. de Immunitate Ecelesia. (which is taken out of the nineteenth Chapter of the third General Council of Later••n, held under Alexander the Third Pope of that name, and Frederick the Second Emperour, and as such inserted by Gregory the Ninth into his Decretals) speaks only against such particular Consuls and Rectors of Cities, as contra∣ry to both the civil laws and customs received amongst Christians, oppressed the Church-lands and Church-men, by laying more grievous taxes on them then Pharaoh did on the Children of Israel, and besides, did wholy evacuat the jurisdiction of Bishops: and only decrees by this canon, as by a canon of Discipline, for such only it was, that such oppressors should be excommuni∣cated. Where you see there is not a word to our purpose. For who doubts but the Fathers of this Lateran Council, or even the Pope alone, might just∣ly complain of, and decree against such oppressors, notwithstanding the per∣fect entire subjection of all, both Clerks and Bishops, in all criminal causes, and even of the Church-lands too in other matters, to the supream civil Po∣wer? They might have excommunicated such Consuls and Rectors for op∣pressing only the Laicks against the civil laws and customs, or otherwise against justice.

2. That cap. Adversus. eod. tit. which is also not a meer or only papal Con∣stitution, but (according to the Decretals) of another General Council, that is, of the Fourth of Lateran, under Innocent the Third, and the 46. constitu∣tion of those of this Council (if indeed the printed Acts or Canons of this Council be true ones, or be the canons of this Council, or if indeed this Council made any canons at all) and how ever it be, is but as the former, a canon of Discipline only: That, I say, this cap. Adversus. as inserted by Gregory the Ninth, in his Decretals, and under the above title, de Immunitam Ecclesiarum. l. 3. tit. 49. declares no more, but that the said Fourth Lateran Council prohibited likewise the particular Consuls and Rectors of Citties (as the former did) not to oppress the Church, or Church persons, with tallies, collections, and other exactions. And besides this, nothing else from the Pope himself, but that neither should the Churchmen themselves, & of them∣selvs freely consent to any taxes imposed, or desired by such consuls & rectors, without the Roman Pontiffs leave: and that if any constitutions were made, or sentences given to the contrary, all should be void. Where you see nothing yet is said to our purpose. Nothing but against oppressive taxes, contrary to law and former customs, and taxes too imposed by the Consuls only, and Rectors of particular Cities. Nothing in specie against even any such oppres∣sive taxe, tallies, exactions, collections, laid or made by an absolute order, law or constitution of the supream civil power, or of Kings, Emperours, States, who certainly are not understood by the names of Consuls and Rectors of Cities. And (however this of taxes of Clerks be) nothing at all for the ex∣emption of the persons of Clerks from the supream civil power in all other civil and criminal causes whatsoever: which only is it we dispute of here. Nothing besides, but what was convenient for the Government of the people within the Popes own temporal Patrimony: for which only the addi∣tions of Gregory were, unless it pleased other Countreys, and of themselves to receive his said additions. Finally, nothing but what the Pope Innocent might as justly have decreed, in case he believed certainly that Clerks had their exemption, whatever it be, from the sole civil power, as if he had be∣lieved they had it only from the Church, or from himself, or some other of his Predecessors in the See of Rome.

3. For although cap. Ecclesia sanctae Mariae. de constitutionibus. be a meer papal constitution of Innocent the Third only, and hath indeed an expression which imports some such thing, as the exemption of Churches, and of the persons too of Churchmen from the power of Laicks; yet forasmuch as this expression is not specifical, or not in specie, relating to, or comprising the very supream lay power it self, but so generical only as these words (which are the words there concerning this matter) Nos attendentes quod laicis (etiam religiosis) super Ecclesiis & personis Ecclesiasticis nulla sit attributa potestas: and consequently, forasmuch as these words may have a very true and rational sense, notwithstanding the subjection still of the persons of Clerkes to the supream lay power; because the civil laws or customs which prevailed at that time under Innocent the Third (or which is the same thing, because the Emperours themselves) had given or permitted under themselves to the Church and Churchmen proper Ecclesiastical Judges for all their own both civil and criminal causes, how ever still subordinat Judges in such causes to the Emperours (and the same must be said of other Kings, who had grant∣ed the like Ecclesiastical Judges:) and moreover; forasmuch as this canon or chapter of Innocent is only a decision of a particular controversie in matter of a possession controverted betwixt a certain Church, called here the Church of S. Mary, and a certain Convent, termed likewise in this canon the Convent of St. Sylvester; which possession was adjudged by a certain lay judge, called Senator, against the said Convent, & without previous confession, conviction, or examination of the same Convent; and those words above, or meaning of them, no part of that which was intended or decided by the Pope in this canon; but assumed only, and that also transiently as in part importing his reason, or motive to remand that possession back to the said Convent; and that we know the reasons, motives or suppositions expressed in a sentence or canon, are not therefore defined by the Pronouncer of the sentence, or ma∣ker of the canon: and further yet, because those words neither distinguish nor determine by what authority or law (that is, whether by divine or hu∣mane, civil or ecclesiastical authority or law) it was so enacted, that lay∣men could have no power in the causes of Church-lands or Church-men: and because too they say nothing at all of any Pope's having made such a law, whether by a true, or only pretended power, as did incapacitat all kind of Laicks, even the very supream civil Magistrate himself, or indeed as much as the very subordinate inferiour lay Judges from having any judicial authority over Churchmen: finally, because those words of themselves take away no such authority from Laicks, but only at most signifie the not being of such authority attributed to Laicks, whatever those Laicks were, and by what means soever it came to pass not to be attributed to them: therefore it is plain enough this canon, Ecclesia sanctae Mariae, is to no purpose alledged for Bellarmin's voluit, that is, for the matter of Fact of any Pope's having done so, or having exempted so by his own Power all Clerks from the jurisdiction of even supream lay Princes, or even of having declared them so exempted by the law of God himself.

4. That albeit also cap. seculares. de foro competenti. in Sexto. and cap. Cle∣ricis. de Immunitate Ecclesiar; be two meer Papal canons, as made by the sole authority of Boniface the VIII. and although it be confessed this Pope did challenge all the both spiritual & temporal power on earth in Church and State to himself alone, as likewise consequently to his Predecessours and Successours in the See of Rome (which his extravagant Vnam sanctam. De Majoritate & obedientia. and his other proceedings against a King of France, besides the later of these two canons here quoted, the said cap. Clericis, can prove abundantly:) yet I dare confidently averre that neither of these ca∣nons of his (however otherwise too too exorbitant, at least the later of them) comes home enough to prove that any Pope hath de facto by his own meer Papal authority exempted Clerks, in all civil and criminal causes, from the

supream civil coercive power of Lay Princes, or hath de facto as much as de∣clared or defined that Clerks have been so, or are so exempted by the law of God, in such causes from the said supream power of temporal Princes.

That for the former canon seculares. de foro competenti. the case is clear enough out of the very words and whole tenour of it. Which being but short I give here altogether, not omitting one word. Seenlares judices qui (licet ipsis nulla competat jurisdicto in hac parte) personas Ecclesiasticas ad so∣luendum debita (super quibus coram eis contra ipsas earum exhibentur litterae, vel probationes aliae indueuntur) damnabili praesumptione compellunt, a temeritate hujusmodi per locorum Ordinarios, censura Ecclesiastica decerninus compescendos. where you see first, there is not one word, directly or indirectly, of criminal causes, but only of a civil in matter of debt. Nor secondly, any specifical comprehension no nor any comprehension at all of Kings, States or Princes; but onely of those inferiour persons whose peculiar office it is to be judge, twixt party and party. Nor thirdly is there any word here declaring by whose law or authority (that is whether by that of the Pope or that of the Church &c.) it came to pass that these very inferiour Lay Judges have no jurisdicti∣on (in hac parte) in a civil cause of debt, challenged on a Clerk: or declaring how it came to pass that the proceeding, judgment or determination of a Lay Judg in such a cause of debt, challenged on a Clerk, should be tearmd heer damnable presumption and temerity. Yet reason tels us that Boniface supposed a former law or priviledg exempting Clerks in such a cause; the breaking of which law or priviledg most have been it which he calls heer damnable pre∣sumption and temerity. But who made this law or gave this priviledg, whe∣ther Emperours and other Kings; or whether the Pope alone or even with other Bishops, or also whether God himself immediately, this canon of Bo∣niface determines not at all. And though Boniface therein commands the Or∣dinarie to proceed with Ecclesiastical censures against such Lay judges as would presume to give sentence in a cause of debt against a Clergieman: yet so might Boniface have done, nay and justly too have done, if such a law of exemption had been formerly made by the supream civil power, and onely by this power. Because even in this case Clergiemen had acquired a civil right not to be proceeded against by such inferiour Lay judges. And conse∣quently the Bishops might use the censures of the Church for defence of it (as they might for defence of any other civil right in either Clergie or Laye∣ty) until the same supream civil power did repeal such law, or transferre again such right. For so long and no longer should this law of Boniface, for excommunicating such Lay Judges by the ordinaries, continue. So that out of so many heads, either joyntly or severally taken, it appears this cap. seculares. de foro competenti. in 6. is no sufficient proof at all that ever any Pope hath as much as de facto exempted Clerks in criminal causes from the supream civil power; though I confess, it must have supposed them formerly exempted by some power in some civil causes from inferiour Lay Judges. But what's this to purpose?

7. That for the later of these two canons, or cap. Clericis. de Immuni•• Eceles. in 6. though it cannot be denyed that Boniface flew so high therein, excommunicating all Rectors, Captains, Powers, Barons, Counts, Dukes, Princes, Kings, Emperours, &c. who imposed on or exacted or even received from Churchmen or Churchlands or goods any kind of burdens, tallies, or collections, and halfs, tenths, twentieths, hundreths, or any other portion or share whatsoever of their profits or revenues: as likewise all Prelats and Ec∣clesiasticks whosoever both secular and Regular who should pay any such under what pretext soever without express permission from himself, or other Bishop of Rome succeeding him: though I say all this cannot be denyed to have been so notoriously done by Boniface, that it was necessary to correct so great an extravagancy of his, and correct it even in a general Council, which soon after his death followed under Clement the V. at Vienna in France, and

to revoke it wholly; as may be seen by Clementina. Quoniani. de Immunitate Ecclesiarum; yet I say withal that Boniface decreed nothing in this very chap∣ter, Clericis, that may be alleadged with any reason for Bellarmine's voluit; that is, nothing for a power in the Pope or Church to exempt Clergiemen in cri∣minal causes from the supream civil coercive power of very meer temporal Princes; nay nor for a power in either to exempt Clerks from such payments. Not for the former power: because he speaks onely here of such payment: and such payments are very different from other causes, criminal, or civil also. Nor for the later: because albeit he proceed so vigorously against all such as would either exact or receive such payments, how freely soever made otherwise, or would submit or consent to such payments without his own ex∣press consent; yet all this he did as supposing the lands and other goods of the Church, and the Churchmen themselves before exempted from all such payments; and yet determines not here, nor else where, it was by the power of either Pope or Church they were so before exempted. And Boniface perswaded himself that by what power soever they had been so exempt, or by what law soever, divine or humane, civil or Ecclesiastical, those of Empe∣rours or Kings, or those of Popes or other Bishops, it was his own part to see an exact observance of such exemption, and that he might to this end make use of his Ecclesiastical or spiritual censures. And questionless had his sup∣position been true in the whole latitude of it, concerning an exemption so general (from all kind of tributs, taxe, &c. in all contingencies whatso∣ever, and by what power soever, even the highest supream civil on earth, laid on, or received from Churchlands, Goods, or Persons: he might, ob∣serving due moderation, command under meer and pure spiritual censures the due observance of such exemption, though granted only by the meer temporal power and civil laws. But this supposition was not right, and he exceeded therefore, and therefore too this Decree of his was totally annul∣led in the above Clementina, Quoniam: as I have said already.

8. That for the Bull, which is commonly called Bulla caenae, as being year∣ly, and with so great solemnity published and renewed at Rome on Maundy Thursday, when the last Supper of our Lord is specially remembred (whence it is that name of the Bull of the Supper is derived) nothing at all can be concluded from it for any such voluit of Bellarmine. For albeit amongst twenty special excommunications contained therein against several sorts of persons or delinquents, there are at least four large ones with a huge variety of clauses particularly against so many sorts of infringers, or presumed infrin∣gers of Ecclesiastical Exemption, Immunity, or (as that Bull calls it) Eccle∣siastical Liberty; videlicet. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. Excommunicati∣on: yet as the Pope assumes not, pretends not in this Bull, that himself there∣by gives that liberty: so he determines not therein who gave that liberty, immunity, or exemption to Churchmen: whether God or Man? And if man, whether the Popes themselves or Church? or whether not the Empe∣rours and Kings? As neither doth he there determine that in truth they had formerly from either God or Man, or Pope or Prince, or State or Church, all those liberties, or even any in particular of those liberties, against the infringers of which he proceeds in that Bull with so great seve∣rity. The Pope therefore only supposes, that Churchmen had by some law, or some fact of God or Man, of Church or State, or of the lay Princes and people, these liberties. But from which, he sayes nothing in the Bull. Now we know, that suppositions are no arguments of a determination in the case. For so our own School-Divines, and Bellarmine himself elsewhere (de Con∣cilior. authoritat.) and truth it self do teach us: whereof I have before given the reason. Whence it appears evidently, this Bulla caenae is to as little pur∣pose alledged (as any of those former papal canons) for the Popes having been he that gave de facto Ecclesiastical Exemption from either supream or subor∣dinate

secular Judicatories in temporal matters, whatsoever that exemption be indeed, or truly amounts to.

I pass over the little value many Countries of the Pope's even very strict communion, and both many great and Catholick, and Classick Authors too, even very great sticklers for the Papacy it self, as de jure divino, have for this Bull, or obligation of it, yea, notwithstanding all the solemnity used at Rome every year in renewing it. How yet they will not receive nor pub∣lish it, nor suffer it to be published amongst themselves: nor hold themselves obliged at all by the publication of it, either at Rome, or in other places. Whereof, as enough may be seen in Suarez and Salas, de Legibus, where they treat of this subject, so that was a notable instance which happen'd at Brussels in Albert and Isabels Principality over the Low Countreys (resigned to them for ever by the King of Spain Philip the Second) when the Nuncio Aposto∣lick there at that time, an Italian Archbishop, thought he had met with such a conjuncture as therein he might introduce that Bull: and therefore caused it to be affixed to the gates of the great Church of St. Gudula; yet by com∣mands from the Council of Brabant and Archbishop of Mechlin, it was pre∣sently torn and pulled down: quia non accessit placitum Principis: and there∣fore too any further publication, or observation of it prohibited ever since. Which relation I had my self from the reverend Fathers de Young and Der∣kennis, two famous professors of Divinity in the Colledge of the Jesuits at Lovaine, when I studied in that University. But whether this be so or no, or whether the great number of those very famous Catholick Divines, quoted by Suarez and Salas (and by others too) who maintain stiffely, that Bulla caenae obliges no man in any Diocess out of the temporal Patrimony of the Ro∣man Bishop (as neither any other Bull of the Pope, at least in matters of Discipline) where not legally both published and received by the particular Churches, Bishops, Princes, Clergy and People) whether, I say, that great number of Divines be well grounded, or no, in maintaining so the invalidity of this Bull of the Supper, without a special publication and recep∣tion in every particular Diocess: neither the one (viz. of that relation of the Fathers) nor the other (to wit, of these Divines) matters one pinn. For I have shewed already, that whether so or no, whether without such par∣ticular publication and reception obliging or not obliging according to its tenour, it hath not one word or clause to prove Bellarmin's voluit, if by voluit he understand what he ought to our present purpose: that is, if the Pope's having actually, or de facto (as much as in him) exempted Clerks by a Decretal Epistle, Bull, or Brief, or other Declaration whatsoever (suffici∣ent for such purpose, as much as according to the doctrine of the very Ro∣man Divines) and exempted them too even from the very supream civil power it self of temporal Princes or States.

For I confess, that if any will understand by Bellarmine's voluit a meer in∣clination, affection, or good will of Popes to do so, if they had found it fea∣sible, or according to the rules of prudence to do so, that is, if they feared not to loose all by doing so: it may be granted, and ought to be granted, that within this last five hundred years many Popes have been spirited so: whereof that conroversie in particular of Paul the V. with the Venetians in the year 1606. is for that one Pope a very notable instance. But withal it must be grant∣ed on the other side, that either this is not it which Bellarmine intended by his voluit, or at least that he intended nothing to even his own purpose. For such a will signifies nothing: because not executed. The contests therefore of several Popes with several Princes or States about jurisdiction, as relating to Clerks, argues no more but that such Popes did suppose, or at least would have others believe they did suppose Clerks already, or by some former law of God or Man, or by humane custom in some places, left in all causes whatso∣ever to the Court Ecclesiastical. But argues not that any of themselves, or other former or latter Popes whosoever did so exempt, or attempted to ex∣empt

them so. And for their suppositions, or euen admonitions, and com∣minations of censures, nay, or actual and manifold censures fulminated in such controversies against their opposers: it is apparent in Ecclesiastical Hi∣story they were little regarded by Princes or States, or by other particular Churches of the papal communion, or by their Divines. Whereof also, be∣sides the State of Venice, and several other Kingdoms and Principalities, we have a most singular argument in the proceedings of Philip the Second, that most religious and Catholick King of Spain, when (after the Usurpation of the Crown of Portugal by Anthony the Bastard, Prior of Crati, who by the faction and countenance chiefly of the Churchmen of Portugal got himself crown'd) he reduced and subdued Portugal to himself as the more lawful Heir of that Kingdom. For Spondanus ad Annum Christi 1581. tells how this great Catho∣lick King expresly refused to extend to the religious of Portugal his Act of general Indemnity, which in the general Assembly of Estates held by himself at Lisbone, the said year, he granted all those other Portugueses had opposed his title, or the Duke of Alva his General, or who had submitted to the said Anthony. Nay, excluded positively in the same Act, and from the benefit of it, all the Regulars or Monks of Portugal: and besides them none at all but the said Prior Anthony himself the Bastard Usurper, (illegitimate Sou to Prince Lodovicus) Franciscus Portugallus Count Vimiosi, Iohn his brother Bishop of Guar¦dia, & fifty other principal ring-leaders of Anthonie's faction. And tells moreo∣ver, that notwithstanding the general discontent arising from such exclusion or exception, and notwithstanding all the frequent expostulations and supplicati∣ons to his Catholick Majesty to mitigate this rigour, he could never be wrought upon until at least two thousand Priests and Monks had by several kinds of violent deaths in several places, partly within Portugal it self, and partly abroad in the Islands of Azoras, been destroyed in the prosecution of the warr against the relicks of Anthoni's Faction: whereof also many were said to have been privatly dispatch'd. It is true indeed, that Thuanus L. 74. quoted by Spondanus ad annum Christi, 1583. relates how it was rumour'd, that Philip by his Embassadours at Rome obtained a Bull, wherein the Pope pardoned him the killing of two thousand persons consecrated to God by a sacred and religious life. But it is also true, that neither Spondanus himself, though a very precise religious Catholick Bishop, and a great defender of all just laws of Popes, and priviledges of the Clergy, nor any other Historian or Writer I have yet seen reprehends, nor tells that any other Divine or Clerk, or even the Pope himself did reprehend King Philip as having violated Ecclesi∣astical Immunity or Exemption by such his proceedings. What therefore might be the cause of his desiring or accepting such a Bull, if the story of it be true, we may easily conteive to be, of one side, King Philips inexorable ri∣gour (I will not say cruelty) first in excluding so many thousand religious and sacred men from all pardon and grace, and next in pursuing and destroy∣ing them as irreconciliable enemies when he might have made them very tractable Subjects: and on the other, the Popes pretence of even the tem∣poral Soveraignty, or supream Lordship of the Country and Kingdom of Portugal, as having been made tributary to the Church of Rome by Alphon∣sus the first Duke and King thereof, according to Baronius ad annum Christi 1144. and the proceedings after of several Popes against some Kings of Portugal, upon that ground, by excommunicating and deposing some, insti∣tuting others in their place, and by exacting of them yearly, at first agreed upon under Lucius the II. four ounces of Gold, and after that, four Marks of Gold, under Alexander the IV. as an acknowledgement of his being the supream Lord of it, or of its being held in Fee from the Bishops of Rome. King Philip therefore to establish himself against the titles of so many other pretendents to that Crown, thought it the safest way, when he had done his work, to make all sure with the Pope for after-times, and get himself ac∣knowledged King of Portugal even by him who pretended to be supream

Lord of the Fee. Though otherwise it be apparent also in Baronius, that the Kings of Portugal did acknowledge so much dependence from the Kings of Castile, as being bound to appear at their Court when called upon, and give them three hundred Souldiers to serve against the Moors, amounts unto. But this could be no prejudice to a former independent and supream right of Popes to Portugal, if there was any such; especially whereas the same Bar∣nius makes Castile it self feudatary to, nay all Spain(a) 31.6 the property of the of See Rome: as likewise he doth, in several places of his Annals, all the King∣doms of Christendome, not even France(b) 31.7 it self excepted. And therefore nothing can be concluded from King Philips admission of this Bull, but either his remorse of having abused that power God gave him over those religious men, or used it, in so much, more like a Tyrant then a King (unless peradven∣ture he perswaded himself upon evident grounds they would never be true to him) or his wariness in seeming so the more observant of the Pope in all things (according to the maximes of Campanella) while he drove at the uni∣versal Monarchy. But however this be or not, its plain enough out of his so publick refusal in the face of the Kingdoms of Portugal and Castile, and in that publick Assembly of all the Estates, amongst which the Ecclesiastical was the chief; and out of his so long and severe prosecution and persecution of those Monks for three whole years, till he destroyed them all, and out also of the silence even by the Ecclesiasticks themselves of that argument of exempti∣on, when the occasion to alledge it was the greatest might be offered at any time: and finally, out of his receiving continually the most holy Sacraments of the Church all that time, without any reprehension or objection made to him by the Church of so publick, and so scandalous, and so bloody and sacrilegious violation of her pretended nearest and dearest laws: I say it is plain enough out of all, that, whatever the story be of that Bull, or what∣ever the true or pretended motives of King Philip to accept of it, neither his own Subjects of Spain or Portugal, Clerks or Laicks, nor those of other Churches or Kingdoms, either Princes or people, nor even the Prelats, or Pope himself that was then, did any way so regard the suppositions, or even ad∣monitions, comminations, nay or even actual censures of other Popes in their Bulla caenae, or otherwise, as to think & perswade themselves, that a true oblig∣ing canon or law, either of God or Man, of the State or Church, or even as much as of the Pope himself, could be concluded thence for any real or true exemption of Clerks from the supream civil power, in criminal causes. And so I have done with Bellarmines voluit. As for his other saying above, That hitherto only Hereticks have contradicted this kind of Exemption, even this so extraordinary and extravagant exemption of all Clerks in all temporal causes whatsoever, civil or criminal, from the supream civil and coercive power: I remit the Reader to the next following Section, saving one, where he shall see a farr other sort of Doctors then Hereticks to contradict it, even Austins and Hieroms, and Chrysostoms, and Gregories, nay, the whole Catholick Church in all ages, until these later and worser times, wherein the contest was raised first, and again renewed by some few Popes and their Partizans, against the supream temporal power of Emperours Kings and States.

Only you are to take notice here, Good Reader, That 'tis but too too fa∣miliar with our great Cardinal, to make Hereticks only the opposers of such private or particular (but false) opinions or doctrines of his own as he would impose as the doctrines of the Catholick Church on his undiscerning Rea∣ders: as, on the other side, to make the most notorious Arch-hereticks to be the patrons of such other doctrines as himself opposes, and would fright his Readers from, how well and clearly soever grounded in Scriptures, Fathers Councils, Reason. Which is the very true genuine cause, wherefore he gives us (where he treats of such questions) so exact a list of those chief and most notorious Hereticks, who held against him on the point, and gives them also in the very beginning of his chapter, or controversie, whatever it be. As in

this of Ecclesiastical Exemption, besides what I have quoted now out of his book against Barclay, cap. 35. he tells us, l. de Cleric. c. 28. First in general, that very many Hereticks contend that all Clerks of what soever degree are de jure ••••vin by the law of God or by the same law ought to be subject to the secu∣lar power, both in paying tributes and in judicial proceedings or causes. Se∣condly that Marsilius de Padua and Ioannes de Ianduno (though Catholick Lawyers to Lod••uick of Bauer the Emperour, but esteemed Hereticks by Bel∣larmine, because some tenets of theirs were condemned by Iohn the XXII. Pope of that name) taught, that not even our Sauiour himself was free from tribute: and that what he did Mat. 17. when he payed the didrachme or tribute money, he did not freely without any obligation to do so, but ne∣cessarily, that is, to satisfie the obligation he had on him to do so. Thirdly, that I••hn Calvin l. 4. Institut. c. 11. Parag. 15. teaches that all Clerks ought to be subject to the laws and tribunals of secular Magistrats, excepting only such causes as are meerly Ecclesiastical. That Peter Martyr in cap. 13. ad Ro∣man, not only teaches the very same; but further adds, that Princes could not give Clerks the priviledge to be exempt from, or not to be subject to the politick Magistrats; because (sayes Martyr) this would be against the law of God and therefore that, notwithstanding any concessions of Princes, Clerks ought alwayes to be subject to the secular Magistrats. And that Ioannes Bren∣tius, in Prologam••nis, and Melanchthon, in locis, cap. de Magistrat. subject Ec∣clesiasticks, to the secular Tribunals, even in matters and causes Ecclesiastical.

But who is so weak as to be frighted from any truth, because maintained also, or asserted by some lyars? Or who knows not that all, both Hereticks and Arch-hereticks too, joyn with the most orthodox in ma∣ny both Philosophical and Theological, Natural and Moral, Divine and Hu∣mane positions, and even in very many of the most precise uncontroverted revelations of Christian Faith? Must it be suspected to be a Christian Truth, that Jesus Christ is the Messias promised, that he is the Son of God, that there are three persons in the Godhead, that there are some Sacraments of the new Testament, that Christ was born of a Virgin, that he suffered for Mankind, that he shall come to judge the quick and the dead, &c. must, I say, any of these be suspected (not to say rejected) because Melanchthon, or Brentius, or Martyr, or even Calvin himself, or Luther beleeve and main∣tain them against other Hereticks? If therefore they, or any other such as they, taught also this truth of Clergiemens not being exempt from but sub∣ject to the supream civil coercive power of Princes (which only is it I un∣dertake here to maintain) must Bellarmine therefore think to fright us from saying the same thing, although we say it not at all, because they did? And yet I must further tell the Readers and Admirers of Bellarmine (although my task here require it not)

1. That our Saviour himself by his non scandalizemus eos, in Mat. 17. suffici∣ently proves, that not even himself was altogether so free, but that as the ful∣filler of the old Law and Prophets, and as the giver of a yet more perfect law for the salvation of mortals, and as a pure man he was bound (videlicet, by the rules of not giving just cause of scandal and ruine to others) in that cir∣cumstance to pay the di-drachma. And that Marsilius de Padua, or Ioannes de Ianduno, were not condemned, nor censured at all for saying, that any pure man, who was not together both God and man (as our Saviour Christ was by the wonderful union of both natures) or that any other, besides our Lord, or even for saying that Peter himself was not exempt from the supream temporal power in temporal matters.

2. That, if Calvin pretend no more but that Clerks ought to be subject in politick matters to the supream temporal Magistrate, and where the same temporal doth not exempt them, insomuch he speaks not his own sense, but the sense he was formerly taught in the Catholick Church; which yet in so many other points he unhappily deserted.

Thirdly, That although, if Martyr be understood also of inferiour Ma∣gistrats, as I doubt not much he ought to be, his addition be absolutely and simply false; yet if understood of the supream onely, as perhaps others may understand him, and of Clerks living still as Subjects under any such temporal power supream, and acknowledging and owning it for such, and themselves for Subjects, Martyr was not out by saying in this. Hypothesis, that Princes could not in secular matters exempt Clerks from the secular Ma∣gistrat, vz. from the supream secular.

Fourthly, That although also, if Brentius and Melanchthon understood by causes Ecclesiastical, those which are purely and originally such, and not those which by custome onely or concession of Princes (or because onely permitted or delegated by Princes or their laws to the cognizance of Ecclesiastical Judges) are now and have been a long time called Ecclesiastical, vz. per deno∣minationem extrinsecam, by an extrinsick denomination from such Ecclesiastical Judges, not by any intrinsick assumed from the nature of the causes, which in themselves otherwise are meerly civil or temporal, as for example, usury, adul∣tery, theft committed in Sacred places, or of Sacred things, &c: I say that although, if not this latter kind of Ecclesiastical causes, but the former, be understood by Melanchthon and Brentius, and if they further mean'd that Clerks are to acquiesce finally in the judgment or determination of the temporal Magistrat in all such pure Ecclesiastical, or purely spiritual causes, it must be confessed their doctrine or this meaning of it is very false and heretical; yet if they understood onely the second sort of Ecclesiastical causes, and by secular Magistrats intended onely the supream secular, it must be also confess'd that in so much they spoke orthodoxly.

Besides, that none may upon rational grounds deny to Kings and other supream temporal Governours a certain kind of external and temporal or politick and civil superintendency even of the very truest and purest Eccle∣siastical or purely spiritual causes of the Church; such as are those of be∣lieving this or that to have been revealed by God: of Ministring the Sacra∣ments in this or that manner, and with convenient or decent rites, &c. Pro∣vided they do not use, nor attempt to use immediately by themselves, or even mediately by others and by vertue of their own proper authority, other means or execution of such superintendency, but such means and execution as are meerly temporal and corporal, or such as are answerable to the civil power and sword. Which kind of superintendency, and supream civil co∣ercive judicatory power annexed, and I mean also annexed in order to such spiritual causes, no man will deny to Kings, that will consider it is onely from their supream coercive power the Ministers of justice derive authority to put any man to death for Apostacy, Infidelity, or Heresy, in Faith or do∣ctrine, or Sacriledg in the administration of Sacraments. For it is not the Bishop or Church, that by any power Episcopal or Church power adjudgeth any Clerk to death for denying or renouncing Christianity, or any Priest for poysoning his communicant at the Sacred Altar, or with a Sacred or unsa∣cred hoast; but the King and State, and their laws and power. So that these onely are still the supream Judges for temporal and corporal and civil pu∣nishment or coercion, whether by death or otherwise, and let the cause be never so spiritual, or let the crime be committed in matters, or things never so purely strictly or solely Ecclesiastical.

And therefore if Brentius and Melanchthon intend no more but this, by saying that Ecclesiasticks were not exempt, but subject even in causes Eccle∣siastical to the supream civil power: they both meand and sayed in so much but what the Catholick Church had taught them. As if they meand any more, that is, if they meand to say that Ecclesiasticks were bound to stand or conform always, or in all causes Ecclesiastical, or even in any at all purely such, to the sole decision made by the secular power of what was to be believed in point of Divine Faith, or of what was to be acted in point of a good

conscience: they erre most grossely in this, as they did in so many other tenets in other matters. And yet all sides must confess that in such causes, or in such manner, Ecclesiasticks are no more exempt from the civil power then meer laymen. For both equally have the same Doctors and Judges of their Faith and of their conscientious or lawful actings in relation to the laws of God or Christianity: as both have the same supream civil Judges of tem∣poral, corporal, and civil coercion.

LXXI.

Behold Reader in these eight last Sections (which are from LXIII. to LXX. both inclusively taken) the particular proofs or particular reasons of the Procurator's defiance to the Divines of Lovaine by his first) general reason for his second answer given (LXII Section) to the fourth ground of the Lovaine censure. For albeit (as he noted before in that LXII. Section) he needed not have given that second answer to the said fourth ground of the Lovaine Divines (the first answer, which he created at length in the LXI. Section immediately foregoing, having sufficiently destroyed this fourth pretence of the Lovanians: to witt their charging the Remonstrance of 61. and consequently all Clergiemen subscribers of it, with renouncing or dis∣clayming in Ecclesiastical exemption) yet he would ex superabundanti give that very second answer (you have seen in the said LXII. Section) videlicet,

That granting the Remonstrance had &c. even formally and by express words declared against all pretences whatsoever of any such thing as Ecclesi∣astical Immunity on exemption of the persons of Clergiemen from the su∣pream civil or temporal coercive power of the Prince or Magistrat (provi∣ded still it did not declare, as verely it does not, against that which is indeed the real, true, and well grounded exemption of Clergiemen from inferiour civil Judicatories, according to the respective civil laws or customs of several Kingdoms, and as farre as the respective laws or customs do allow such exemption from such inferiour Judicatories) yet neither the Divines of Lovaine, nor any other could justly censure it therefore.

And the Procu∣ratour would also give this second answer, of meer purpose to dilate him∣self at large and at full on this subject of Ecclesiastical exemption, and to ravel the whole intrigue of such tenets and arguments in this matter, which have so often occasion so much trouble & confusion in Christendom. Which was the reason too that, of meer sett purpose also, he gave those two general reasons in the above LXII. for this second answer: of which two general rea∣sons the first was that he defied those of Lovaine or any other Divine or Canonist in the world to shew any law divine, either positive or natural, or any law humane, ei∣ther civil or Ecclesiastical, for such exemption: or, which is the same thing, to shew any one text of holy Scripture, or any one tenet of Apostolical tradition, or any canon at all of the Catholick Church, or even as much as any kind of passage out of the civil laws of Emperours, nay as much as any one convinting or even probable argument of natural reason, to prove power in the Pope or Church to exempt Clergiemen from the cognizance and coercion of the supream evil Prince, or laws under which they live as Citizens or Subjects, or literal at least reputed Citizens or Subjects. And the self-same purpose of ravelling that whole intrigue was the cause he spent so much time and took so much pa•••••• ••••ther too (in eight long Sections) to descend to and give so many particular proofs of the reasonableness of this defiance, by answering for fully and clearly (as he thinks he did) all sorts of arguments hetherto alleadged by Bellarmine or any other against that second answer, or against the subjection of Clerks to the supream civil coercive pow∣er of Princes, or, which is the same thing, alleadged for the exemption of Clerks from this power.

But forasmuch as the Procuratour not onely so defied the Divines of Lo∣vaine by that his first general reason for his second answer to their fourth ground; but also by his second general reason, for the same second answer, confidently said & writ (LXII. Section) that on the contrary he durst undertake against the Divines of Lovaine to prove there is no such exemption, nor can be: and with much evidence to prove this even by clear express texts of holy Scripture, in that sense the holy Fathers generally understood such texts even for a whole thou∣sand of years: I therefore now proceed to those particular proofs also of this second part, or of this so confident undertaking, whereby the Procura∣tour in his discourses of that Remonstrance more directly assumed (when oc∣casion required) the person of an Assailant, as in the former he did that chiefly of a Defendant. And because these particular proofs, or reasons given by him for this second part, and the confutations of Bellarmine's replyes to some of them (for some also there are, which either Bellarmine saw not, or if he saw them, did neither well or ill replye unto) will take up some few sheets more: I will observe the same method I have hetherto in answering Bellarmine's arguments for his own assertions: that is, will treat them in several Sections apart, for the Readers more easy finding and understanding what I would be at. For my next Section, which is in order the LXXII. shall give my first three arguments; whereof two are out of Bellarmine's own concessions: as I shew also by further argument, that in point of either Theological or Philo∣sophical reason, such concessions, and even as inferring my conclusions must be made by him and all other men that will speak according to natural reason or Christian Religion. And the third argument I take to be a general maxime granted by all Statists, Canonists, Philosophers, Divines, nay, by all men on earth; though Bellarmine hath not a word of it but tranfiently, answer∣ing it as ridiculously. My LXXIII. Section gives at large the fourth argument, which is purely Theological, and is that grounded on the 13. to the Romans, according to the general and unanimous exposition of that passage by the holy Fathers, until the age of Gregory the Seventh. My LXXIV. im∣mediatly following, shall give some instances of their practices according to this their doctrine: and some canons too of Popes and Councils. And my LXXV. some few remaining objections, and answers to them. But my LXXVI. and last of all on this subject of Ecclesiastical Exemption, or as relating to it, or to the fourth ground of the Lovaine Censure, shall inferr my finall conclusion out of all; that is, out of these next following five, and out of the former eight Sections: & shall withal consider the meaning of the word Sacriledge, & of these other, to be repugnant to a sincere profession of the Catholick Faith. (For the Cen∣sure of Lovaine sayes our Remonstrance contains somewhat repugnant to the sin∣cere profession of the Catholick Faith: and consequently sayes too, the Subscri∣bers are bound under pain or guilt of sacriledge to refix their Subscripti∣ons.) And shall further conclude not only out of these last XIII. Sections, treat∣ing particularly of Ecclesiastical Exemption, nor only out of the LXI. Secti∣on immediatly going before them all, & shewing that Remonstrance disclaims not, quits not, renounceth not, nor as much as touches upon Ecclesiastical Exemption; but also out of those other eight yet more precedent Sections (from LIII. to LX. both incusively taken) which dispute against the three first grounds of the said Lovaine Censure: I say, that my LXXVI. following Section shall further conclude finally and generally against this Censure of sa∣criledge, and of containing any thing against the sincere profession of the Catho∣lick Faith. And then I will return immediatly to matter of Fact, which I have so long interrupted by these intervening disputes: and will in a few Sections more, three or four at most, end this first part, which the necessity of relating such material disputes have made so prolix.

LXXII.

Therefore to begin, and give in this present LXXII. Section, those my first three arguments, to prove with much evidence (as I have undertaken) that no Clergiemen whatsoever living within the Dominions of any supream tem∣poral Prince or State, are exempt from, but subject to the same Prince's or State's supream civil coercive power, in all meer civil, temporal or politick matters and causes whatsoever:

My first of them is briefly formed thus. Whatever natural and meer civil, temporal jurisdiction, or politick power, authority, or dominion was in any supream temporal Prince (as for example, in Constantine the Great) over any Christians whatsoever, Laicks or Clerks, before he became Christian by baptisme, in re vel in v••to, or by a perfect entire submission to the laws of Christianity, the same natural and meer civil temporal or poli∣tick jurisdiction, power, authority and dominion over all the same Christians, Laicks and Clerks, remained in him after he was so become Christian; unless he did expresly, and of his own accord devest himself of it: and excepting the case, wherein the law of Christ hath some formal or virtual caution, or provision for the exemption of some of those Christians from that power; if any such case be.

Behold the major of this my first argument. Whereof yet the further proof is, Quia lex Christi neminem privat jure dominio{que} suo, Because the law of Christ, or true profession of Christianity, deprives no man of his right or domini∣on, nor consequently of his natural, or of his meer temporal, civil or politick jurisdiction, power, authority, or dominion whatsoever; at least, unless in such case only, or in relation, to such persons only, who are so exempt∣ed by special provision in this very law, if any such case or persons be. Non eri∣pit mortalia qui regna dat calestia, is, in this point, the profession of the Catholick Church: as may be read in the sacred Hymne, Hostes Herodes impie, which is part of the publick divine Office of the same Church, in the Breviary, & on the Feast of the Epiphany. And, Homo quis me constituit Iudicem aut divisorem super vos, was the answer of the holy Iesus himself to the man that would have had him com∣mand one brother to share the inheritance with another, Luke 12.24. And to Pilate also more clearly yet, Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo. Si ex hoc mundo esset regnum meum, ministri mei uti{que} decertarent ut non traderer Iudaeis: nunc autem regnum meum non est-hinc. Ioan. 18.36. And, Nonne manens munebat tibi, & venumdatum in tua erat potestate? was the argument of St. Peter to reprove Ananias for his lye and hypocrisie in seeming to have offered at the feet of the Apostles, for the common stock, the whole price for which he sold a piece of ground of his own. Actor. 5.4.

Out of all which, 'tis manifest enough, that even for what depends of Scrip∣ture, we must admit this reason (I gave for my proposition) or this maxime, and concession also of even Bellarmine himself, and of others of his way, Quia lex Christi neminem privat sure dominio{que} suo, as I have expounded it in English, and both modified & determined the genetical notion of right to that which is meerly temporal; and this temporal again with that particular exception.

But that quieting all advantage from those Scriptures, right reason it self (even supposing still all the uncontroverted, or certain truths of Christian Re∣ligion) concludes the necessity of admitting this maxime, lex Christi nominem privat jure dominio{que} suo, as I have given it: I demand of the denyers or distin∣guishers of it otherwise, First, whether Christianity leaves any pure temporal right (of any beleever) untoucht, or unaltered, or unalterable in any case? or whether it leaves the Subjects or the Kings property in any of their respec∣tive goods, lands, houses, unchangable, undiminishable, without their own con∣sent? And being no Divine or Canonist in the world can be so impudent, or so ignorant as to answer these queries negatively (because it is as clear as the

Sun, that all both the essence and necessary appendages of Christianity, that is, of Christs Kingdom, or law, and all the blessings and rewards, and also the very true, proper, genuine, and only ends of it, which are the grace of God in this life, and the glory of God in the next, acquired by poor mor∣tals, being purely spiritual, have no inconsistency at all with the temporal, civil, or politick rights continuing and remaining still not only unchang'd, but also unchangeable in the beleevers, without their own free consent for changing or depriving themselves of such rights:) I demand secondly, wherefore the law of Christ is said by any, or how can it upon rational grounds be said by any Divine or Canonist not to alter, change, deprive, or touch any one or moe sorts or kinds of temporal rights, and yet to alter, change, or de∣prive, or have the power to deprive (the beleevers) of some other sorts or kinds, or even of any one such at all, unless there be an express caution, or provision in the very law it self of Christ, that this particular civil right or property may be transferred from the former proprietours, and no other but this? And being it is evident enough this last querie cannot be answer∣ed, but by confessing that there can be no rational ground for saying so: and being that to this day neither Bellarmine nor any other could shew, or pro∣duce any passage of the law of Christ, wherein there is any such caution or provision; that is to say, any other but that only one in the case of a mis∣beleeving husband: it is also evident enough, that right reason it self, without any help from Scripture, teacheth the truth of that maxime, as I have taken it, Lex Christi neminem privat jure dominio{que} suo: For if there be a latitude, or li∣berty once given to mince these temporal rights, without an express or certain warrant in that law it self of Christ; it must be consequent, that, according to the caprichiousness or wilfulness of any either ignorant or interessed per∣son, the beleevers may be deprived now of one, and then of another, and at last of all kinds of civil rights, under pretext, forsooth, of their submit∣ting all to the pleasure of the Church, by their profession of Christianity: being that without such express warrant, caution, or provision, there can be no reason given why of one more then of another, or even why of one more then of all.

Having thus laid and demonstrated my first proposition or major of this my first argument: I assume this other proposition for my minor.

But there was a natural, or meer civil, temporal or politick jurisdiction, power, authority or dominion, which amounted to a coercive power in all temporal causes, in every supream temporal Prince; for example, in Con∣stantine the Great, over all Christians whatsoever, Laicks or Clerks, living within his or their dominions, before he or they became Christian, in re vel in voto, or by a perfect entire submission to the laws of Christianity: and there is no such formal, or virtual caution or provision in the law of Christ for the exemption of Clerks: and after his or their such entire submission, neither he nor they did expresly or tacitly (and equivalently) of their own accord, devest themselves of, or quit that power, not even I mean in order to any Clerks whatsoever, so living still within his or their dominions.

Ergo, The same natural, and meer civil, temporal, or politick jurisdicti∣on, power, authority and dominion, which amounts to a coercive power in all temporal causes, over the same Christians whatsoever, Laicks and Clerks, living within his or their dominions, remained in them and him, after he or they were so become Christians.

The conclusion follows evidently, the premisses being once admitted. And of the premisses the minor only remains to be proved. Which yet, al∣though having three parts, into the first of Clerks to have been subject in poli∣tick matters to the supream coercive power of heathen Princes, appears already, and sufficiently demonstrated in my former Sections, where I solved all the arguments of Bellarmine to the contrary from the laws divine, either positive or natural, and from the laws of Nations too: and shall yet more positively

and abundantly appear out of my very next immediatly following LXIII. and LXIV. Sections, where, by authorities of Scriptures and expositions of those very Scripture places by holy Fathers, and by examples or practice, accord∣ing to such expositions, I treat this matter, and prove this first part of this Minor at large. Nay, and shall appear too most positively and abundantly out of my second and third arguments of reason, either Theological or Natural (either ad hominem, or not ad hominem, but abstracting from all concessions ab homine) which follow in this very present Section. And therefore, to save my self the trouble of too much repetition, I remit the Reader to those other Sections and arguments, the rather that Bellarmine himself never scrup∣led in his first editions of his controversies, nor ever until he saw himself in his old age beaten from all his other retreats by the writings of other Ca∣tholick Divines & Canonists against him; and consequently the rather, that this matter, of this first part of my foresaid Minor is now so little controverted that scarce any can be found of such impudence as to deny it, notwithstand∣ing Bellarmine's illgrounded chang•• or opposition in his old age; whereof more presently. And as to the second part, of no such formal or virtual cauti∣on, or provision in the law of Christ for the exemption of Clerks: the very self same Sections which demonstrate the first part do also this. But for the third or last part of this Minor, which was, that after their conversion to Christianity Princes did not quit, or devest themselves of this supream coercive power of or over Clerks, &c: I need not say more here or elswhere then I have before in answering Bellarmine's arguments out of the civil laws of Empe∣rours, Section LX. And nothing els but alleadg the known general and con∣tinual challenge of all Christian supream civil Magistrats, Emperours, Kings, Princes, and States, to this very day, of that supream coercive power of Clerks in all politick matters, and their actual practice accordingly at their pleasure and when occasion requireth.

Notwithstanding all this evidence, Bellarmine strugles like a bird in a cage. For though he had not this argument framed against him & dilated upon at full as I have heer; but onely pressed by that bare maxime, Lex Christi nemi∣nem privat jure dominio{que} suo (objected to him by William Barclay) he answers thus (contra Barclaium, cap. XXXIIII.)

It is true (sayes he) the law of Christ deprives no man of his right and dominion, (proprié & perise, quasi hoo ipsum intendat, nisi aliquis culpa sua privari mereatur,) properly and intentional∣ly: or that of it self, or of its own nature, it deprives no man so, as intending to deprive him so, if not in case of demerit when a man through his own fault deserves to be deprived of his right or dominion. Yet when it raises laymen to a higher order, such as that is of Clerks: we must not wonder that consequently it deprives Princes of the right or dominion they had over such men whiles in a condition much inferiour. Nor are there examples wanting in other things as well prophane as sacred. 1•• The King rayses a pri∣vate man, till then subject to an Earl, and rayses him I say to a Principality. It must be confess'd, this Earl is consequently deprived of his Lordship or domi∣nion which till then he had over this man nay perhaps further even subjected consequently to this very man, whose Lord he was so late. The Pope rayses an ordinary or simple Priest to a Metropolitane, a Priest subject otherwise to a Suffragan Bishop: and by such creation, without any injury to this Bishop or Suffragan, places consequently such a Priest in a Metropolitical power of command over even the very Ordinary under whom he was immediately be∣fore. A unbelieving, heathen, or infidel husband had the right of a her band to and dominion over his infidel wife; she is converted to the Christian Faith, he remaining still an unbeliever. And the law of Christ doth without injury deprive him of all right evermore too that woman, if she please. Even so by a marriage done or contracted by words of the present time, a Christi∣an husband acquires a right to such a Christian wife: and yet if she, before consummation, please to ascend to or embrace a higher and holier state of

life, or that of a Votress in a Cloyster, within the tearm of time limited by the canons for deliberation, the law of Christ deprives him, not per se, but consequently, of that right: for the law of Christ intends not to de∣prive him of his right; but to honour her being now raysed to a higher de∣gree. Finally a Son hetherto in his Fathers power, being created Bishop, the Father is by the same law deprived of his Fatherly power: not as intend∣ing any injury to the Father, but because it is undecent that a spiritual Fa∣ther should be subject to the power of his carnal Parent. Hetherto Bellar∣mine.

But who sees not that however this answer or this distinction of Bellarmine, as made to Barclay insisting onely on that bare maxime in such general tearms, might at first hearing seem to drill on a little more time. yet as made to my argument here, and my restriction, caution, and modification of that very maxime, it must both seem and be altogether impertinent and unsignificant, even as to require any further time to retort or oppose either member of it? For I added expresly in my Major (as in my Minor what was answerable) unless or if not in a particular case wherein the same law of Christ disposed otherwise by an express formal or virtual caution or provision: such as this is, and onely this case is of an unbelieving husband, and believing wife: wherein the law of Christ by the writings of the Great Apostle St. Paul, expresly provided otherwise.

Yet forasmuch as abstracting from it as made or possible to be made by any and with any ground against my argument here, it may nevertheless con∣tribute to the understanding of the more unlearned that I consider and ex∣amine it throughly, and all the instances of it as objected to Barclay (or even whether objected or not objected to him or any other:) the Reader may be pleased to observe

1. The vanity and unsignificancy of this solution or distinction of Bellar∣mine. For indeed in his words per se ac propriè, quasi hoc ipsum intendat, and in his other word consequenter, which are the two members of his distinction, he gives us different words or sounds onely; but not different things import∣ed in the case by such words: because that which by a contradistinction he would have onely to follow consequenter, and not propriè or per se quasi hoc ipsum intendat (that is, to follow onely consequently, and not properly and of it self, as intended by the Pope) doth indeed follow properly and per se, and is indeed most directly intended. And consequently Bellarmine's distinction is no distinction at all, because in effect it hath not a second member: being that which he gives for a second is not excluded by but comprehended under the first. Which I demonstrate thus.

The better and sounder part of both Divines and Canonists maintain the exemption of Clerks whatever it be, to be de jure humano: and that it is not against the law divine, that one be a Clerk and being so, be also always or in all temporal causes whatsoever subject to the civil Magistrates both supream and subordinate. So that the constitutions or laws made for the exemption of Clerks were not at all necessary for the essence or being of Clerkship: that is, that to this of any mans being ordered a Clerk or Churchman, and so assumed to a higher order and ranke, it was not necessary that there should any law at all have been made for the exemption of Clerks. If therefore the Pope had by his constitutions or canons decreed, that Clerks should be exempt from the power of secular Princes, is it not clear that he had not intended to rayse them to a higher order, above Laicks (being they are all∣ready so and might be always so without any exemption both they who were already Clerks and all others too that pleased to be hereafter Clerks) but that he had by the power, or at least pretended power of the law of Christ deprived secular Princes of their civil right and dominion over Clerks, and which before such canons they had over Clerks: and even I say deprived them so, per se ac propriè quasi hoc ipsum intendens, even properly, and necessa∣rily, or by the very nature and essential import of such canons or constituti∣ons,

and even as intending to do so: for he had question lets intended this very thing, vz, that Clerks should be no more subject to secular Magistrats, not even to the very supream. But our most eminent Cardinal denyes in plain tearms, or in the first member of his distinction here, that the law of Christ hath any such effect: for in answer to this maxime, Lex Christi neminem privat jure dominio{que} suo, his own words are these, Verum est per se, ac propriè, quasi hoc ipsum intendat, &c. Therefore he must also denye with Barclay, that against the will of Princes, any such exemption might be given by the Pope or Church by vertue of the law of Christ.

But whether by such Exemption the Pope intend primarily to honour Clerks, and not primarily or directly to incurre or lessen Princes, but this onely consequently (as Bellarmine speaks) or whether the contrary be intended by him: who sees not the vanity of the solution, and that it is but a meer sound without substance? For if Bellarmine will have the exemption of Clerks to be de jure divino (as in his Recognitions, or last edition of his con∣troversies, and in his book against Barclay he pretends; but not easily per∣swades any that himself believed or was perswaded it to be) then follows manifesty that what Barclay so often with him assumed and praysed must be simply and without any distinction false, vz, legem Christi neminem privare jure suo, the law of Christ not to deprive any of his right: It must follow I say that this maxime or saying must be absolutely false: whereas these two are plainly repugnant and contradictory. Non privat jure suo Principem quod ha∣bebat in Clericos: and, privat jure suo Principem quod habebat in Clericos. Nor is it material to this of your being truly said to have done any thing, that you alleadg or plead your self to have done so out of favour to one, but not out of hatred to an other: being it is equally true, that you have robbed me of my goods, whether you have taken them away out of meer design to empoverish me, or to enrich an other.

2. That for the first instance of Bellarmine, or the case of a believing wife and unbelieving husband; besides that it hath no place against my argument, being it is a case and the onely case indeed expresly and particularly or even as much as virtually or tacitly provided for, as to our purpose in the law of Christ, or against the generality of that maxime (Lex Christi neminem privat jure suo) expressed in such general or indefinit words, without any excepti∣on: and that I have in my said argument or frame of it expresly provided against this instance: I say moreover against Bellarmine, and for Barclay, that to conclude thence as our Cardinal would is nothing else but to conclude Sophistically. And that Bellarmine himself, were he alive again, and being he is not, that his defenders must acknowledge so much, is very evident hence, that Barclay's argument as mine here, or his assuming this maxime, Lex Christi neminem privat jure dominio{que} suo, as this very maxime in it self, proceeds onely and is understood onely, or certainly should be amongst Christian Divines, of meer natural, civil, or politick rights, or such as are not by that law of Christ expresly or tacitly (but certainly however) spiritualized, or made properly and purely spiritual and supernatural by the proper signification of a Sacrament of the new law, to which they are elevated by Christ himself: who is questionless the onely Institutour of such Sacraments, and who might rayse any otherwise natural thing whatsoever, as he pleased to this Sacramen∣tal dignity, spirituality and supernaturality, both as to signification and effe∣ction too, or production of what effects he had thereby designed. Now who sees not or at least what Catholick Divine or Canonist sees not, that Matrimo∣ny, or the matrimonial contract, ordained for every Christian, that would choose that course of life, however amongst Heathens it be onely a meer na∣tural and civil contract, yet as engaged in by a Christian, it is raysed by the law of Christ himself to that purely spiritual and supernatural notion? And therefore who sees not, that Matrimony and all the rights acquired thereby, being now it is in Christian Religion a true and proper Sacrament of that Re∣ligion,

and consequently a spiritual matter and of pure Ecclesiastical notion; as such, must be dispensed and ruled by and according to the peculiar law of Christ, and his peculiar precepts for it, given either by himself immediately, or by his Apostles, and appearing to us either in the written word, or even in that which is called unwritten but universally in all ages and amongst all true believers received as such? And who moreover sees not, that not onely in that case of an unbelieving husband, nor also in that other case which Bel∣larmine instances of Matrimony contracted onely by words or consent betwixt a believing both man and woman, but not consummated (which kind of Ma∣trimony they call matrimonium ratum) but also in other almost innumerable cases, in this matter of matrimony, the right of a Christian husband or wife is taken away, or lost, which yet would not have been lost to or taken away from a Jew or Infidel, in the like case. It was lawful for for a Jew or Infidel to marry his Uncle's or Aunt's daughter. By the common laws and canons of Christians, this is now prohibited to Christians. It was lawfull for them in ma∣ny cases to give a Bill of Divorce. In the self same cases, this is unlawful for us; even Christ himself and by his own express command or Declaration enjoyn∣ing as not to do so. Behold how this maxime, The law of Christ deprives none of his right, is not to be understood of Sacramental and purely Ecclesiastical matters, or of such wherein that very law made express or undoubted pro∣vision. Therefore to speak yet further no less truly then precisely, we must say that albeit the law of Christ deprive no man of his right in any case whatsoever; yet this law by its own proper true genuine right and power, by that of Christ himself, who as the natural Son of God, had all right and all power in himself, as Lord of all, ordered this particular matrimonial right so as to be of spiritual and Ecclesiastical notion amongst Christians, and therefore to depend in many or most cases not of the temporal but of the spiritual power, not of the state, but of the Church. What hath this to do with other & meer civil natural or politick rights, or such as have not been at all spiritualized or supernaturalized by their elevation to the nature of a Sacrament, or otherwise, nay concerning which there hath not been any ex∣press or tacit provision made in the law of Christ for their being of Ecclesiasti∣cal notion at all, or subject to the power of the Church, but rather the contrary most expresly? To prove that such remain still untouch'd, unaltered in Christian Princes, notwithstanding their submission to the law of Christ, and remaine the very same that they were in these self same Princes, or in other before they were Christians, or even in any other Princes still as yet Heathen, that so com∣monly applauded and generally received maxime, Lex Christi neminem privat jure suo, was insisted on by William Barclay, and by his Son after him, against Bellarmine, in this matter of Ecclesiastical exemption: as intending onely to prove thereby, that Christ did not by his law alter or abolish the meer poli∣tical rights of any, Prince or Subject; but left them still in their former state, so farre from being abrogated that they were absolutely confirmed unto them; as will appear evidently (in my next Section) they were, and were so even by express decrees of that very law. And that amongst those meer political rights, that of a coercive power in Princes, and in all temporal causes, of and over all Clerks whatsoever living within their dominions, is not one: or that the exemption or subjection of Clerks in such matters hath been spiritualized or supernaturalized by the law of Christ: or that in the same law there is any express or tacit provision or caution that Clerks should not be subject so to secular Princes: I make no question the intelligent Rea∣der understands by this time that Bellarmine hath said nothing yet here to move the least scruple to any rational man. And therefore to proceed to the rest of his Instances, the Reader is to observe,

3. That what our learned Cardinal sayes heer, of a natural Father's loosing his Fatherly power over his Son, when this Son of his is created Bishop, must be alike erroneous with that of his depriving the Prince of his Princely power of

any persons when ordered Clerks. For it his meaning be that Bishops are freed from that Fatherly power, which is of divine right, both natural and positive, I say that sentence must be very Blasphemous: because expresly against the known law; of God and Nature. Wherein to dispense no creation nor elevation to what dignity soever, even Papal or Imperial, no law of man, nor power on earth, spiritual or temporal, or both together, can be alledged. But if his meaning be, that a Bishop hoc ipso that he is made, Bishop is freed from that fatherly command over him which meerly, and only depends of the civil laws: I say, this very commanding power, authority, Jurisdiction, or what∣ever you call it, cannot be taken away, or that the Father cannot be depri∣ved of it without permission from the temporal Prince: to whose care and will the keeping strictly to, or dispencing in the civil laws is committed, according as the respective civil laws or customs of Kingdoms are: and who may consequently, according to the same laws, deprive this or that private man of some civil right enjoyed by him formerly; if he find it so expedient for the publick. And I grant also what Bellarmine sayes of a power in the Pope to make a Metrapolitane, or Archbishop of a simple Presbyter, and conse∣quently to subtract him from his former Ordinarie's Jurisdiction: and of the like or unlike, and even more absolute power in the King to give the creation of an Earl to a private inferiour person, and place him in authority above an∣other Earl, to whom he was till then subject in many things, and perhaps even generally subject also to all his commands. But it is therefore I admit both, be∣cause that not only this simple Presbyter and this private person, but this Or∣dinary & other Earl too are subject respectively to the Pope & King: and that by the civil laws the King may for the publick good, and by the canons Ec∣clesiastical the Pope also may for the like publick regard, so and so dispose of such persons: no law of God or man being to the contrary. Is this to conclude the exemption of Clergiemen from the power of Princes, and against the will of Princes, and against all laws both divine and humane, and against all reason too, and given more over by a man who could not exempt himself, but was himself as subject as any other Clerk; and consequently by a man who had no power at all over either Prince or Clerk in such matters? Or is this to prove that the law of Christ doth exempt them, or impower the Pope to exempt them in temporal things: because forsooth they have a new spiritual creation, which yet reason tells us, and the Scripture teacheth to be, and that it ought to be very consistent, both in the creatour and created, with their subjection in such temporal things to the proper Rulers of the same temporal things?

Bellarmine therefore, seeing this first answer of his own, could not suffici∣ently defend him against the reasonableness of that maxime, Lex Christi ne∣minem privat jure dominio{que} suo, not even for all his instances (which I have now throughly canvassed, as much as is necessary to my purpose) found it his best way to have recourse to his Recognitions, or last Editions of his great work of Controversies, and particularly of his book de Cleric. cap. 28.29. and 30. and briefly, out of his said latter doctrine there, to give a second an∣swer to Barclay here (cap. 34. con. Barclaium) which in effect must be also to that part of my second proposition (or minor of this my first argument (where, also in effect, I said, That Infidel Princes, during the time of their infidelity, and be∣fore they became Christians, had a coercive power in temporal things over all Christians whatsoever, as well Clerks as Laicks, or in all temporal, civil and politick causes: or (which is that I mean'd, and do mean) had that power over Clerks, not de facto only, but even de jure Legis Christianae.

According to this second answer, Bellarmine admits, or at least sayes no∣thing to the first proposition or major of my above first argument; but flat∣ly den••es my second proposition or minor, chiefly for the first part of it: and sayes the law of God, as well positive as natural, exempted Clerks from all earthly secular Authority,(a) 31.8 from all meer worldly Principalities and Powers,

whether Christian or Heathen: and exempted them so, long before they had been in aftertimes exempted, either by the laws of Emperours, or canons of Bishops.

But yet further, and most specially and particularly endeavours to mantain this second answer (in his said 3••. chap. contra Barclaium) for what concerns the Pope's own person, or the exemption of the Pope himself, what ever be said of other Clerks, Priests, or Bishops whatsoever. For to William Barclaies argument pressing him thus, or in this form, besides, whereas the Pope himself hath not obtained his own exemption, or that of his own person only, by other law, title, or right, but by that of the bounty and beneficence of secular Princes (for as our Adversaries confess) he means Bellarmine in the first place, and in his former editions, which were those which only William Barclay saw) the Pope himself was subject de jure and de facto to Heathen Princes, as other Citizens were) it is very absurd to say, that he might free others from that subjection: least otherwise it might be said to him, Alios salvos fecit, seipsum non potuit salvum facere: I say, that to this argument of Barclay, Bellar∣mine answers (cod. cap. 34. contra. Barclaium) and answers also in these very tearms. Respondeo. Argumentum Barclaii duplicivitio laborat. Nam & antece∣dens habet falsum, & con••ecutionem viti sam. Falsum imprimis est, Pontificem non alio jure, quam Principum largitate & beneficio exemptionem suam nactum esse. Qui enim Vicarium suum in terris eum consti••it, is h••c ipso eum exemit ab omni potestate Principum terrae. Sed etiamsi jure subjectus fuisset Regibus, vel Imperatoribus Ethnicis: non tamen sequeretur cum subjectium quo{que} esse debere Re∣gibus vel Imperatoribus Christianis, nisi ipsorum largitate & beneficio eximeretur. Nam cum sit ipse super omnem familiam constitutus, & Reges at{que} Imperatores ab eo in eamdem familiam coaptentur, ut ab ipso regantur, & dirigantur, certé nulla ratio patitur, up ipse illis subjiciatur, quibus jure divino praesidet.

It seems our great Cardinal was reduced to very great streights when he was forced to contradict himself so notoriously, & even for the matter to change his Faith and Religion, if he would have (as indeed he fain would have) us to hold the exemption of Clerks, and especially of the Prince or Chief of Clerks (the Pope himself I mean) to be a matter of Faith and Religion. But, how∣ever this be of his change, or of his faith, or of his religion, or even sole opi∣nion, whether out of interest, or out of conscience, altered so strangely in his old age from that it was in the dayes of his stronger judgment, when he had much less to by ass him, and long before Sixtus the V. did threaten to burn his first Edition, partly for opposing the direct power of the Canonists, and even when first he appeared in the lists so gloriously, bidding defiance to all hereticks of all ages in the world: however (I say) this be or not be of his change: that this second answer, as relating first to the whole Clergy in general, nay, and to every individual of them (of whatsoever eminency, ex∣cellency, or dignity, even the very supream of that Order) is in it self un∣reasonable, 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 ar∣guments 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 Trea∣tise) where I at large, and of purpose, and by positive arguments of Scrip∣tures 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 parti∣cular 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, whe∣ther Princes will or not) I must give also here my animadvensions upon his rea∣sons, 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 rehe••••∣sed a little before) had two faults viz a false Antecedent and a vitious or ill in∣ferr'd Consequence; that antecedent of B••rclaye being, That the Pope himself had not his own exemption, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that of his own person, but from the meer liberali•••• 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 sub∣ject 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 po∣wer 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 what∣soever, 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,* 31.9 the Father gave Christ all things into his hands, and the power of all flesh, Pa∣ter 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 Savi∣our 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 spiritu∣al 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 tempo∣ral 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 dominio{que} 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 Sa∣viour appointed the chief Superintendent or Steward of the family in spiri∣tual things onely, and onely enabled with spiritual power, and with spiritual means also in the execution of such power? And consequently, that the Pope admits or introduceth Kings and Emperours into the Christian family that they may be govern'd or directed by him spiritually, what hath this to do with, or how doth it inferre the Pope's being exempted in temporal mat∣ters from those very Princes? no more certainly then doth the King's or Em∣perour's being made chief temporal Superintendent by God himself of the Christian family or of those of his own Kingdom or Empire, and no more then his admitting of or introducing of whom he please (of all forraigners, even Churchmen, Priests and Bishops, and let the Pope himself be one of them, as it may well be) into the temporal family of his Kingdom, Empire, or Court and Pallace, that they may be govern'd and directed by him tempo∣rally civilly or politically in all matters belonging to him, hath to do with or inferrs the same King's or Emperour's being therefore, exempt in spiritual matters from these Clergiemen over whom he superintends so, or whom he so admits or introduces unto his own temporal family, Kingdom, or Court.

But sayes Bellarmine, again the second time (cap. 35. adversus Barclaium) strugling yet to maintain his denyal of that first part of my said Minor, in general, as to all Clerks whatsoever or whosoever) concerning that of the

subjection of Christian Clerks to Infidel Princes, there being two sen∣tences, or opinions, as we have noted before, neither of them favours Bar∣clay. The true sentence or doctrine is, That Christian Clerks have been jure, that is, by the law of Christ, or of God, exempted from the power of Infidel Princes, albeit they had been, de facto, subject to them. And that he exempted them, as his own proper Ministers, who is truly said, or called Apocap. 1. in the first of St. Iohns Revelations, Princeps Regum ter∣rae, the Prince of the Kings of the Earth. Therefore, according to this sentence, that proposition of Barclay (which is the said first part of my Mi∣nor) is to be denied, which he no where proves, nor hath proved in this place, but assumes as granted; which yet indeed the more grave Writers do not grant, such as are all those that mantain Ecclesiastical Exempti∣on to be de jure divino. And yet were that proposition granted, that, I mean, of the subjection of Christian Clerks de jure legis Christianae, to In∣fidel Princes, Barclay would not, could not therefore conclude: for this consecution of his thence would be denied, Ergo Clerks are de jure sub∣ject also to the judgment and power of beleeving, or Christian Princes.

For all Catholick Writers, as well Divines as Canonists, deny this proposi∣tion, which is the second amongst those of Barclay here. And that conse∣cution would be, and is denied, because the supream Pontiff, that is, the Pope, hath absolutely exempted Clerks from the power of beleeving Princes, who acknowledge his power; but from the power of Infidel Princes, who do not acknowledge his power, he hath not so absolutely ex∣empted them, because he cannot force or punish these by ecclesiastical Censures. Besides, that consecution would also have been, and is denied, because the very Christian lay Princes themselves have so exempted Clerks from themselves: as understanding how great the clerical dignity is. Which, Infidel Princes have not done, as to whom that spiritual dignity was, and is unknown.

Hitherto Bellarmine, ubi supra, cap. 35.

How vain this reply is, first as to his law diuine, which he pretends, I have al∣ready shewed at large in my former Sections, where I handled his texts alled∣ged out of that same law Divine & will hereafter yet shew out of other clear texts to the quite contrary. Vnless perhaps he means, that that adorable title of Christ, which he brings here, Princeps Regum terrae, (and he might have ad∣ded too, Rex Regum & Dominus Dominantium) be an argument of such a law divine for the exemption of Clerks. But no man would be so out of his right senses (and I will not charge him with being so) being these titles might be as properly alledged for any thing or law whatsoever he pleased to impose on Christ, without any other kind of warrant. As for the title of Ministers given to Clerks, I have purposely said enough in my LXIII. Section, Leaving these titles therefore, and all other such or not such, let us demand of our learned Cardinal, by what words, in what place, book or chapter, hath this very Prince of the Kings of the Earth so exempted Clerks? Give us (Bellar∣mine) one material word out of holy Scripture, of Apostolical Tradition, that proves Clerks to be more exempted by him so then other Christians, even the meerest & seeliest Laicks? I have shewed, & abundantly shewed already you cannot. And next, how vain this reply is by his flat denial of that proposition, and saying it was no where proved, but assumed without proof, my next fol∣lowing Section will yet shew as clear, as the Sun: because over and above all said already by me for the negative, it proves of purpose, & in a positive way, & out of Scripture also, the subjection of all Christian Clerks (even de jure di∣vino vel ipsius legis Christianae) to all true supream lay Princes, whether Infidels or Christians, under whose, or in whose dominions they live. In the third place also, how vainly he tells us, that all those (whom he calls) graviores Scrip••eres, the more grave Writers, to wit, such as teach Ecclesiastical Ex∣emption to be jure divina, deny that proposition, viz. that Christian Clerks were de jure subject to Infidel Princes? For (besides, that I may, and do on farr better grounds (though at present it be needless to repeat them) deny those to be the more grave Writers, then he affirms, or can affirm them to be so) it is obvious to make him this reioynder, that the material querie or dispute, is not whether those Writers are so or no? or even, whether any besides him∣self? or even also, whether himself denied that proposition? but whether it may be in sound reason, or Christian Religion denied? And what, those argu∣ments are, that perswade it may be so denied? And as I am sure that Bellarmine hath as yet not given as much as one likely argument to prove it may be so denied; so I do averr the same of those others too, whom he calls the more grave Divines. Fourthly, how vain his answer is, by denying the consecuti∣on, or consequent, in case that Antecedent were granted; that is, by deny∣ing the subjection of Clerks to Christian Princes, to follow their having been de jure divino subject to the same Princes before they were Christian: how vain, I say, his answer is in this much, appears out of the vain grounds he gives for it, either in point of authority, or in point of reason. For the authority he pleads, for denying this consecution, is that (if we beleeve him) of all Catho∣lick Writers, as well Divines as Canonists. But surely, either he was not in ear∣nest,

or he did not esteem any of the holy Fathers, or holy Expositors of Scrip∣ture for a thousand years, nor any other of those most celebrious and Catho∣lick Authors, even Scholasticks, even eminent men, and even within, all along down, the very last five centuries of Christianity (since the Schools begun) to have been Divines. Then which to esteem, or say, nothing could be esteem∣ed, nothing could be said more untruly or injuriously; as will appear out of my allegations in my next Section of at least those indeed the most eminent, nay the only indeed eminent Divines, for matter of authority and belief to be given their sayings, without further examination or expectation of their rea∣sons. And the reasons which he gives, and which you have presently seen above, being only these two (viz. that the Pope absolutely exempted Clerks from Christian Princes, but not absolutely from Heathen Princes: and that the Princes themselves exempted the Clerks from themselves) are both of them demonstrated already by me to be without any sufficient ground even in the very papal canons, or Imperial Constitutions whatsoever: the first in my LXXI. Section; and the second in my LXVIII. & LXIX. Section: and by consequence proved to be manifestly false; though I speak it with all reverence to the dignity, and person also of Cardinal Bellarmine. Besides, I must tell our learned Cardinal, that I have also ruined already all those arguments framed by his grauest Writers to prove as much as a power in the Pope to exempt Clerks. So that suppose he did flatter himself, or impose on others, that some one Pope or other, or even many, or all of them together, or one af∣ter another had set forth Bulls of such Exemption, without the consent of Princes: all would signifie a meer nothing to prove that consecution of Barclaye to be no right consecution, unless Bellarmine did first prove by better Arguments, that the fact of Popes, or their decisions, must be con∣cluding arguments of their power from Christ to do so, or to determine so or so. Which, I am sure, Bellarmine himself hath never yet proved: and there∣fore, and for many other reasons yet farr more pregnant, am very certain that none else will, or can at any time hereafter prove. And what I say, and have said and proved before of Popes to have no such power, the very self same I shall in this very Section, and other following arguments therein, sufficiently prove of Princes: that is, that Princes have no power invested in them to exempt the Clerks of their own dominions, and such Clerks, I mean, as acknowledge themselves Subjects, or indeed remain so, and acknowledge too those Princes to remain still their Princes, Kings or Soveraigns, that, I say, such Princes (and all Soveraign and Christian Princes are such, as all Clerks of their own Dominions are such too) have no power invested in them to exempt such Clerks from their own supream earthly, lay, or secular power, in temporal causes. Whence also must be consequent that Bellarmine to no purpose alledged against Barclaye's consecution, suppose he did truly alledge it, that Christian Princes exempted Clerks, &c. And yet it is certain still he did not truly, but, for the matter it self, falsely pretend this exemption to be given by any Princes. Fiftly and lastly, how vain that reason is, which, besides that of Infidel Princes not acknowledging the papal Power, and Christian Princes acknowledging it, he gives for a further cause why the Pope exempted Clergiemen from the power of Christian Princes, but not from the power of the Heathen? But to consider the more clearly and throughly how vain not only that reason, but his whole answer is in this particular of Heathen Princes, and the difference he puts in the case, let us repeat his own whole Latin Text of this matter. Quoniam (sayes he) summus Pontifex Clericos ab∣solute exemit a potestate Principum fidelium, qui ejus potestatem agnoscunt, a po∣testate autem Principum Infidelium, qui ejus potestatem non agnoscunt, non ita absolute exemit, cum eos censuris Ecclesiasticis coercere non possit. A most vain discourse truly in the whole. For if all other Clerks were subject to Christi∣an Princes before the Pope exempted them, as this second answer must sup∣pose, certainly so must even the Popes themselves have been. For who, I be∣seech

you, exempted the Pope himself, that he might after exempt others? And have not I shewed (a little above) the vanity of Bellarmine's reasons which he brings to prove that He who is Prince of the Kings of the earth, Apocap. 1. ex∣empted so the Pope? Nor is that diversity, which our learned Cardinal puts 'twixt Heathen Princes and Christian, any one whit to the purpose, or such as you may thence conclude, that on the Clerks living in their Dominions, or under the one, more then on those Clerks living under the other, the Pope may bestow the priviledge of such exemption, that is, any exemption de jure, or by right and law, not in fact only. For, and for what belongs to the Popes right or power from Christ, if he could de jure by that right or power exempt from Christian Princes Clerks, otherwise subject to such Christian Princes, he should also the Christian Clerks living in the Dominions of Heathen Princes.

But (sayes Bellarmine) there is a diversity, a difference in the cases. And what is that? Quod Papa censuris Ecclesiasticis Principes infideles coercere non potuerit, fideles potuerit, that the Pope (sayes he) might not use towards in∣fidel Princes the coercion of censures (he means Interdict and Excommuni∣cation:) towards Christian Princes he might. An immaterial diversity in earnest, a difference to no purpose at all. For if Bellarmine's intention be to give this difference for what concerns the fact of exempting effectually, it might very well be, that Christian Princes, though loaden with censures from the Pope, though devoted by him to eternal maledictions, would no more de facto set Clergiemen free from their own cognizance, punishment, &c. then meer Infidel Princes against whom the Pope could not make use of his Ecclesiastical Censures. But if Bellarmine gives this diversity, or difference in relation to the pretended right, or power from Christ in the Pope for to attempt or endeavour to exempt Clerks, then must the reason be yet farr more absurd: as if the Pope could not de jure exempt Clerks, if he could not by his censures effectually break the rebellious contumacy of Princes. For I demand to what purpose would the Pope have fulminated censures in the case? Is it, that he would command Princes under the penalties ex∣pressed, that the Princes themselves should de jure exempt Clerks from themselves, that is, from their own regal Jurisdiction, both subordinate and supream? If this only be what is intended; Ergo, 'tis not intended that the Pope himself could by himself de jure exempt Clerks; but only that he could use means to compel the Princes themselves to exempt them so de jure. Or is it to command Princes under the prescribed penalties, that they should suffer Clerks to be, and live de facto, at liberty, whom he himself had already, or de jure set at liberty? And if this be the Popes design in fulminating such censures: then is it also plain, that this very allegation destroyes that vain pretence of any material diversity or difference in the cases. For, that I may omit what I said a little before, viz. that Christian Princes may be found (I should rather say, that all Christian Princes are de facto such) who would be no more effectually compelled, or moved to manumise de facto such vast numbers of Cittizens or Subjects, then the very meerest Infidel Princes: certainly this allegation, reason, or cause must be wholy conversant in matter of fact, not in that of right, because thereby it is not proved, that the Pope might rather de jure exempt Clerks from the yoake of Christian Prin∣ces then of Ethnick; but only that he might the more easily from, and by Christian Princes, get them de facto exempted, whom himself had before, de jure, exempted: which is nothing at all to the question. As for the rest, or that which Bellarmine alledgeth in the former words, viz. these, Clericos absolvte exemit a potestate principum fidelium, qui ejus potestatem agnoscunt, that the Pope hath absolutely exempted Clerks from the power of faithful Princes, who acknowledge his power; I have already above observed both falsity, and fallacy therein. Falsity: because the Pope is no where read to have ever yet made canons for such exemption; but only canons after, and in pur∣suance

of the exemption before granted by Emperors: which is not not the exem∣ption we dispute of here. For the truth is, that both Pope & Church receiv∣ed & vindicated, what they could, that ecclesiastical exemption was bestowed on them freely by Princes, & vindicated it as given to them by others, but not as having had it formerly of their own, either de facto, or de jure. Fallacy: because that although Christian Princes acknowledge the Popes power; yet they acknowledge this power, as such, to be no other then purely spiritual, or in spiritual things only. And by no means acknowledge such a power in him as may set loose, free, in all things from their own regal and temporal power, such a great number of their people (and this absolutely too: as Bellarmine thought fit to express himself.) For so much hath our learned Cardinal him∣self granted in effect, nay alledged, l. 1. de Cleric. cap 28. for the only proof of his second proposition there, which is, N••n sunt exempti Clerici ab obligatione le∣gum civilium quae non repugnant sacris canonibus, vel officio Clericali. And so much in effect is granted by him in that other book of his, which goes under the name of Franciscus Romulus; where he sayes (in Responsi••••te ad praec. capita Apologiae. pag. 114.) That Bishops ought to be subject in temporal mat∣ters t•• Kings, and Kings to Bishops in spiritual. Episcopi Regibus in temporali∣bus rel••us, & Reges Episcopis in spiritualibus subjecti esse debebunt.

Yet after such concessions, and notwithstanding such affirmations and alle∣gations, when the same are urged against himself to some purpose by Wil∣liam Barclay, he flyes presently to his vain distinctions and reserved sense, how inconsistent soever with any kind of rational or material sense. First, he tells

(••od. c. 28. l. 1. de Cler.) That although he said in his above second proposition, that Clerks are not exempti from the obligation of the civil laws, which are not contrary to the sacred canons, or Clerical Office; yet as he meaned only those politick laws which direct humane actions in temporal commerce; as for example, when the Prince or lay Magistrate ordaines a certain price of vendible things, or commands that none go abroad with armes at night, or without light, or that none transport or export corn out of the Province, and the like: so his meaning was not, that by such laws Clergiemen are bound ••verci••ely (obligatione ••••actina, for these are his own words) but only that they are bound by that kind of obligation which is called, and is solely directive (s••lum directiva, are his own words also) if peradventure the same civil laws be not approved by the Church. And that if the canons of the Church had ordered, or disposed of the very same temporal things, that is, had ordained, or prescribed how men should demean or carry themselves in the self-same temporal occasions or matters: Clerks would then be obliged to follow the disposition of the canons, whatever it were, even in such matters: and not be obliged as much as directively to observe the civil law; that is, would not be obliged to, or by the very directive part or virtue of the said civil law; and not only not to, or by the c••ercive sanctions of it, which pre∣scribe punishment: & tunc (or nunc) legem civilem ne directive quidem ob∣servare tenerentur, sayes he in plain terms. Secondly, he sayes (l. contra Barclaium, cap. 24.) That although Clerks be Cittizens, and a certain part of the politick State or Commonwealth, this proves no more, but that they are bound vi••rationis, by the force or vertue of reason; but proves not, they are bound vi legis, by vertue of the civil law it self. And sayes, he had no other meaning, that is, mean'd no other kind of bond or obligation, when, or where he brought (in his book of Clerks. cap. 28.) that argu∣ment of Clerks their being Cittizens or certain parts of the politick State, to prove his above second proposition, or, that Clerks were not exempt from the obligation of the civil laws, which are not repugnant to the sacred canons or cle∣rical Office. Thirdly, he sayes (cap. 15. lib. contra Barclaium) that Francis∣cus Romulus, in the above quoted place, speaks only of that subjection (de subjectione quam habebant Episcopi & alii Clerici ad observandos leges politic••s, &c.) which Bishops, and other Clerks had on themselves to observe the

politick laws, and not to disturb the politick order setled by Kings: even as (sayes he) the Popes Gelasius and Nicholas do teach, the one in his Epistle to Anastasius the Emperor, and the other also in his Epistle to the Emperour Michael, both whom Franciscus Romulus hath quoted. But hence (sayes our Cardinal) it follows not, that a Bishop may be forced by the King to obey, or may be punished by the King if he obey not: whereas the King hath no pow∣er at all over Bishops or Clerks; which is most manifestly read in the Coun∣cel of Constance.

Behold here the very quintessence of our most eminent Cardinals final Rea∣sons or doctrine of his contin••••al aequivocations and reservations in this mat∣ter. In effect therefore his answer to my second argument would be (were he to answer it in form) that he would in plain tearms deny the Major, to wit for the last part of it: and, for the former, distinguish the word Cittizens, parts, members, and again the word Subject. For he would say, that albeit whoever are Cittizens, or parts and members and not the civil or politik heads of the civil or politick common-wealth, Empire, Kingdom, Principality, as such, or as a civil and politick society, are subject to and not exempt from the politick head, pow∣er and laws (which is the first part of the Major) yet he would deny that which follows, as the second part of the same proposition, to wit this, nor consequently from the supream coercive power of it. And he would in the former part distinguish and say that indeed whoever are Cittizens, parts, members, &c. are subject either coercively or directively, or both: and that lay Cittizens or lay parts or members are both ways subject in all temporal matters; but Ecclesiasti∣cal members not otherwise but directively, and by no means coercively: and that such members (I mean Ecclesiastical) are then onely as much as di∣rectively subject when the canons of the Church do not order the same tem∣poral things.

Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea nodo? For what els do you see in the writings of this great Clerk, but a perpetual change from one doctrine to an other in this matter (and some other such) of the Pope and Clergie, as of the King also and Layety? one doctrine while he was young: an other when he was grown old: and in his old age it self so many distinctions and evasions, or rather confusions and contradictions, that we know not where to and him or what to learn from him. He would have the Clergie as politick parts or members of the politick common-wealth to be called Subjects to Kings, whom he confesses to be the Politick Heads, and he would have Kings to be called their Kings too, and not onely called Kings in relation to lay subjects; and he alleadges, and truly too alleadges that Clergiemen as well as laymen pray for them as for their own Kings (and we know it must be confessed by him they are so prayed for: being the very publick Liturgy in the mass book hath that publick prayer which all Priests and Bishops too mast say and sing publickly at the altar of God, wherein they say and pray for the King as their own King Et pro Rege nostro &c.) nay and he confesses too there in really an obligation whereby they are bound, and really a subjection which they owe to Kings; and yet after all he renders doth the names unsignificant, and things inconsistent. For I beseech you, how can the King be a King that is a supream politick head and Governour to the Clerks of his Dominions, or how can these they be politick Cittizens, parts, members, of his Kingdom or bound to him, or be his subjects, that is, be under him as such if he have no power of and over them or to command them or tye them by laws and pre∣cepts, or if he have not as much as a directive power to command them, or if they be not bound by as much as a directive obligation, that is by an obligati∣on arising or proceeding from the directive virtue of the command given or layed upon them? To be a King of or over any, or to be such a Head or such a Governour of any, implyes essentially a power to command him or them over whom he is such, and a passive tye of obedience in or obligation on him or them who are subjects, or truly or in any proper sense named subjects.

And yet Bellarmine sayes in effect, and gives it for his final Resolution (though in contradiction to himself elsewhere, nay and every where) that in order to Clerks there is no such power in the King in any case not even in the very meerest temporal whatsoever, nor any such obligation or tye on Clerks. For he sayes (as you have seen a little before) that Clerks are not bound to obey their Kings meer civil laws in meer temporal matters, whensoever the canons of the Church order the same matters: and sayes too they are not bound as much as by the directive virtue of such laws: and therefore sayes they are not bound at all; being there is no tye can be but either coercive or directive: and consequently must say (though again in contradiction to himself) the King is not King at all of Clerks; nor Clerks subjects at all to the King. For as the case hath already been in many even meer civil or temporal things that the canons or commands of the Pope (for both are the same, and the same too with these of the Church, as to Bellarmines purpose) have been even con∣trary to the civil laws of Kings and to their civil commands: so the case may soon be, and very well be, that is whenever the Pope shall please, that the canons be contrary in all such things. How then can the essence or essential nature of Kingship or of Prefection and Subjection, 'twixt the King and the Clerks of his dominions, be! And for the case that is at present, wherein some temporal dispositions, or a disposition in some temporal matters is left to the civil laws of Kings, or left I mean as yet untouch'd by Papal constitutions: who sees not plainly but that, according to the above other final doctrine and subtle distinction of Bellarmine, I mean his vi••rationis, and vi legis, there is not even in such things or in order to the civil laws or civil commands of the King any obligation at all on Clerks to the King or to his even such com∣mands or laws, nor consequently any power of Kingship in him even in such things or by such laws over Clerks, and as even now at present the case is? For he tels you plainly, that Clerks are not vi legis sed vi rationis bound, not even as much as directively bound by virtue of such law, but onely by virtue of reason. And yet here also he contradicts again both himself and reason too. Being that if they be bound by the virtue of reason to observe such a civil law of the Kings, that is by that of natural reason, or of a practical dictate of such reason (for I can understand nothing els by his vis rationis) which tells them they are bound in the case to observe such a law, then must it be that they are bound also vi legis, or by the at least directive virtue of the law it self. For it is plain that no otherwise do we conclude or gather or perswade our selves that Laymen are bound either by the directive or coercive part of such law, or that indeed any humane law at all, even Ecclesiastical, or perhaps too any law that most immediately divine obligeth us, obligeth any Laicks or Clerks vi legis, but onely hence that natural reason, or a practical dictat of our under∣standing (even that light of Gods countenance or that which God himself hath imprinted on us (signatum enim est super nos lumen vultus tui Domine, as King David sing) tels us we ought to observe such a law. If the like or same dictat be in Clerks, as Bellarmine here finally confesseth it is or ought to be in Clerks, for the observance of such a civil law in the case, who sees not the vanley and nullity of this distinction, vi rationis and vi legis? or who sees not, it is not a reasonable distinction, but a meer unreasonable evasion of different words or different sounds onely, without different things imported, or at least possible to be truly imported?

But having said enough to his vain distinctions, and his contradictions too and consequently to his meer non-sense in this matter: now, and that the Reader may not loose himself, nor I my self also in the main purpose of my above see ouer argument or of the Major of it, I return to my said Major: and as to all ••s parts, even that of the coercive power (which indeed is my main or rather onely design) prove it thus.

Whoever are politick Cittizens, parts, or members, and not the politick head of the body politick or civil common-wealth, as such, or as a meer

politick or civil Society, are so, with such obligations, politick members, parts or Cittizens of it, that all the very true, natural, essential, or proper ends of such a politick body or such a common-wealth may be naturally, that is humanely and ordinarily without miracle, attained unto and subsist.

But whoever are so, and with such obligations, politick members, parts or Cittizens &c, that all the very true, natural, essential or proper ends of such a common-wealth may be naturally &c. attained unto and subsist, are also and universally too in all kind of meer temporal things, and whether the Pope or Church make or not make laws or canons in the same things, and whether laws or canons conform or not conform, and are (I say) subject and bound to obey the civil power, laws, and commands of the politick head, and even bound (I mean) by both kind of obligations or the directive, and the coer∣cive.

Ergo whoever are parts, members or Cittizens &c. are subject also and bound to obey &c. even as to the coercive. And consequently Clerks who as men are so and under such obligations, Cittizens, parts, members, &c, are also subject even to the supream civil coercive power.

And verily, for what concerns the conclusion or illation, there is no man of so little reason that hath any at all but will saye it is necessary. And for the Ma∣jor, it is further hence most clearly evidenced, that the end for which any thing is, must have proportionable means, and consequently a proportionable con∣stitution of the thing it self in its essential being, to attain such end. And this I am sure needs no other illustration: being by all kind of reason and all kind of experience, if not ex terminis evident, as one of those are called propositiones per se notae, or at least as one of those are by all Divines and Philoso∣phers admitted as commons axiomes.

The Minor then of this proof of my second main argument from reason is all that needs further proof or illustration. And this we need not fetch or seek farre of. For is it not obvious first, that the very true, natural, essential, or proper ends of a civil or politick common-wealth, are the safety, and peace and quiet, and both just and comfortable living of every one member of it with an other, and of all members together, (without fear of fraud or force and violence to be used to any of them by any of the same common-wealth, or by any stranger too, as farre as the whole common-wealth, nay and as farre also as every part or even individual person of it can hinder any such fraud or violence? And secondly is it not obvious that these ends can not ever be attained, or if once attained, can never be long or even for any time and with any certainty preserved, unless all the Cittizens, parts, members, which compose this common-wealth, and which are (as it is hic & nunc com∣posed) either essential or integral parts of it, be bound universally or in all kind of temporal matters to observe the civil laws or commands of the su∣pream politick or civil Head of it, whether the Church make or not make laws in the same temporal things, and whether the laws of the Church be conform or not conform to those civil laws of the same politick Head, and unless too the same Cittizens, parts, or members be bound as well coercively as directively, nay both wayes bound, or (which is the same thing) by an ob∣ligation which binds them (and that also non solum propteritum sed etiam propter conscientiam, as St. Paul speaks, by an obligation of conscience, and not by that onely of the fear of the sword) both to follow conscientiously the direction of the civil laws or commands of their politick Head, where no sin is, and pati∣ently without resistance to abide the coer••ion of such laws, whether, in the judgment of transgressors, they implye or not implye sin.

That this second point (whereof all the dispute is; for I am sure the for∣mer will not be denyed by any) is obviously true and evident, I prove by that reason which Bellarmine himself alleadges (as notoriously evident) for proof of one part of it. For in his often quoted 28. chap. l. de. Cleri••. after he had given his above related second. The••••s or Proposition) that Clerks i••••e

not exempt from the obligation of the civil laws, which are not contrary to the Sacred Canons or Clerical Office, and after he had presently in that very place distinguish'd again, and said his meaning was, that they were not exempt from the obligation which is onely directive, or which tyes them onely (without coercion) to follow the direction of such meer civil laws which are not con∣trary to the canons: he finally proves his said Thesis and meaning thus: Be∣cause (sayes he that besides that Clerks are Cittizens and certain parts of the politick common-wealth) great troubles and confusions would arise in the common-wealth, if they did not observe the civil laws in civil commerce and humane conversation: and as the case is stated, there are no other civil laws but those enacted by the civil Magistrate; and the laws are concerning civil commerce and humane conversation. So that you see his ultimate reason for this kind of obligation (though indeed in it self unsignificant obligation) is because otherwise great troubles and confusion would arise in the common-wealth. Now to make use of this weapon also of Bellarmine against himself, and because what he sayes here is a very great and known truth in it self, and because moreo∣ver it proves all as well as that part of my second point (which I wonder Bel∣larmine did not see when he alleadged it) I argue thus.

Were any person, and much more any confiderable part of those are Cittizens and members of the common-wealth, exempt from the direction or coercion, from either or both together, of the civil laws in meer temporal things, or of the meer civil Head in such things even in such case wherein the Church made conform or not conform laws or canons in the fals-same things, great troubles would arise in the common-wealth: because one part of such members would draw one way, and an other an other way: and because that, speaking humanely, naturally & ordinarily, where the temporal interests of the several parts are divers and quite contrary, as it may very well be, nay and by experience is too always in all such cases, and where every side pursues passio∣natly their own interest without any law or Head to direct or punish them in the case, it is impossible but all sides should fall at last into factious and vio∣lences of one against an other. For so hath the experience of all ages and all countryes taught us: and taught us too most singularly in the very case of Clerks and Laicks divided so, and driving different interests, while the Clerks would neither be directed nor coerced in temporal powers by the civil Head or civil laws of the civil common-wealth, whereof yet they pretended them∣selves to be (as men) civil members: and hath also taught us in Characters of blood wherewith all Europe hath been so often dyed in grain.

To this argument, or to that common place or principle of great distur∣bances to arise in the common-wealth if any of the parts or members were in the case exempted so from the civil Head or laws, or if in particular the Clergie were so exempted, Bellarmine answers, when this place or principle of experience is retorted and made use of against himself, and (notwithstand∣ing his own former use of it for himself) answers l. cont. Barcl. cap. 35. by denying plainly that any such troubles or disturbance of the common-wealth would arise or follow the exemption of the cittizens, parts or members Ecclesiastical from the direction or coercion of the politick civil Head: be∣cause (sayes he) the Bishops, or chief of Bishops the Pope himself would both direct and coerce them as much and where it would be neccessary or expedient for the publick peace or other good end.

But against this answer too there are such obvious and insoluble reasons that we need not say more on this subject. First, who sees not it is and must be a most miserable common-wealth politick & such a one as can never be able to attain the proper ends of a true common-wealth, & therefore no true com∣mon-wealth politick, that hath no other means to preserve it self but by the direction and coercion of Christian Bishops as such? The power of Christian Bishops as such (or laying aside that which is delegated to them by or de∣rived to them from the civil Princes and civil laws, and which therefore may

be taken onely again at the pleasure of the same Princes and laws is not other but onely and purely spiritual, or of spiritual commands or censures, without any kind of bodily force or coaction annexed. And we know and see by ten thousand experiences dayly, that such commands or censures can∣not hinder wicked men from even the very worst of wickedness, not even from that which brings along with it all kind, of wickedness, not even from that which is diametrically, directly, primarily, and of its own proper nature opposit and contrary to the true genuine proper ends of every true politick common-wealth. Nay, that very known and confess'd immediate commands and censures of God himself, that even his peremptory comminations and po∣sitive Declarations of everlasting flames and of the life of Devils expecting infallibly the transgressor's, are not able to hinder wicked men, nor even worldly Churchmen from that which brings along with it all other evils, from sedition treason and rebellion, I mean; from rayling arms against the laws and Prince, I mean. For we see that, by so many deplorable examples verified in all ages, which the Poet said of evil men. Oderunt peccare mali for∣midine paenae. And we see by no fewer, that meer spiritual punishm••nts, without corporal coercio•••• are of no force to keep the world in peace. That not even the Pope himself, notwithstanding his plenitude of spiritual power, and notwithstanding all his spiritual commands and censures imaginable, is able to keep in peace as much as that one very Town of Citty of Rome, where∣in himself resides, without Garrisons and Guards, and the assistance of the Corporal streingth of his whole Ecclesiastical Patrimony, nay and often of other States Principalities & Kingdoms to back him. How then may it be said groundedly at all, that the Bishops or Pope, as such, would or indeed could effectually either direct or coerce the rest of the Clergie of any Kingdom, if once resolved on such mischiefs & able to effect them, having no other oppo∣sition or coercion but that onely of spiritual commands or spiritual censures.

Secondly who is so ignorant in History as not to know that both some Bishops & some Popes themselves have not seldom been as guilty of the same most enormous crimes of sedition treason and rebellion, or of raysing counte∣nancing and abetting such in others, as any other of the inferiour Clergie; against the peace and quiet of the ciuil common-wealth? Do not we know that even some of the very Popes have upon occasion & that too not seldom, given Cruzadas and other Bulls of Indulgence to rayse such commotions, even the most horrid, against lawful Princes and the peace of their Kingdoms and to the perpetual ruine of so many millions of their people? And as concerning Ireland in particular, being this controversy is with so much heat debated now in Ireland, do not we remember what the Bishops did at Waterford in 1646? what at Iames-stown in 1649? what the Pope's Nuncio, the most otherwise Reverend and Illustrious Joannes Baptista Rinuccini; Archbishop and Prince of Fermo, did? what consequently the Pope himself, Innocent the X. who sent him, did? Nay what also his Predecessour Urban the VIII. who sent (before that Nuncio) Franciscus Scarampus, did? and what that Bull of Indulgence, which, goes under his name, doth signifie? And for other too too frequent examples of the like nature, both in Ireland & in other countries, and both in this very pre∣sent, & former ages wherein the Court of Rome & great Pontiffs of the holy See disturbed mightily the peace of so many Kingdoms and States, and ruined so many millions of other Princes Subjects and the Princes themselves, that is, the whole common-wealth politick, both Head & members, are not the Annals of Baronius & Spondanus, witnesses beyond exception? And was it not upon this onely ground, and by occasion of this onely doctrine of Bellarmine, and of the appendages of it, that all such mischiefs happened? Or how was it pos∣sible in nature to prevent such evils where the people were imbued by their Clergie with such principles, That by the laws of Christianity there was not as much as a coercive power in the politick or civil Head for correcting, punish∣ing or any way restraining the Ringleaders of such fatal dances? and where

the Clergie themselves, both Priests and Bishops, and Popes too themselves were these Ringleaders? But suppose the Popes had never had a hand in such matters, yet if Princes could not at home with themselves and without application to the Pope, & consequently without too too long delayes, while the difference twixt them and their own Clergie were debated at Rome, if I say in the mean time the Princes, these politick Heads of the civil common-wealth, might not in conscience make use of all their strength to coerce the Factious and Rebellious Clergiemen, and if such Clergiemen lay under no kind of tye to submit to their coercion, how could it be possible in nature that either the one were enabled with a sufficient power of politick Heads, or the other had incumbent on them sufficient tyes of Citizens parts or members to attain the ends of their politick common-wealth, which they are supposed to compose joyntly? Before such debate were ended, nay before the beginning of it could be, or as much as the news of any such matter could arrive at Rome, the evil would often be incurable, if it could not be cured at home by the coercive power of the Politick Head and material sword.

Avant therefore such unsatisfactory answers of Bellarmine! answers which himself must have very well known to have been voyd even of all truth and conscience: and yet would give them because he could give no better in so bad a cause, and that his worldly interest did not suffer him to yield to the victorious cause.

But although I have so now sufficiently illustrated and abundantly proved my last Minor proposition or that of my last proof, and thereby evidently concluded my former whole second argument; yet for the satisfaction of the more curious Reader, and as an appendix of that either my last proof or of that my former second argument whereof it was the proof, I will give here in Bellarmine's own words what he answered to the simile of the natural Head and members of the natural body, and to some other particulars ob∣jected to him on this occasion by William Barclay.

You say (sayes Bellarmine to Barclay) that all the members must be so un∣der the Head, and all the Citizens so under the Rector of the Citty that the Head and Rector may correct and punish all the members and Citizens and that Clerks are members of the body politick, and as to temporal thing, Cittizens of the earthly Citty.

I answer.

In the natural body its necessary that all the members be un∣der and obedient to the Head: because in such a body exemption hath no place. But in the body politick, wherein exemption hath place, it is unne∣cessary, that all the members, that is, all the Cittizens, be properly under or subject to the power of the Head, that is, to that of the Rector. And therefore it is unnecessary that the Prince may coerce or punish all the Citti∣zens: as it is unnecessary that all the Cittizens pay tribute, or that all bear arms or turn souldiers to defend the Republick; but it may suffice that by counsel, or exhortations, or prayers to God, they help the temporal common-wealth. But the Republick will be troubled or disturbed if Clerks may without fear of coercion or punishment transgress the laws of Princes. I answer, that they shall not without punishment transgress: for they shall be coerced by their own immediate Bishop, or by the chief or Great Bishop. But Charles the V. called Hermannus the Archbishop of Colen to his own secular tribunal. 'Tis true; but he called him as a Prince of the Empire: for the Pope Paul III. called before himself too the same Hermannus as an Archbishop; witness the same Surius in the same place; which very Surius a little after writes an. 1547. that, by the Pope's and Emperours command, Hermannus was deposed; but that the sentence of deposition was given by the Pope. But how diligent an observer of Eccle∣siastical Immunity Charles the V. was, may be hence understood, that in the year 1520. a most horrid conspiracy against the said Charles being detected, wherein there were some Ecclesiasticks: Charles did punish the Laicks, but

remitted the Clerks to their own Ecclesiastical Situations to be punished. Witness Malin, ••4. c. 21, de Hispan pri••og Barclay added, that there are some grievous transgressions or crimes which in France go, under the name of (privileg••••ta) pri••iledged, as reserved to the Princes. But this argu∣ment may be retorted against the Author. For such are not called priviledg∣ed, because the Prince had reserved them to himself or to his own cognizance when he gave the priviledg of exemption to Clerks as Barclay sayes they are; but are called such, or crimina privilegi••••a, because that by the privi∣ledg of the See Apostolick it is indulged to the Kings of the French that they may take, cognizance of such crimes, when committed by Clerks, which Clarusq, 36. Parag. finn v•• sicul, ultari•••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and Au••••••rius in Clemen∣tina, Vit Clericorum de offic. J••d, Ord, ••i••u••••, do explicate.

Bellarmine therefore sayes here, the difference in the similed or which to our purpose must be in the similitude twixt the natural body and politick body, is, that in the politick, exemption hath no place, and that hence it is unnecessary that all the members politick, that is all the Citizens be properly under or subject to the power of the politick Head, that is, of the Rector: and therefore also that it is unnecessary that Princes may coerca or punish all the Cittizens as it as unnecessary that all the Cittizens pay tribute &c. But who sees not that there is no ex∣emption can be in the body politick, o•• of the members of it which may not by similitude, be applyed to and found in the natural body? For the respective members of natural B••dyes may be qualified with those exemptions which are not against the nature or essence of such members in the same body and under the same Head. For example, the hand may have this exemption bestowed on it, that it be not bound to labour daily: and the feet this exemption, that by a man's lyeing down a bed they may rest from going. And yet will it not follow, that either the natural hands or natural feet are not under the power of the natural Head. Even so in the body politick, may it very well be, and is it de fact, that some part of the Cittizens be exempted from tributs, and from Judicial courts or those of subordinate and ordinary. Judges and yet be still under the power of the politick Head, to witt of the King or Prince or other supream Governour. But neither in the politick body nor in the natural body can the members be so exempted that they be no more under the Head: because this would be against the definition and essence of members: and would be not to exempt them, but in effect to make them to be no members at all. As for that reason, of diversity which Bellarmine hath given, As it is unnecessary that all the Citizens pay tribute, or that all bear arms to defend the Republick, who sees not also that it argues no diversity no diffe∣rence at all in the simile? For in the natural body it is not necessary that all the members walke, that all see, that all hear, &c. But it is sufficient both in the natural body and in the civil that every member so attend & perform that duty unto which it is ordained or applyed, that all in common do still in the same body and under the same head what they are enjoyned or destined to. Let Bellarmine therefore, let his disciples abstain hereafter from such absurd Pa∣radoxes. What man of found reason hath ever yet in his own soul inwardly perswaded himself, that a King may not de jure King it over, that is, govern by direction and coercion those of whom he is King? nor a head the members of its own body?

But our Cardinal denye here, that from the contrary position, and practice any perturbations of the common-wealth should arise: because that albeit the King may not coerce transgressing Clerks; yet the Bishops may and will. To this, because I have said enough already. I onely sa•• now that to assent this power of coercion of Clerks to Bishops for lay crimes, or those committ∣ed in meer temporal or civil matters, and deny it to King were nothing els in effect but to rayse Bishops from their Office & Ministry Episcopal to the power and Dignity Royal of Kings, and then consequently to make but meer Ciphers of the Kings themselves. For I demand of Bellarmine or of his

Schollars, why were Kings instituted, or to what end their power if it was not to govern the Republick, to provide for the peace and safety of all the people of what condition or profession soever, Lay or Ecclesiastick, and to provide for the security and tranquility of all, by punishing and rewarding in∣differently according to the respective merits or demerits of every individual? But our Cardinal snatches away from Kings this proper function of Kings, and gives it to Bishops: whereas it is notwithstanding certain that neither can the common-wealth be quiet if Clerks do violate the laws, resign them∣selves over to sedition, and yet may not be de jure therefore punished, curbed or any way restrained by Kings. For who sees not consequently, that neither de jure can the King contain his Provinces in peace, nor compel his people to live together within the bounds of honesty, equity or justice? And who sees not con∣sequently also, but that the very politick peace nay the very politick being of the common-wealth must depend of the will of the Bishops: to whom onely the light of governing, of licencing or restraining Clerks, our good Cardi∣nal will have to belong: that by the severity of their Episcopal censures or other judgments they may, as they will, coerce the nocent, and thereby and in so much pacifie the troubles of the Republick, or (as they please too) permit all wickedness and all the most enormours horrid crimes of Sedition and Rebellion to extinguish quite the face and being of a Republick. How farre more piously, Christianly, and rationally too had Bellarmine taught and writt, that by the favour and priviledg given by Kings, the Clergie are not subject to any other Judicatory but to one composed of Ecclesiastical judges? yet so, that as well those very Judges as the criminal Clerks be subject still to and not exempt from the supream Royal power of the King who gave subordi∣nate power to those very Ecclesiastical Judicatories in temporal things; nay and in spiritual too, for what belongs to corporal or civil coercion, and who as the supream temporal Prince may command, prohibit, and provide, that no person of what condition or profession soever breake the peace of his Kingdom: and who also may, when there is just cause, take cognizance of and judg as well what ever delinquent Clerks, as the very Ecclesiastical judges of those Clerks.

To that of Hermannus the Colen Archbishop, I will say, that Bellarmine writes so of this matter as he may be refuted with that jeer, wherewith a certain Boor pleasantly checked a great Bishop, as he rode by with a splendid pompous train. The story is, that a country clown having first admired, and said this pomp was very unlike that of the Apostles, to whom Bishops did suc∣ceed: and some of the Bishops train answering, that this Bishop was not only a successor of the Apostles, but also Heir to a rich Lordship, and that moreover he was a Duke, and a Prince too: the clown replied, but if God (sayes he) condemn the Duke and Prince to eternal fire, what will become of the Bishop? Even so doth Bellarmine write (as that servant spoke) that this Hermannus, whom Charles the V. summon'd to appear, was not only an Archbishop, but a Prince also of the Empire. And even so do I say, and replye with the country swain: when the Emperour judged this Prince of the Empire, did he not, I pray, judge the Archbishop too? But you will say, that though indeed he judged the Archbishop; yet not as an Archbishop, but as a Prince of the Empire. Let it be so. For neither do I (nor other Catholick Opposers of Bellarmine in this matter) intend or mean, or at least urge, or press now, that Clerks as Clerks are subject to the coercion or di∣rection of Kings; but as men, but as Citizens, and politick parts of the body Politick: which kind of authority, as Bellarmine confesses, Charles the V. both acknowledg'd in, and vindicated to the Emperour. Of whose piety, what Bellarmine adds, is to no purpose. For it is not denyed, that it becomes good Princes, to leave, that is, to commit the causes of Clerks, how great and weighty, or criminal soever, to Ecclesiastical Judges, if it stand with the safety or good, hic & nunc, of the Commonwealth, that such causes

be discussed before such Judges. And yet I must tell the Defenders of Bel∣larmine, that if they please to consult the Continuator of Baronius, the most reverend and most Catholick Bishop Henricus Spondenus, ad an Christi, 1545. they will find, that upon complaint of the Catholick Clergy, and University also of Colen, to as well the Emperour Charles the V. as the Pope Pavl the III. against the said Archbishop, as (by the advice of Bueer) intro∣ducing Heresie, and licenceing the Preachers of it in that City and Diocess: and that, at their instance, petitioning for help & redress in that matter against the said Hermannus, it was that the said Emperour Charles the V. did in the Diet of Wormes, the said year, and about the end of Iune, by his Letters or Warrant signed and sealed, summon the said Archbishop to appear before him within thirty dayes, either by himself in his own proper person, or by his lawful Procurator, to answer such crimes as were objected to him by the said Clergy and Academy: and in the mean time to innovate nothing, but to restore all things (were innovated) into their former state. And there∣fore that they will find in Spondanus, that this Emperour summon'd this Archbishop, even as an Archbishop: and consequently did not only summon and proceed against him as a Prince of the Empire, but as a very Archiepis∣copal Clerk, and even too in a meer cause of Religion. For this last parti∣cular also of the being of the cause, for which the Emperour summon'd him, a cause of Religion and Faith, the same Spondanus hath expresly in the same place: where he tells us, that it was therefore the Pope, Paul the III. who then sate in the See Apostolick, thought fit by his own Letters of the 18. of Iuly, immediatly following in the same year, to summon to Rome the same Hermannus, giving him sixty dayes for appearance before himself: to wit, least otherwise his Holiness might be thought to let go his own challenge of peculiar right in the See Apostolick only, to proceed against so great a Clerk, especially being the cause was properly Clerical, and properly too a cause of Faith, and reformation of the Church in religious tenets and rites: and least consequently he might seem wholly to quit the quarrel of external coercion of either Clerks or Laicks, where the crime was Heresie; and by his own want or neglect of proceeding by his own proper Apostolical Authority against Herman (whereas the Emperour had begun, and proceeded already upon account, or by virtue also of his own pure, or sole imperial, civil and lay power) might be esteemed to acknowledge in lay Princes, that supream external coercive right of even all sorts of very Clerks, and even too of such in the very meerest and purest causes of Faith and Religion. The testimony of Spondanus, to this purpose, is in these words. Quod ut Pontifex audivit (he means the summons sent by Charles from the Dyet of Worms for the Archbishop) parum prohare visus quod Cesar in causa Fidei & reformationis Ecclesiarum Iudicis authoritatem sibi sumeret; die decima octava Iulii, eundem Coloniensem ad sexagesimum diem citavit, ut per seipsum, vel per legittimum pro∣curatorem coram ipso Romae se sisteret.

To that also which Bellarmine hath of crimina privilegiata, and for as much as he sayes, that in France those are call'd priviledg'd crimes, whereof that Clerks may be accused before a lay Judge in the secular Court, the Pope hath indulged, I say, it is farr otherwise. And that Bellarmine could not shew, nor any other can for him, any Sanction or Law, nay, or any other authentick writing, wherein it is recorded to posterity, that such a privi∣ledge was given by the Pope to Kings or Republicks. (Though, I confess, ma∣ny Popes have been free enough of granting priviledges where they had no right to grant any, and where only the ignorance or injustice of pretenders gave them some kind of bad excuse for attempting to give any: and would willingly have all both Princes and people to desire of them priviledges for all they could themselves do before of themselves, nay, and were often bound to do without any priviledge.) Whence also it may be sufficiently evicted, that it is no way probable this ordinary jurisdiction supream of Kings

over Clerks, was granted to them by the Pope; but, on the contrary, certain, that whereas anciently the very most Christian Kings and Emperours made use of all their both directive and coercive power to govern Clerks in all civil matters whatsoever; nay and in spiritual matters too, for what, I mean, concerns the external regiment of the Church by external direction of laws, and by external coercion too of the material sword: and to govern them also either immediatly by themselves, or mediatly by their subordinat lay Judges: and whereas the civil laws, wherein, and whereby afterwards the same Emperors and Kings exempted Clerks in many causes, or most, or (if you please to say or think so) in all whatsoever, from the ordinary subordinate lay Judges, have not a word of any exemption from the Prince himself, the supream civil Judge of all both lay and Ecclesiastical Judge, of his own Kingdom, in the external coactive regiment: therefore it must be conclu∣dent, it was only from, and by the free will of the Princes themselves, that ordinary jurisdiction supream temporal or civil over Clerks was reserved still to themselves: who remitted, or bestowed away of their own right all whatever they pleased (as they did that, in the present case, of deputing lay men for the ordinary subordinat Judges of those causes of Clerks, which are not common but priviledged) and retained also what they would. Of all which, the late and most learned Milletus may be read; who in that choice and elegant Tract of his, which he inscribed de delicto communi, & casis privi∣legiato, shews very learnedly and clearly. 1. That all such priviledges of Clergiemen had their whole and sole origen from Kings. 2. And therefore that such crimes as Clerks are accused of, and judged (in foro civili) in the ordinary civil or lay Courts, are properly to be called delicta communia, be∣cause to be tryed by the common law, and before the common or lay Magi∣strate: and those only which are remitted to the Bishop, are by a contrary reason to be tearmed privilegiata, to wit, because it is by a priviledge granted by Kings, or indulged by them to Bishops, that bishops may take cognizance of, and judge them.

As for Clarus and Ausrerius (whom Bellarmine alledges for that his own sense of what is a priviledged crime of Clerks) or for any other Canonists soever, I regard not much what they say or not say in this matter. Because they all commonly, and without any ground, not only bereave Princes of this su∣pream right of either coe••cing or directing Clerks, but also teach, that all kind of meer temporal Principality flows and depends from the Papacy. As that Legat did, who in a Diet of the German Princes had the confidence to ask or querie thus, A quo habet Imperator Imperium, nisi habet a Domine Papa? For so Radevicus hath related this Legats folly.

And so having throughly destroyed all the replies of Bellarmine to the grounds, or any part of the grounds of my second grand argument, and of the proof of it (which second argument, and proof of its Minor, I derived part∣ly from, and built upon his own principles of Clergiemens being Cittizens and parts of the politick commonwealth) I am now come to

My third argument of pure natural reason: which shall end this present Section. Though I withal confess the grounds of this third argument are already given in my illustration of the former second. But however, for the clearer methods sake, & because too the medium is somewhat different from that in the form of my foregoing second; I would give this (following now) as a distinct one, and as in order my third. And I frame it thus.

Whatever natural, civil or politick supream right and authority of civil direction, and civil coercion of all and every person or persons whatsoever of the politick Commonwealth, as such, may be necessary for the preserva∣tion of the being, and peace of the whole, is by the law of nature it self to be attributed to, and asserted or allowed in the same Commonwealth, as such: and consequently in the supream politick Head of it, as such, whe∣ther

this Head be one single person by nature, or an aggregation of many per∣sons together by policy.

But the natural, civil or politick supream right and authority of civil direction, and civil coercion of all Clergiemen whatsoever, living under, or in any politick Commonwealth, as such, is necessary for the preservation of the being and peace of the whole.

Ergo, the natural, civil or politick supream right and authority of civil direction, and civil coercion of all Clergiemen whatsoever, living under, or in any politick Commonwealth, as such, is by the law of nature it self to be attributed to, and asserted or allowed in the same Commonwealth: and consequently in the supream politick Head of it, whether this head be one single person by nature, or an aggregation of many persons together by policy.

The Major, besides that it is proved already, by, and in the prosecution of my former argument, where I alledged that maxime or principle allowed by all men, and which in reason must be so allowed by all men, viz. That every well or rightly establish'd civil Commonwealth must by the law of na∣ture have in it self, as such, and consequently in its politick Head as such too, that natural or civil authority over all the parts and members, which may sufficiently enable the whole to attain the proper natural and civil ends of the whole, and of all such parts as parts, both joyntly and severally; these ends being the civil peace, quiet, justice, and comfortable secure living of all together: I say, the Major, besides its being already proved so, is further proved by this other maxime (which even Suarez himself, l. 3. de Primatu sum. Pontif. c. 1. n. 4. allows, and alledgeth for certain and for evident in na∣tural reason) Quod humana natura non possit esse destituta remediis ad suam con∣servationem necessariis, That humane nature cannot be destitute of sufficient right and authority to do those things, which are necessary for its own pre∣servation in a peaceable and just way of living. Now it is clear enough, that the civil direction and civil coercion of all persons whatsoever living within the Dominions of the Commonwealth, while they live there, is necessary for its preservation.

And the Major is further also proved by a third maxime or principle, which Morl. hath, in Empor. jur. 1. p. tit. 2. de legibus. num. 20. vers.. Quia cum regnum. To wit this: Cui regnum conceditur, necessario omnia censentur concessa sine quibus regnum gubernari non potest. To whom a Kingdom is given, all things (that is to say, all right and authority) which are necessary for the well governing of it are supposed to be given.

And yet, who sees not, this principle could not be true, if that Major also were not true? For whatever is necessary for the preservation of the be∣ing and peace of the Commonwealth is also necessary for the wel-governing of it.

As for the Minor; I have abundantly proved it also before in the prosecu∣tion of my second argument. And of the conclusion to follow the premisses necessarily, there is no man will doubt.

It remains therefore, that (for an appendix of these arguments grounded on pure natural reason, for the subjection of Clergiemen to, or, which is the same thing, against their exemption from the supream, civil coercive power in temporal causes) to conclude this Section, I shew by natural rea∣son also, that the very temporal Princes themselves, how otherwise supream soever, could not, cannot by any law, right, authority, or power given them by God or Man, exempt from themselves, that is, from their own supream civil, and even coercive power, the Clergiemen of their own Dominions, whiles, I mean, such Clergiemen remain of, or in their Dominions, and ac∣knowledge themselves, or indeed be inferiours and subjects to the same Princes, or otherwise that these Princes be either acknowledged by them, or otherwise truly and legally be their natural or proper legal Princes.

But for as much as Bellarmine hath in the often quoted 35. chap. l. contra. Barclaium, as being mightily startled by this position, roused himself again, and laid about him no less mightily to ruine it, then he had to ruine that other, which denied the Pope himself any such power of exempting Clerks from the same temporal Princes: I will, to avoid here some labour of repe∣tition, first give our learned Cardinals arguments against it: and then conse∣quently, my own proofs for it, in the solution of those arguments.

Ad quintam propofitionem (sayes he) quae erat, non potuisse Principes supremos exi∣mere Clericos a sua Regia potestate, respondemus id manifestè falsum esse. Nam etiamsi non possit summus Princeps &c.

To the fift proposition (sayes Bellar∣mine) which was, that supream Princes could not exempt Clerks from their own Royal power, I answer that it is manifestly false. For albeit the su∣pream Prince may not exempt all that live in his Kingdom from his own power, unless he resign his Principality; yet he may exempt some part of his people from some part of his power, or even from all parts of his power, and at the same time be both truly said and remain still a Prince. For it is proper to a supream Prince, to exact tribute from the people sub∣ject to him, as the Apostle teaches Rom. 13. For it is therefore (sayes he) you pay tributes, for they are the Ministers of God, serving unto this purpose. And yet the King may free such as he please from tributs. For it is said 1. of Kings. (or of Samuel) cap. 17. whoever shall kill the Philisthine, the King shall enrich him with great riches, and shall make his Father's house free from tributes in Israel. Even so if some great King do free some one Citty amidst his Kingdom, or bestow it absolutely on some body, it will not be therefore consequent that he may not be said to be King of his whole Kingdom, especially if he still protect and defend that Citty: and that the Cittizens thereof do free∣ly observe the laws of his Kingdom. So therefore too might Kings ex∣empt from their own Royal power the Clerks living in their Kingdom, and yet be said to be and truly be kings not onely of Laicks, but also of Clerks, who freely observe their politick laws: and who, being Actors, referre or deferre the causes they have with Laicks, to their Royal tribunals: and acquiesce to their judgment or sentence in such causes. And because the King labours and watches for the defence not onely of Laicks, but of Clerks also: therefore not Laicks onely, but also Clerks do give him that honour which is due to Kings, according to the precept of the Apostle Peter, Fear God, honour the King. 1. Pet. 2. Finally, they pray for the King, as the Apo∣stle bids them 1. Timoth. 2. saying, I desire therefore first of all things, that obsecrations, prayers, postulations, thankes-givings be made for all men, for Kings, and all that are in preheminence. Nor onely do they power their prayers to God for Kings in general, but say in specie in particular pro Rege N. vel pro Imperatore N. for our King N. or for our Emperour N. expressing their names.

First therefore what Bellarmine sayes here is that, the King may exempt some part of his own people from some part of his own power, or even from his own whole power. And this he proves thus. Because (sayes he) the King may bestow on some house or Citty an exemption or immunity from tributs. What's this to our question? Doth an exemption from tributs work this effect, that whoever is so exempted is no more bound to the Prince in any kind of subjection? For this is the onely question. We confess the pri∣viledges given to Clerks to be greater then a sole exemption from tributs; but we deny, that Clerks therefore are totally manumised, set free, or ex∣empted from their subjection to Princes. But (sayes Bellarmine) it is the prerogative of a Prince to exact tribute: as it is to command, or judge, or punish: and therefore if he can remit the one, why not the other? A vast difference there is, most eminent Cardinal. It is indeed proper to, or the prerogative of a Prince to exact tributes: because none exact such, but Princes (or States, which are the same thing here.) But it is also proper to a King to remit tri∣butes: because none else may, and that by such remission he ceaseth not to be

••••ince of the same persons or people, or City, to which tribute is so remitted, and that it may also be expedient sometimes for his Principality to remit them. Nay, if Princes had universally remitted all kind of tribute to all the people of their Dominions, as Nero thought to do: and could, and would content themselves, and bear all the charges of the publick, and de∣fend it too, with, by, and out of their own patrimony: would they fall therefore from their Principality? But it is no way proper to a King to remit to any in all things all kind of obedience, or subjection to himself, and yet still to be truly called, and truly, essentially, or properly to be, or to re∣main King of those very persons to whom such remission is made. because the power of lording, commanding, judging, punishing, at least in some cases, is the very essence of Principality: so that the Prince cannot remit, or quit this, and withal continue Prince. Nor doth Bellarmine help himself by saying, that albeit the Prince may not exempt or set free all his people, and still remain Prince; yet he may some part of them. For it is plain, that he can∣not any part, and together be Prince, or King of that part: whereas it is of the very essence of a King to lord it over, and command his whole Kingdom, to provide for his whole Kingdom, and to have all within his Kingdom, Na∣tives, Forreigners, Dwellers, Sejourners, Inmates, Travellers, &c. of what degree or quality soever, obnoxious, or subject to his will and laws; the good to be encouraged & to be rewarded by him, and malefactors to be coerced and punish'd also by him. Nor indeed is he instituted King, to go∣vern any part or parts of his Kingdom, but to govern the whole Kingdom. And therefore it must be, that if he exempt any part from subjection to him∣self (which yet he cannot de jure without the consent of all the Estates of the Kingdom) he must as well in order to such part cease to be King, as he would in order to all if he had bestowed that plenary exemption upon all, and every part of his Kingdom. For, I beseech you, what rational man would per∣swade himself, that (for example) the present French or Spanish Kings are absolute Kings respectively of all France, or of all Spain, or of all French and Spaniards, if in the richest and fruitfullest Territories of all France, there be four or five hundred thousand Frenchmen, and so many French women, and if double, trebble, or quadrubble that number be in the Spanish, so exempt from the French and Spanish Kings Domini∣ons, and yet so diffused in every Province, County, City, Corporation, and the very Villages, that nothing can be more, and yet having moreover so much influence on the rest of the people, that they can turn them which way they please? Or how could (for another examples sake) either Henry the Eight in England, or his Catholick Predecessors, be justly called or stiled Kings of England, if the Clerks of that Kingdom, then almost in∣numerable, and possessing as their own proper lands and goods, wel-nigh the one entire moyety of it, were not truly and properly subjects to the said Henry, and to other his said Predecessors?

Secondly, what Bellarmine sayes, though by way of interrogation, is, That, if some great King doth in the middle of his Kingdom free some one City, or absolutely bestow it on another, he may be notwithstanding said to be King of his whole Kingdom.

But I would fain know what our great Cardinal understands by these words (Rex totius regni sui) King of all his own Kingdom? Doth he re∣pute that City, so exempted, or so made free by that great King, to be not∣withstanding part of that very Kings own whole Kingdom? If so; our Car∣dinal recedes not only from truth, but from common sense. For, I pray, what is it else, to be a King, but to lord it over those, or to command those of whom he is King? Can Bellarmine himself deny the King to be Superi∣our in relation to those of whom he is King? And yet himself teaches, cont. Barclaium, cap. 13. that every Superiour may command his Inferiour: omnis superior potest imperare inferiori suo. Some indeed question how far, or

in what things, the power of Kings extend to their people; but none at all, whether in any thing, or even very many things it reach or command them. But our Cardinal will have that City exempted to be no more subject in any thing, to be no more commanded in any matter by that King. Therefore he is no more King of it.

Nor doth it make any difference in the case, that he protect or defend that Citty. For it is one thing to be a Protector or Defender, and an other to be King. Who is it would say that the Kings of England or France were Kings of Holland, and of the rest of the United Provinces, at any time since the said Provinces rebelled against their own natural King; albeit we know, and it be confessed, that the French and English Kings were their Protectors and De∣fenders against the Kings of Spain? Or who would say that Henry the Second of France was King of the Confederate Princes of Germany, although it be confessed also that the said Confederate Princes chose him for their Prote∣ctor?

And as little doth that other reason or pretence and allegation of Bellar∣mine (& cives illi leges regni sponte servent) that the Cittizens of that so exemp∣ted Citty do freely observe the laws of the Kingdom, make any material diffe∣rence in the case: unless peradventure, that if the Spaniards would receive the laws of France, and by an express Statute enact these laws for themselves or otherwise out of custom observe them, it must be granted that consequently the Spaniards renounce their own Principality and yield themselves to that of France.

But if Bellarmine understand or mean, that Citty, so exempted, to be no more of the Kingdom, then is the similitude to no purpose: being himself grants and averrs, that after and notwithstanding the exemption of Clerks, Kings are not onely Kings of the Laymen but also of the Clergiemen; Reges esse nonsolum Laicorum, sed etiam Clericorum Reges.

Yet as for the reasons which he gives for this concession and asseveration, I must say they are childish and unworthy of Bellarmine. The first is, that Clerks do freely observe the politick laws. But I have rejected this presently, or a little before. Nor indeed can it be said with any colour, that it some Nation, as for example now the Armenians, did receive & observe the laws of a forraign King, as for example too, those of the King of France, or Poland, or Spain &c. there∣fore such Nation must be said to acknowledg this forraign King for their own King. The second is (quia Clerici causas, quas cum Laicis habens, cum actores sunt, a•• tribunal i••sius Regis deferunt, & in judicio sententiae ejus in ejusmodi cau∣sis acquiescum) that Clerks, when being Actors against Laicks, bring their cau∣ses to the King's tribunal, and in such causes acquiesce to the judgment and sentence of his temporal Court, or politick Judges. But who sees not, that this is not to acknowledg him to be their King? And who sees not, that there is no other subjection of Clerks herein, but such as is acknowledged by meer strangers, forraigners, aliens, and such as is necessary in all kinds of judicial proceedings? If a Frenchman have a suit with a Spaniard, if any man of this King's natural and legal Subjects commence a suit against the Subject of an other King and living still in the Dominions of this other King, must not such a Plaintiff or such an Actor apply himself to the Courts or Judicatories of the Defendant, that is, to those of this other King? Will the Plaintiff therefore ac∣knowledg this other King to be simply or absolutely his own King? will a Spa∣niard, if he sue in France, and before French Judges, acknowledg therefore the French King to be his own King? or will a Hollander sueing an English∣man in England, therefore acknowledg the King of England to be his own? meer trifles. Actor sequitur forum Rei. And therefore as you rightly conclude that he is the Defenders King simply and absolutely before whom in the case he is convented: so is it unreasonably inferred, that he is the Actor's King, before whom such Actor convents an other.

But (sayes Bellarmine) Clerks do pray in specie for the King, and pray thus

Pro Rege nostro N. For our King N. &c. And what is more against Bellarmine? For hence nothing follows more directly then that the King is King of Clerks also, and that Clerks are his Subjects. For who can conceive the King to be King of Clerks, and yet that Clerks should not be his Subjects? Being that (as Almainus de sup. potest, &c. q. 2. cap. 5. teaches, Aliquem esse Regem nihil aliud est quam habere superioritatem erga subditos, & in subditis esse obligationem parendi Regi, &c.) One to be a King is nothing els but to have a politick both directive and coercive power of superiority over all the people of his Domini∣ons, and that consequently there be obligations answerable on the same people as Subjects to obey him.

However, Bellarmine would needs by so many absurd arguments uphold his very absurd sentences: which say in plain tearms, the King to be King of Clerks, and yet Clerks not to be Subjects to the King; a Citty or people to be absolutely free, and yet have the King for their King, and themselves for part of his Kingdom: and which, in word, consequently confound the very notions of King and Subject, and of ruling and being ruled.

But certainly nothing could be said to confirm and illustrate more my pur∣pose here, or that of no power in Kings to exempt Clerks from their own supream power, then that Bellarmines answers and reasons for the contrary are such wretched ones indeed. Out of the refutations of which, and of all said be∣fore in this Section, especially in prosecution of my second and third Argu∣ment, it will be obvious enough to frame this other in behalf of that Corolla∣ry, or Incidental Position which I gave only as an appendix of my third argu∣ment.

Whoever have, and continue any office, which essentially involves a power supream, both directive and coercive of all Clerks within their Dominions, may not devest themselves of the power of directing and coercing the same Clerks, unless they do withal devest themselves of that office as towards the self same Clerks. Because they cannot devest themselves of the essence of that which they hold still, or while they hold it, or for the time wherein they are to hold it: this arguing a plain contradiction. But the office of Kings involves a power supream, both directive and coercive of all Clerks within their Dominions. For this I have proved already, and at large by very natu∣ral reason.

Ergo, whoever have the office of Kings, may not devest themselves of a power supream, both directive and coercive of all Clerks within their Dominions, unless with all they devest themselves of the office Kings, as towards the self same persons.

Now we have seen hitherto, that, not only by reason and experience, but even by our learned Cardinals own concessions and allegations, Kings have not devested, do not devest themselves of the office of Kings towards the Clerks of their Dominions; but, on the contrary, that Kings are truly, pro∣perly, and essentially Kings also of such Clerks. And consequently too, we have seen, that while the case is so, and for the time it shall be so with them, they cannot (by any priviledges at all they have given hitherto, or shall give hereafter) so exempt Clerks as to exempt them from their own supream di∣rective and coercive power.

And so I end this LXXII. Section of my three grand Arguments (& of all their appendages) composed partly of undoubted Theological maximes, & of other concessions of Bellarmine himself, and partly of pure and clear dictats of na∣tural reason, and such as reduce all Adversaries to plain contradiction not one∣ly of their own concessions, but of the very notions of Superiority and Inferio∣rity, Prefection and Subjection, Obedience and Government, nay and of the very ends and essence of a commonwealth; nay and also of the very nature of Re∣latives and Correlatives, which require that both be at least together under∣stood: or neither be: as a Father cannot be understood without a Son be also understood.

LXXIII.

My fourth grand argument shall take up this whole Section: because it is my grand argument indeed, as that on which, as a Christian, I relye more then upon any other however seeming otherwise the clearest demonstration may be in natural reason, or the most convincing proof from either Theolo∣gical maximes of Schools, or other concessions of Adversaries. For this fourth is wholly and purely grounded on the revealed word of God himself in holy Scripture, taken in that sense the holy Fathers delivered it unani∣mously from hand to hand all along down at least eleven ages of Christianity, until the days of Gregory the Seventh. Then which it is very sure there can be no surer argument in Christianity for theory or practise of any tenet.

Therefore, upon this ground also, I confidently affirm that Clergiemen are by the very positive law of God so farre from being exempt from supream secular Princes in whose Dominions they live, that they are universally and absolutely subject to them, that is, even to their coercive power in all temporal matters.

To prove which assertion I shall not make any use of either of the Barclayes, the Father or Son (as I have sometimes made some use of them hetherto, nay often too in some or perhaps in most of the former Sections which treat of Ec∣clesiastical exemption; although not in all, nor even in any for all parts.) But I will take an other method, and from my own reading elswhere treat this argu∣ment at leingth, as likewise what shall be given in the following two or three Sections more, which end this whole dispute of Ecclesiastical Immunity, preten∣ded to be quitted and renounced by the Remonstrance of 61. or at least by the Clergiemen subscribers of it.

And yet I will neither (to prove my assertion) make use of that no less true then common doctrine of France and of all other the very best Divines and Catholick Churches, vz. That earthly Principalities are immediately institu∣ted by God himself: and the supream civil power of Kings as immediately from him (as from the sole efficient cause; and from the people onely, even when they elect their Kings, tamquam a conditione sine qua non) and no less im∣mediately from him then the spiritual power of Popes can or is by any said to be. Nor will I for the same end insist upon that command of our Saviour in St. Matthew 22.21. Reddite quae sum Caesaris Caesari, & quae sunt Dei Deo: or on that precept of St. Paul to Titus. 3.1. Admone illos Principibus & potestatibus subditos esse. or on that other of Peter. 1. Pet. 2.13. Subjecti estote omni humanae creaturae propter Deum, sive Regi quasi praecellenti, sive Ducibus tamquam ab eo missis: or finally on the 8. verse of Judas, in his general Epistle; where he recounts it amongst the most enormous crimes of some wicked persons, that they des∣pise Dominion. And I will as little insist on what is repeated concerning this in the Apostolical Constitutions. l. 4. cap. 12. & lib. 7. cap. 17. whoever was Author of the said Constitutions. As also I will pass by for this time, without insisting on, That supream earthly Princes are within their own Principalities, and in all earthly or temporal things, the very onely true and proper Vicars of God, even by as true at least and well grounded title as the very Popes themselves are said to be the Vicars of God or Christ in all heavenly or purely spiritual matters throughout all Principalities and States of the Earth. Albe∣beit there is no man of reason but sees that this very true title of supream temporal Princes would be enough to evict my purpose. However, because I would take the shortest way:

Therefore what I insist upon solely now is that of St. Paul, in his epistle to the very Romans themselves, Rom. 13.1. Omnis anima potestatibus sublimi∣oribus subdita sit. Let every soul be subject to the more sublime powers. And besides, what I insist upon is the whole discourse following of the same Apostle, & in the same chapter, along consequently to the eight verse, if not further. For (sayes he,

giving the reason of his former precept in the former words (let every soul be subject, &c.) there is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained by or of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For Rulers are not a ter∣ror of good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the Power. Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise for the same. For he is the Minister of God to thee for good: for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the Minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Wherefore you must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For, for this cause pay you tribute also: for they are Gods Ministers, attending continually on this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues, tribute to whom tribute, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honour to whom honour. Owe no man any thing, but, &c. And finally, what I insist upon is the necessary sense of these very passages of St. Paul, and of the like, or to the same purpose, and is that very sense, I mean, as delivered to us in the doctrine and practice of the most holy and most eminent Fathers of Christianity all along, as I have said before, until the enemy of man oversowed tares among the wheat, in the dayes and Popedom of Gregory the VII.

And yet without any peradventure those very Scripture-passages alone, that is, the very and only letter of them would be sufficient (to perswade the general power of Princes over all men both Laicks and Clerks) without further help or addition of the sense and practice of holy Fathers, if some late Divines or Schoolmen were not far more pervicacious, then became either Christians, or even any sort of rational men; not to speak at all of Christian Divines.

Which is the cause, that being this sort of men, that is, some late Scho∣lasticks (among whom Cardinal Bellarmine is at least one of the chief) have strangely endeavoured to distort the said Scripture passages as rudely: to the end they might deprive all, even the most Christian and Catholick Princes, of this power, or that the arguments for it from the positive express law of God in holy Scripture, might be rendred at last so farr unsignificant as not to conclude all men, nor all affairs (though otherwise temporal) under it; but on the contrary, to exempt from it even the very most considerable part of men and affairs, and a vast number too of both; and consequently to lessen extreamly, if they could not totally extinguish it, as for any thing at least to be said for it from Scripture: I must crave your pardon Reader, if I be as prolix in this argument as in any, or perhaps more then in any of the for∣mer, or even in all three together, being I am resolved to give long entire passages out of the doctrine of the most eminent of the holy Fathers: and, out of Ecclesiastical History too, the practice of the Fathers to evict that sense of those Scripture passages (which is so obvious of it self) to have also been that all along handed to us by our said great fore-fathers: and conse∣quently that sense to be certain also by Tradition.

But first, or before I come to the doctrine, or, which is the same thing, to the exposition or sense of the Fathers, or that which they delivered to us (of those Scripture places) in their own proper, genuine, and uncontroverted books, I frame my fourth argument thus.

Whoever are expresly and clearly commanded by the mouth or pen of Paul the Apostle, Rom. 13. to be subject to the higher Powers, and are further told by the same Apostle, and in the same place, that there is no power but of God, and the powers that be are ordained of God; that therefore who∣ever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall acquire damnation to themselves; that earthly Princes are the Mini∣sters of God; that as the Ministers of God they bear the sword, and not in vain; and finally, that for all these reasons every soul must needs be subject to these higher Powers: I say, that whoever are commanded so, and told so, are by the very positive law of God in holy Scripture subject to, and conse∣quently

threin declared to be not exempt in criminal causes from the su∣pream civil coercive power of earthly Princes.

But all Clergiemen whoever, living within the Dominions of any supream secular Prince, are commanded so, and told so by Paul the Apostle, Rom. 13.

Ergo, all Clergiemen whoever, living within the Dominions of any su∣pream secular Prince, are by the very positive law of God in holy Scripture subject to, and consequently therein declared to be not exempt in criminal causes from the supream civil coercive power of earthly Princes.

The Major is evident: because that as no man ever yet doubted of any of these passages of St. Paul in the said thirteenth Chapter to the Romans, to be of holy Scripture, and for so much, to contain the very positive law of God (that although it may be said also, they for so much contain the very natural law of God:) so it can neither be denied honestly or christianly, or even at all rationally, that by Higher Powers, &c. in the text of Paul, secu∣lar Princes only are understood; being those Powers only are there under∣stood, who only bear the sword, and to whom only tribute and custom is paid, &c. Nor can it be denied, that by the text of Paul all souls are command∣ed to be subject in some things, or some causes: and therefore if not in spiritu∣al, certainly in temporal: whereas all things or causes are either spiritual or temporal. Nor besides, can it be denied they are said here to be subject in such temporal causes only, which are called meerly civil, as civil are opposed to criminal: because by the text they are subject even in such causes wherein use is to be made of the sword against malefactors; and it is plain, that such are also criminal, and not civil only. Nor finally, and consequently can it be denied they are commanded here to be subject to the coercive part or virtue of the Princes temporal power: whereas the directive, as such only, doth not, cannot make use of the sword to punish evil doers.

The Minor also is evident, because all Christians, all men and women universally, without exception or distinction of any state, or profession or character, are so commanded, and so told; and consequently Clerks, being they are Christians and men. For so doth the very interlineary Gloss un∣derstand it. Omnis anima id est omnis homo (sayes this Gloss) potestatibus sublimi••ribus subdita sit. And because the end of the precept could not be attained, if all Clerks universally as well as Laicks were not so commanded and so told. And because too the express doctrine, and known practise of the holy Fathers for many ages after the Apostles time, do teach us clearly, expresly and particularly, that in this text of Paul, and others like it, or of the same nature in the Bible, all Clerks indistinctly are understood no less then Laicks.

As for the conclusion; our Adversaries, I am sure, will not except against the necessity or evidence of it, if the premisses be once granted, or if they otherwise be in themselves true and certain.

To the premisses therefore, to the Major and Minor, it is, that several frame several Answers; some denying that for some part of it; and others this for the whole: but all of them equally spurning against truth, and even rebelling against the light of their own consciences, as those in Iob, qui rebelles sunt lumini, qui dicunt Deo, recede a nobis, scientiam viarum tuarum nolumus.

The first answer then is, that by higher Powers in St. Pauls text, those only are understood which are truly the higher, to wit, the powers Ecclesi∣astical or Spiritual. For, at least comparatively speaking, these are the higher; and temporal Powers, the lower: because the spiritual is of a more excellent nature, as more directly tending to God, then the temporal. And conse∣quently this answer sayes, that by the Sword, in the same text, the material sword of Iron is not understood; but the spiritual, of Excommunication, &c. The old Authors of this answer (albeit as old as St. Augustine himself; for he refutes them, as will be seen hereafter) and other late readers and embra∣cers

of it (though without sufficient patronage from its antiquity: being there have been heresies, confessed of all sides for heresies, as old as the dayes of Austin, and long before the dayes of Austin, even in those of the very blessed Apostles) must be obliged to deny the Major, or that last part, which is the only affirmation of it, where, I say, that whoever are commanded s••, and told so, are by the positive law of God in holy Scripture subject to, and con∣sequently therein declared to be not exempt in criminal causes, from the supream civil coercive power of earthly Princes.

The second Answer is of a newer stamp indeed; but of no lesser both ab∣surdity, and heresie in it self, and contradiction also to the very text, and ends of that text or precept. And it is in effect this, that by higher powers, both temporal and spiritual powers are understood respectively as to their own proper Subjects: and that St. Pauls command being in such general terms as these, Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit, must by consequence be understood so as intending, and only intending, that all secular persons should be subject to those who are as to them higher powers, viz. the secular Magistrate, Prince, King, Emperour, &c. and that all Clergy persons also should be subject to their own respective higher powers, that is, to the Supe∣riours Ecclesiastical, as Bishops, Archbishops, &c. and before all to the Pope, who is above all.

A third answer is observed by some as yet more strange and absurd; though Cardinal Bellarmines proper invention, say they. Who (say they too) not content with one single folly, viz. that of the former second answer, which he also, with some other Divines of his way, approveth and giveth, would needs invent this indeed so rare, so admired one. That although St. Paul commands universally, that all souls be subject to the higher powers; yet he commands not they be all subject to the higher politick, civil, temporal or secular powers. Quocirca (sayes he, lib. 1. de Translatione Imperii. cap. 2. n. 7.) antequam Principes politicos exaltare incipias super omnem animam, ac proinde su∣per ipsum etiam summum Pontificem (de hoc enim potissima quaestio est) demon∣strandum tibi erit, sublimiorem esse potestatem Principatus Politici, quam Ecclesi∣astici.

But I, for my part, see nothing new in this answer of Bellarmine; that is, nothing materially different from the first erroneous old answer of those whom St. Austin oppugned, and confuted in this matter (as shall be seen presently) or at least from that and the second, both together. For the only difference is, 1. That Bellarmine would fain by this unreasonable distinction, exempt at least the Pope from all secular power; whatever would become of the rest of the Clergie. And then he thought all was well enough: as I have elsewhere noted. 2. That he takes the word power in the abstract, not in the concrete: which yet the first answer did not. As for the word higher (or sublimioribus, in the Latin text) which he takes advantage of, by taking it comparatively: the first answer also took it so.

But however this be, or whether this of Bellarmine be materially diffe∣rent, or not, from the former, that is, from the first or second, or both an∣swers together:

I am sure, first, that I have evidently confuted already all three out of the very obvious and clear text it self: as you may see again, and before in my proofs of the Major and Minor, but more especially in that of the Major: where any indifferent judicious and ingenious Reader cannot but confess, that either there must be admitted not only one, but manifold and most manifest contradictions, and non-sense in that whole text or discourse of the blessed Apostle, if any one of all these answers were true: or certainly, that those texts of Paul must not be understood literally. Both which admissions are equally (and confessedly of all sides) false, erroneous and heretical, Only against that part of the first answer, where it is said, that by the sword, in that text of St. Paul, the spiritual of excommunication is to be understood, and not the material of iron, I am to add here, that this too is plainly con∣tradicted

by the very text: being hence it is clear, that sword must be un∣derstood, which is the proper sword of that Minister of God to whom tri∣bute and custom were then paid. Now it is no less clear, these were not then paid to Christian Bishops, Popes, or Church; but only to secular, and even heathen Princes.

Secondly, I am sure also, that all those three Answers, both joyntly and severally, are no less confuted by the very only true, primary, and proper end of St. Pauls universal command in these words, Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit, and of the rest of the discourse following. For this reason, as even our late School Expositors, as even Cornelius a Lapide himself, though of the same Society with Bellarmine, hath it (on the said 13. to the Romans) that I may not as yet alledge any thing out of the an∣cient holy Fathers, out of Origen, Chrisostom, Augustine, Anselme, and others of them, who handle directly, and of purpose this very subject) this reason, I say, which moved Paul to that general Edict, proves manifestly, 1. That by higher powers he only mean'd the secular, civil, or politick powers, and consequently by the sword also mean'd no other but the materi∣al sword. 2. That by omnis anima, every soul, he mean'd universally also the Faithful, without any distinction of Laicks and Clerks, or, which is the same thing, without any kind of exception of Clerks from the universal af∣fection or distribution of the word omnis, or word every.

For this reason was, & only was, as the above Cornelius a Lapide well proves it was, out of St. Augustine, Psal. 118. & Clemens Alexandrinus l. 4. Stromatum, That in the infancy of the Christian Church, even in the very days of the Apo∣stles & Christ himself, there was a rumour spread, that by the Gospel or Do∣ctrine, and law of Christ, as being a law of grace & liberty, humane Policies, Kingdoms & Republicks were quite everted: as now amongst such Hereticks as pretend the liberty of the Gospel for with drawing themselves from all kind of humane power is taught. That this rumour and calumny had its first ori∣gen from the sect of Iudas Galilaeus: whereof you may read, Acts 5. these Galilees teaching, that it was not lawful for the Jews by the law of God or Moyses, not even in case of death, to pay tribute, customes, or any other duty to Cesar: they being free-born by that law, and Caesar deriving no right from it. Whereof the Reader may satisfie himself more at large in Iosephus, l. 18. Antiquit. 1. That Christ having been himself by descent a Galilaen, and reputed one of that Countrey, and St. Paul too having in particular preach'd, and writ much of Christian liberty, or liberty from the yoake of the law and pleasure of men, in some other of his Sermons and Epistles (though he mean'd a liberty only from the judicial and ceremonial part of the law of Moses, and from the evil commands of men:) some of the beleevers themselves, who were in themselves otherwise corrupt or ig∣norant, were inclined to think themselves also free from humane policies and all the power of man. That the whole Nation of the Jews were generally infected with that doctrine of Iudas Galilaeus, even in those very dayes of Christ and the Apostles: as consequently we read, that in pursuance there∣of they all generally rebelled against the Romans: which occasioned the siege and final destruction of Ierusalem, and of their whole Nation under Titus and Ves••as••an, some forty years after the death of Christ.

Now therefore that of danger, that Christians might easily perswade them∣selves that they were all set free from the laws and power of men by the grace and liberty of the Gospel: and that of the consequent danger also of too much scandal to be cast upon them, as originally Gallicans, and teaching Christian liberty, which yet was not rightly understood by some; and not of scandal only, but of grievous persecutions from Gentil Princes against the religion in general and faith of Christ: I say, that these dangers fore-seen by the blessed Apostle, and his desire of removing such dangers, and obstruct∣ing also other consequent inconveniencies, having been the only cause, mo∣tive,

end of that general Edict of his, omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit: who sees not, it was not to his purpose here, as not to treat of the spiritual Superiority of Bishops or Pastors, or of their spiritual sword, or of the obedience or awe beleivers should stand in to either: so neither to command or intend that Laicks onely should obey the Lay powers, and Clerks the spiritual? For if he had intended either those spiritual powers onely or that spiritual sword onely, or if he had exempted any at all of the Christians, especially so great and considerable a body of them as all their Apostles, Evangelists, Doctors, Prophets, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, &c. and as all these would prove in time to be: who sees not that the secular heathen Princes would think themselves to have a most just cause to rage against them as evert∣ing all humane government and power? We know and see daily that even Christian Princes even now a days, nay even ever since the very first Christian Princes were, nor even the most pious and godly of them did ever yet abide that as much as any one individual person, how high and holy a Clerk soever, should be in their Kingdom, and not subject in temporals.

Therefore the very true primary and proper end of this general edict of Paul concludes against all and every of the above answers, no less evidently then the letter or text it self in that whole discourse of Paul.

Thirdly, and yet more particularly and singly as to Bellarmine's own so strange and new and proper invention (as I have noted before that some take that answer to be which I have placed as a third answer, but certainly his, whether it be different or not) I am no less certainly perswaded, that all dis∣interessed judicious men will confess that both his reasons for it are convin∣ced again by the very letter of the text or whole context of the Apostles discourse there not onely to be vain pittifull subtilities, or rather childish un∣significant captions of words, but also to inferre manifest contradiction in that very whole context. For though Bellarmine (above, de Translat. Imperij, l. 1. c. 2. n. 7.) after he had answered Illyricus, that S. Paul said not, Let every soul be subject to the politick powers; but, Let every soul be subject (potestatibus sublimioribus) to the more sublime (or higher) powers: and after he had con∣sequently told Illyricus, that before he went about to exalt the politick pow∣ers above all souls, and by consequence above the Pope himself (of whom sayes Bellarmine, the chief question is) he ought to demonstrate first that the power of the politick Magistrate is more sublime then that of the Ecclesiasti∣cal: although I say after this, Bellarmine interrogates, whether S. Paul him∣self did not openly subject all the faithfull, not even the Magistrate excepted, to the Bishops, where he sayes, Obedite prepositis vestris, & subiacete eis. Ipsi enim pervigilant, quasi rationem pro animabus vestris reddituri, &c. Heb. 13.17? And then produces Nazianz••n, Ambrose, Chrysostome and Bernard, who all sub∣ject Princes to the Church, yet I say withall it is plain enough he brings no∣thing here to purpose or to prove the reasonableness of or any kind of seem∣ing colour in his answer, but those two very bad childish arguments which he most unreasonably grounds on the word powers, and on the word higher, or words more sublime. For no man disputes but grants that all the faithfull, including the very Magistrate, Prince, King, or Emperour, are bound in spi∣ritual matters purely such, or as such, to obey the spiritual Superiours of the Church, clave non errante: which is all can be derived or was intended by St. Paul in that passage to the Hebrews, or by those Fathers. So that so much of Bellarmines allegations here was impertinent. What therefore he relyes up∣on as material is. 1. that, as he pretends, the word potestatibus, powers in that general edict of St. Paul may and ought to be understood in the abstract (as Logicians speak) vz. as importing onely the authority which Princes have, and not the concrete of that power, or not the Princes themselves as having that power or authority. 2. that, as he pretends also, the word sublimioribus, in that same general command of Paul, was intended by Paul comparatively, not positively: and that comparison also intended by Paul to be betwixt the Ec∣clesiastical

power as more sublime in its own nature, and the secular as less sublime. Behold his two and onely reasons for an answer so inconsistent not onely with that motive and end we have seen before the Apostle had, but so contradictory also to the very letter and all kind too of any litteral sense in the letter. For who sees not, that by the very letter and litteral sense of that whole context, it is evidently seen that St. Paul took the word potestatibus, powers in the concrete? or, which is the same thing, that by the word powers he mean'd the very secular Princes themselves who had that power which made them higher, or sublimer then others? For he sayes, that whosoever resist that power, acquire damnation to themselves. And then presently: for Princes are not a terrour of good works; but of the evil. And soon after, will you (sayes he) not fear the power? do well and you shall have praise. And then immediatly, For he is the Minister of God. Whence if it be not evident, that by the word powers the Apostle intends the Princes themselves, and not their authority in the abstract, but in the concrete as affecting and acting in and by the Princes, or rather the Princes as acting by it, I must confess I under∣stand not how any thing at all can be proved out of any text. For besides that the powers or the power in the abstract are not, is not resisted or feared, but in the concrete: it is at least evident that Princes who are a terrour, and the Minister of God, are powers and power in the concrete. And yet nothing is more evident nor can be out of any text then that those which are, or that which is called the higher, or more sublime powers in the first verse, omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit, are in the 3. v. called Princes, and is in the 4 v. called the Minister of God. Therefore it is plain enough, and Bellar∣mine could not but know it well enough too, that Paul by a figure of speech, as is very usual, took the abstract for the concrete, sometimes in that discourse, particularly in that word potestatibus in the first verse: as all Expositors, even his own Cornelius a Lapide, confess. Which manner of speech, or of taking the abstract for the concrete, even too his own Italians daily use when they call in Italian, the chief Magistrate of a town, il Podesta.

And who but sees that Bellarmine's second reason or subtility is alltogether as vain? Where to give some but a very bad colour indeed to his own fore∣said answer, he would fain impose on his ignorant or simple Reader by the latin word sublimiribus (in English, more sublime) and perswade him by this Grammatical argument of one word singly taken according onely to the latin version, without regarding any other version, or as much as what the whole con∣text following in every version imported, that the Apostle means here. 1. to speak comparatively. 2. that the comparison was also mean'd by him to be not betwixt the higher or sublimer temporal power, and the lower temporal, or (which is the same thing in effect) betwixt the secular Prince and his Sub∣jects; but betwixt the pure Ecclesiastical or spiritual power, upon one side, and the meer politick or civil, on the other. And that therefore it was the Apostle used this comparative expression by the word sublimioribus: as intend∣ing onely by that general precept (omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus sub∣dita sit) to command all Christians to be subject to those powers which are more sublime (in the nature of powers, or in themselves) then any other powers.

To destroy all which, I need not say much. For first the Greek Text and Syriack Version, hath it not in the comparative; but in the positive: as may be seen also in Cornelius a Lapide on this place: the Syriack reading, as our translators have it, potestatibus dignitate praeditis; where tis in the positive: and the Greek, instead of potestatibus sublimioribus, having potestatibus supere∣minentibus, or precellentibus, imported by the Greek word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is positive questionless, as those two latin words supereminentibus & pre∣cellentibus are, and as Bellarmine could not but know all three both Greek and Latin are. Now St. Paul is supposed to have writt in Greek his Epistle to the Romans: which also Bellarmine knew as well as any. And yet he would

rather make use of the Latin word, or strict Grammatical sense of that Latin comparative word that he might impose; though he cannot on any, unless peradventure on Grammar School boys. Secondly were it certain, or true, or were it admitted, the Apostle had used here a word that were comparative according to the Grammatical termination; yet would is not follow, he mean'd thereby any comparison at least to an other power, and least of all to a power of a different kind; but onely a bare relation, and this in a pure positive sense, to the Subjects. Which manner of speech, or of comparative words used to express a positive sense is ordinary in Latin: as appears in the words Superior, Major, Senior, &c. These comparative words therefore in Paul's text, higher, or more sublime, have a meer and pure positive sense, import∣ing as much as the indeed sublime, the indeed high and great and mighty pow∣ers, and coercive too: which are often also by the holy Fathers called potesta∣tes principales, the principal powers: as if besides or without them there were no other powers. For it was that true power indeed, which is indeed coactive, & which is armed, & strikes with the true proper material sword (not with an im∣proper or metaphorical one) that Paul mean'd: as I have before demonstrated both out of the very letter of the text, and out of the motive and scope of writing that letter or text. And therefore also it must be, that the Powers intended by Paul here, were not intended by him to be compared to the Powers Ecclesiastical: being these, as they are not coactive at all, if we speak properly, and simply (that is, are not coactive by the material sword; where∣by only that which is the coaction is:) so they are quite of another kind and order: and comparison is properly made betwixt things of one or the self same kind and order. Thirdly if we admitted for disputes sake, that Paul did both speak and mean comparatively; nay, and if we admitted also, that he did both speak in, and mean the abstract (which is Bellarmines first ground) and further consequently, that Paul intended to signifie, that the power Ecclesiastical is more sublime then the Temporal: what then would follow? Nay, what would not follow, as well against Bellarmine himself as Truth it self? Certainly, that Paul intended only to say or command, That every soul should be subject to the power Ecclesiastical, which is more sublime then the temporal or lay Power. And consequently Paul had given that precept of, or for the power Ecclesiastical only; or only for obedience or subjection to this power. Which yet to say or assert, we have already seen to be directly and contradictorily as well against Bellarmine's own answer (vz, the third to my grand argument) as against the text. But to lay aside Bellarmines contradicti∣on of himself, I demand what may be, as to the matter it self, more foolishly said? Is it indeed this more sublime power Ecclesiastical that carries the sword? Are the Bishops those Princes who are a ferrour of evil doings? Is it to Bishops that tributs are paid? We therefore deny not, the power Ecclesiasti∣cal to be in its own kind, that is, in a quite other kind, more sublime, in rela∣tion to or by reason of its immediate object; but we deny there is any com∣parison, at least to it, made here by the Apostle. And say we have already proved, it was only of the Lay or Secular power, which is indeed the supream in order to all matters temporal, the Apostle speaks here: & that it is onely this Lay power he calls here the more sublime power. And say moreover, that although if both powers be compared together or one to the other (in quodam analogo superiori potestatis) in a certain superior analogical conception of power, the Ec∣clesiastical be more sublime in the abstract; yet in the concrete it is not so. For though it be true, the Prince, as a Christian believer, notwithstanding his pow∣er, is subject to the Church, even as to the good or evil use of his power, if he do sin by abusing it: so that every believing or Christian Soul, universally speak∣ing, without any kind of exception of any person either Subject or Magistrat, Prince, King or Emperour, is subject to the power Ecclesiastical, & is bound in spiritual things to obey the Governours. Ecclesiastical: yet is it also true, on the contrary that every man, as man, whoever he be, whether Christian or

Infidel, whether Laick or Clerk, whether Priest Bishop or Pope, by reason of his humane nature, and notwithstanding the power Ecclesiastical of such as have this power, is subject to the lay or civil power in temporal matters. And this is it which the Apostle mean'd. And as he spoke to all the faithfull, not excepting even the Magistrate, when he subjected them all to Superiours Ecclesiastical, Heb. cap. 13. so doth he speak to all, even by adding the word omnis, or every (which he did not in the case of subjection to Ecclesiastical Superiors) when he subjects them all, not even the very Pope excepted, to the more sublime powers, which were and are the lay Princes. For in tempo∣rals there is no power in the world not onely not more sublime but not so sub∣lime as that of the temporal Princes, within their own respective territories: and in spirituals none more sublime nor as sublime as that of Pontiffs. And as in order to spiritual things the supream civil power doth not exempt the Prince himself from the power Ecclesiastical in concreto, that is from the per∣sons having that power: even so neither doth the power Ecclesiastical ex∣empt the person or man that is Priest or Pontiff, as he is a man, from the se∣cular power, in concreto. Nor doth it matter a pinn whether in abstract•• and in a different kind the one power be more sublime, that is, more excellent our divine in its own nature of a meer power, then the other. For persons more excellently more divinely qualified then others may be and are daily seen to be in concreto subject to those others in some things by reason of some office those others beare, or even of some inferiour calling or art wherein they may instruct the former, those otherwise more excellently and more divinely qualified persons.

Having thus examined, confuted, and retorted more then sufficiently our learned Cardinal's evasion, and his two grounds of his evasion, from the letter and both obvious and necessary sense of the letter of St. Pauls so general and so strictly universal injunction to all Christians both Clerks and Laicks for obeying and being subject to the civil power: and having no less confuted the other two answers also of others: that is, having both out of the very text of St. Paul and out also of the motives and scope of St. Paul confuted abundantly all the before given three answers of all the several Adversaries old or new: it remains now that to those my two ways of both refutation and confirmation I add yet a third. Which is that I promised of the sense of the holy Fathers on the very controverted points here, concerning what was mean'd by St. Paul in this command, omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit, what those higher powers are? what the sword he speaks of after? what subjection and obedience? wherein? And from whom due or by what persons to be paid? For if I shew by clear express texts of the holy Fathers also my doctrine here is evinced, then I have discharged fully what I purposed and what I promised or undertook either in this present Section, or in my LXII. Section, against the Divines of Lovaine.

Therefore I say Thirdly, I am likewise as sure of this third way of refuting the foresaid three answers, and proving my own purpose (or confirming my above fourth grand argument even as to both premisses, and every part of them) as I have shewn already that I had reason to be of the two former ways, (vz. the text it self and rational sense of the law, and the chief motive and end of the same law, or of that whole context of Paul wherein it was written and delivered to us.)

For to begin with St. Augustine (although he be not the first or ancientest of the Fathers I quote, or who according to the ages of Christianity treated first to our purpose of this matter: for in that I do not tye my self here to a method, as neither in giving together all places or passages of the same or other Fathers without interposition of those of some other) it is plain enough that he is home enough, in Psal. 118. conc. 31. where he discourseth thus. Principes persequuti sunt me gratis. Quid enim Christiani laeserant regna terrena (ut principes persequutionem in eos excitarent sine causa) quamvis eis Regnum salorum promiserit Rex eorum? Quid inquam laeserant regna terrena? Numquid

e••rum Rex milites suos prohibuit impedire & exhibere quae debentur Regibus ter∣re? N••nne de hoc sibi calumniam molientibus Judeis ait Matthaei 22.20. Red∣dite Cesari quae Cesaris sunt, & Deo quae Dei sunt? Nonne tributum de ore piscis etiam ipse persoluit? Mat. 17.23. Nonne praecursor eius militibus regni bujus, quod facere deberent pro aeterna salute, quaerentibus, non ait, Cingulum soluite, armi v••stra proijcite, R••gein vestrum deserite, ut possitis Domino militare: sed ait Lucae 3.14. Neminem concuss••ritis, nulli calumniam feceritis, sufficiat vibis sti∣pendium vestrum? Nonne unus militum ejus, & dilectissimus Comes ejus, com∣milit nibus suis, & qu••dammodo Christi Provincialibus dixit Rom. 13.1. Omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subditae sit: &, paulo post, ait: Reddite omnibus debita, cui tributum &c. Et 1. Timoth. 2.2. praecepit ut pro ipsis etiam Regibus oraret Ecclesia? Quid ergo eos Christiani offenderunt? Quod debitum non reddi∣derunt? In quo Christiani non sunt terrenis Regibus obsequuti? Ergo terreni Reges Christianos gratis persequuti sunt.

And again what the Babilonical captivity signified in former times, the same Augustine tels in this manner, l. de Catechis. Rud. c. 21. saying: Hoc autem totum figurate significat, Ecclaesiam Christi in omnibus sanctis ejus, qui sunt cives Hierusalem caelestis, servituram fuisse sub regibus hujus saeculi. Dicit enim & Apostolica doctrina, ut omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit: & u••••reddantur omnibus omnia, cui tributum tributum, cui vectigal vectigal, & caetera, quae salvo Dei nostri cultu, constitutionis humanae Principibus reddimus. Qu••nd & ipse Dominus, ut nobis bujus sanae doctrinae preberet exemplum, pro capi∣te hominis qu••erat indutus, tributum soluere non dedignatus est.

Do you see this text or this precept of Paul omnis anima &c. and all that follows applyed by St. Augustine to earthly Princes? Do you see in him those earthly Princes to be those higher, or more sublime powers of Paul? Do you not read here, that all the Saints were to serve those earthly powers, and to be subject to them, according to that command of Paul? Do you hold that Churchmen are not to be ranked amongst the Saints? Nay rather perhaps will not our Adversaries account Ecclesiasticks onely to be the Saints, and all others to be worldlings? Do you heare Austin confessing himself bound by the humane constitutions of Princes? Do you observe how he sayes, that Christ himself gave us example to be subject to Princes? see you whether in that word Nobis, us, Saint Austine includes Ecclesiasticks? If he did not, then Christ gave not to all an example of this subjection: for I expect this impiety also to be held by our Adversaries. Are not all Ecclesiasticks commili∣tones Pauli, the fellow souldiers of Paul? And yet we have now heard Austin say, that Paul gave that command, omnis anima &c, to all his own fellow soul∣diers.

And Iraeneus, before him writes thus. lib. 1. cap. 24. Non Diabolus deter∣minavit hujus saeculi regna, sed Deus. Regis enim cor in manu Dei. Et per Sa∣lomonem ait: Per me reges regnant. Et Paulus hoc ipsum ait: omnibus potestati∣bus sublimioribus subjecti estote.

And Tertullian, de Idolat. cap. 25. Quod attinet ad honores Regum vel Im∣peratorum, satis praescriptum habermus, in omni obsequio esse nos oportere, secun∣dum Apostoli praeceptum, subditos Magistratibus & principibus.

And hence, or consequently, the very Interlinear Glosse: omnis anima potesta∣tibus sublimioribus subdita sit: id est saecularibus, bonis vel malis, in hoc quod sub∣limes, id est in mundanis.

And Chrysostom (long before this Glossatour's days) in specie, and most particularly and expresly comprehending in these words omnis homo, or in these, every Soul, comprehending I say expresly all and every of the Priests and Monks, nay and all and every of the very Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, and all whomever else you please, how excellent or divine soever. hom. 2••, in Epist. ad Roman. Sed eas Paulus m••vet rationes, quae potestatibus ex debito obedire jubent, ostendens quod ista imperentur omnibus, & Sacerdotibus & Monachis, non solum saecularibus. Id quod statim in ipso exordio declarat cum dicit: omnis

anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit: etiámsi Apostolus sis, etiamsi Evan∣gelista, si Propheta, sive quisquis tandem fueris. Ne{que} enim pietatem subvertit i••ta subjectio.

Exclude you now the Churchmen from that universal proposition of Paul, if you be wiser, if a better Christian, if more knowing what was delivered by tradition of the sense of Paul then Chrysostome. Understand you other powers then the meer lay powers, by potestatibus sublimioribus, if you be more knowing herein then the same Chrisostome, Glosse, Tertullian, Ireneus, Austin; who all, as you have seen, expound this text, these words of it, of the secular power onely.

But let us here Chrisostome again, hom. 6. in ep. 1. ad Timoth. Ʋt quietam & tranquillam degamus vitam. Ac si dicat: In illorum regum salute securitas nostra consistit. Quemadmodum & in Epistola ad Romanos, cum eos hortaretur obedire Principibus, ait: Non propter necessitatem, sed propter conscientiam. Deus enim pro utilitate communi hujusmodi principatus instituit. Quam igitur absur∣dum est, cum illi idcirco militent, & arma circumferant, ut nos in tranquillitate at{que} ••tio simus, nos pro periclitantibus ac nostri causa labores subeuntibus, preces effundere detrectemus. Non igitur assentandi gratia hujusmodi mandatum dedit, verùm justitiae seruavit leges. Nisi enim illi servarentur, at{que} inter bella & hostes prosperè agerent, necessario & nostra omnia turbis tumultibus{que} plena essent. Nam sive militare opus fuisset, ac per nosmet eadem subire pericula concisis illis; sive sugere, vagos{que} per orbem terrarum ferri. Sunt enim hujusmodi veluti obices quidam hostibus oppositi, per quos nos in pace servemur.

Where besides our present purpose evicted in his explication or rather ap∣plication of that text of Paul, and his proofs too given for the natural both equity and necessity of such precept, for being subject to the temporal Princes, he particularly obviats that other answer of some, That Paul indeed is clear enough in commanding all sorts of persons, both Lay and Ecclesiastical, none at all excepted to be subject to and obey the temporal Magistrats; but yet must be so understood as to have commanded so out of humane policy, complacency with and flattery of Princes: or so that his command should onely be temporary, a timeserving command, that is until the Christian Church had gott streingth enough of men and arms to make good their own freedom, priviledges, the exempti∣on of their Clergiemen, and laymen too in many cases, or what other quarrel soever they found to be just.

This answer, I confess, I have not given before to my own grand argument, or to the texts of Paul whereon that argument is grounded. And yet I might have given, that is, placed it in the third or fourth or last place of all, as the readiest to overthrow all I said, or could say, or any body else could say out of Scripture, not onely for this present or any controverted point, but also for the most uncontroverted or certainly confessed by all sides to be of Christian Religion. But I purposely abstained before from relating it, for two reasons. The first was, that it is not peculiar to this of the exemption of Clergiemen: or, which is that I mean, that it not onely overthrows any deduction from Paul for that of Clergiemen, as commanded by him to be subject to the Higher powers or the temporal Princes; but also for that of any Christian Laymen. Which is more then our present Adversaries will have the confidence to own: at least more then they pretend in handling our present controversy. And yet I must tell my Reader that as great a Divine & as Catho∣lick as Bellarmine himself makes use of this answer, though elsewhere, that is, where he is pressed with the doctrine & practice of the primitive Christians, in point of subjection & obedience to Infidel Princes who persecuted them: and where it is demanded wherefore the Pope's did not absolve Christians then from their Allegiance, if there was or be any such power in Popes, either di∣rect or indirect, to absolve the Vassals of any Prince in such cases as those of endeavouring to destroy all Faith and all true Religion, &c? & where also this very command of Paul (we treat of here) is brought against his position

of the Pope's power to absolve all Christian Subjects from their obedience in such cases. And my second reason for not ranking this answer amongst the rest was, that it is in it self so impious, and blasphemous too, as that must be which leaves us no certain rule in Scripture, at least in the new Testament, either in the writings of the Apostles or Evangelists, nor even in any of the Gospels of Christ himself, whereby to govern our selves at least in point of Justice one to another. For it may be answered still (according to this answer) that the Apostles or Evangelists writ indeed and gave (as from Christ, or in his name, or as from themselves) such or such precepts; but gave them onely as time serving precepts, to hold no longer then pleased the Christians: that is, until the Christians did find there was no worldly dan∣ger from Prince or State or other men in breaking them. Then which if any thing can be said more impiously and blasphemously, any thing more pulling up all Christianity by the very roots (being it by a necessary consequence makes of the Apostles and Evangelists (nay and of our Saviour Christ him∣self) but meer impostors, and the whole Gospel too of Christ but a grand imposture; because it makes them but dissembling temporizers, and this but a book of tricks and cheats to amuse the world) I leave the Reader to judge. Therefore, that is, because this answer involved such horrid consequen∣ces, I pas'd it over in silence, where I gave the rest.

Yet now finding it by chance in my before last given quotation of Chryso∣stom, forasmuch as I see there his animadversion against it (Non igitur assen∣tandi gratia hujusmodi mandatum dedit) I changed my mind: and thought fit, though incidentally or accidentally, to enlarge my self so farre, and to prove, as now I have done, the manifest impiety and blasphemy thereof.

But to return again to that which is my purpose, and, out of the same Chrysostome also in other places, to shew that in his doctrine they are the temporal Princes onely were mean'd by Paul or by his higher or more sublime Powers: what else I beseech you does he teach where he speaks thus: in 2. ad Corinth. hom. 15. Sunt enim Principatus genera multa. Nam in vno genere, po∣pulis & civitatibus imperant homines, civilem hanc vitam moderantes, id quod Paulus manifestans dicebat: omnis anima &c. In alio autem genere vnus quis∣{que} mentem habens sibi ipsi imperat. Quod & illie manifestavit dicens: si autem non vis timere potestatem, bonum fac: insinuando sibi ipsi imperantem. Hic autem est etiam alius principatus civili sublimior. Quis igitur est ille? Is qui in Eccle∣sia. Cujus & Paulus in Epist ad Hebre. cap. 13. meminit, dicens, Obedite Praepo∣sitis vestris &c. where you see Chrysostome distinguishes principality into three sorts: that of Princes over all their people: that of every mans mind or will over his own passions: and that of the Superiours Ecclesiastical, over the children of the Church. And sayes the first onely is understood by Paul where he sayes Rom. 13. Omnis anima, let every soul &c: the second insinuated by him where he sayes again in the same Epistle and chapter, will you not fear the power? Do good, and you shall have praise &c: and the third in that passage of his epistle to the Hebrews 13. chap. Obedite Praepositis vestris &c.

And what else too means the same Chrysostome again, serm. de Principatu, Tom. 6. Antwerp. where he speaks thus? Iam vero qui Praefectis & Principibus obtemperat, non illis imperantibus so submittit, sed Deo, qui hoc ita constituit, paret. At qui illis morem non gerit, Deo bellum infert. Nulla enim potestas, inquit D. Paulus, nisi à Deo. Therefore he applyes (here too) the same texts of Paul Rom. 13. to and onely to the meer temporal Principalities: saying, that who submits to them, doth not so much submit to them as to God who hath com∣manded they should be so submitted unto: and that whoever doth not sub∣mit to them, makes warr on God. Because (sayes he) as Paul teaches, there is no power but from God. Rom. 13.

S. Basil hath the very self same exposition of that whole passage to the Romans, in Constitut. Monastic. c. 22. where he expresly affirms that by the more excellent powers of Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, the worldly or secu∣lar

Princes onely are understood, and not the spiritual: as by the same Paul's praepositi, in his epistle to the Hebrews, the Church Superiours are Paulus (sayes he) Apostolus, in ea epistola, quam ad Romanos scribit, ipsis praecipit, ut excellentionibus illi p••testatibus omnibus subjectii s••nt: potestatibus inquam, mundi, non spiritualibus: at{que} hoc exijs quae deinceps adiecit declaravit, cum de tributis & vectigali l••cutus est. And then forms his argument a minori thus: Si potesta∣tibus Laicis omnino, praecipiente Apostole, parendum est, quorum tamen vita tota (sayes he) erat impietas: quanto magis obedientia prestanda est ei, qui Antistes & Praepositus est rerum spiritualium, juxtu ejusdem Pauli aliud preceptum, Obedite Praepositis vestris, &c?

I confess indeed, S. Basil in the same place affirms Princes to have had their power from the laws of men. But I say withall, that if this saying be taken rigidly and exclusively, I understand not how it may stand with St. Pauls doctrine and commands: because Paul expresly teacheth all power to be from God; as we have seen already. Therefore S. Basil, for so much, must be interpreted piously, as not excluding the derivation of it from God, as from the primary immediat efficient; but intending onely the secondary instrumental causes, or those which Philosophers call conditiones sine quibus n••n, videlicet, those of humane election, of a just conquest, or of the humane laws of succession, donation, inheritance, &c.

Ambrose also, in his commentary of this epistle to the Romans, c. 13. ex∣pounds the same passage wholly and onely of the secular or lay power. Prin∣cipes h••s (sayes he) Reges dicit, qui propter corrigendam vitam, & prohibend•• adversa, creantur.

But Augustine, again directly, expresly, and of sett purpose, nay and not without laughter and scorn of the Authors of his time of the distinction or answer of Bellarmine, confutes all that say, the Apostle is to be understood of the Ecclesiastical powers, as being indeed or in an other order the more sublime. It is in his work, cont. epist. Parmen. l. 1. cap. 7. that S. Augustine discourseth thus against such Authors. Propter quid ergo gladium portat, qui dictus est Minister Dei, vindex in iram eis qui male agunt? Nisi forte, quemadmodum nonnulli eo∣rum, sane imperitissimi, hoc intelligere solent de honoribus Ecclesiasticis, dictum esset, ut gladius intelligatur vindicta spiritualis, qui excommunicationem operatur; cum prudentissimus Apostolus consequenti contextione lectionis, satis aperiat quid lequati••••. Ille quippe addit: propter hoc enim & tributa praestatis. Ac deinde subjunxit, reddite omnibus debita, cui tributum tributum, cui vectigal vectigal, ••ui honorem honorem, cui timorem timorem. Hoc ergo iam restat, vt istis disputatio∣nibus suis prohibeant Christianos tributa persoluere: cum & Dominus talia senti∣entibus Pharisaeis, quos imitantur isti, nummo inspecto responderit, Reddite (inquit) quae sunt Caesaris Caesari, & Deo quod Dei est: hivero in vtro{que} in obe∣dientes, at{que} impij, nec Deo reddunt amorem, ne{que} Regibus humanum timorem. where you see that, besides his conviction of them out of the very text of Paul, he calls them imperitissimos, inobedientes, impios, imitantes Pharisaeos, most unskilfull, disobedient, impious, and followers of the Pharisees, who maintain that by the more sublime powers, or by Princes in this text of Paul, the Church Superiours are understood, or the censure of excommunication by that sword whereof in the same text. The difference therefore twixt those old dotards, whom St. Augustine impugnes here, and our new Bellar∣minians is onely, that those unlearned disobedient impious and Pharisee like Adversaries of Austin expounded this Power and this sword (in this text of Paul) onely of the spiritual power and spiritual sword: but our late Sophisters would have both the spiritual and temporal understood respective∣ly, that is, each in order to a certain kind of people; or the spiritual onely understood, if the question be of Churchmen, and the temporal onely then when lay persons are concernd. By which distinction these excellent Inter∣preters would substract at least all Clerks whatsoever, even such as onely have primam tonsuram, if not all the faithfull universally from their subjection

to worldly Princes. And yet who sees not, that Augustines arguments out of the very text of Paul equally convinceth both, or as well these late So∣phisters as those ancient dotards?

Against so many clear evidences of these holy Fathers, Augustine, Ambrose, Chrysostome, Ireneus &c, to be for us, our opposers have nothing to alleadg, but what one of them sayes (Carmelita contra Fulg.) that some other holy Fathers, and particularly S. Anselme, Symmachus, and Bernard, have besides the temporal understood also the power Ecclesiastical as comprehended by Paul under his more sublime powers. And I confess these Fathers have so, in some sense, or to some purpose. But withall I averre they are as wide as can be from having any where understood S. Paul in that general sense wherein our said Opposers would have him understood, or to their purpose at all? For these Fathers, Anselme, Symmachus, and Bernard applye that command of Paul by way onely of proportion, and as by an argument a minori (as be∣fore we have seen Basil do) to perswade obedience in spiritual things to the spiritual Rectors of the Church: this being in effect their argument. If Paul command that for the just and necessary ends of humane policy or go∣vernment, all men obey and be subject to the Princes of this world, how mvch more should or ought the Faithfull be in spiritual matters obedient and subject to their spiritual Governours?

For so plainly doth Symmachus, in Apolog. frame his argument, speaking to the Emperour Anastasius. Fortassis (sayes he) dicturus es, scriptum esse omni potestati nos subditos esse de bere. But doth he answer this objection, by exempt∣ing himself from that general proposition or command, for as much as it speaks of humane or civil powers, or by placing himself onely under that other kind of power which is purely spiritual or Ecclesiastical? nothing less. For in humane or temporal things he acknowledges himself subject to the Emperour, though in spiritual matters he also teaches, that even the Empe∣rour himself ought yet much more to be subject to the powers of the Church. For thus he goes on, and sayes: Nos quidem potestates humanas suo loco suscipi∣mus, donec contra Deum suas erigunt voluntates. Ceterum si omnis potestas a Deo est, magis ergo qu•• rebus est praestituta divinis. Defer Deo in nobis: & nos defe∣remus Deo in te.

And even so doth Anselme expound himself in epist. ad Rom. c. 13. For when he said there, omnis anima, id est, omnis homo, sit humiliter subdita potesta∣tibus vel saecularibus, vel Ecclesiasticis, sublimioribus se: hoc est, omnis homo sit subjectus superpositis sibi potestatibus: presently he expounds himself, as meaning that every Christian, none at all excepted be first subject by reason of their temporals to the temporal powers: and then also that by reason of their spirituals every one be subject in spiritual things to the spiritual or Ecclesi∣astical powers. Cum enim (sayes he) constemus ex anima & corpore, & quam∣diu in hac vita temporali sumus, etiam rebus temporalibus ad subsidium ejusdem vitae vt amur, oportet nos ex ea parte quae ad hanc vitam pertinet, subditos esse potesta∣tibus, id est, res humanas cum aliquo honore administrantibus: ex illa verò parte qua Deo credimus, & in regnum ejus vocamur, non debemus subditi esse cuiquam homini idipsum in nobis evertere cupienti. And so goes on further explicating how all Christians by reason of humane life ought to be subject to the Lay powers, and pay them custome and tribute, according to that of our Savi∣our, Reddite quae sunt Caesari, but not to be subject to them in matters of Faith or spiritual life; but, in these, to the powers Ecclesiastical.

And so finally doth Bernard ep. 183. ad Conradum Regem Romanorum. Legi quippe (sayes he) omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit; & qui po∣testati resistit Dei ordinationi resistit. Quam tamen sententiam cupio vos, & omni∣modis moneo custodire, in exhibenda reverentia summae & Apostolicae sedi. Which is no more then to apply that command of Paul by an argument a minori, as here. If it be just or equitable, that according to the praecept of Paul, every one be in temporals obedient to the Lay powers, how much more in spirituals

ought the very Kings themselves revere the powers Ecclesiastical? Which to have been the sense of Bernard in that epistle or passage of it, may be evinced cleerly out of an other passage of an other epistle of his, epis. 4. ad S••n nonsem Archiepiscopum, where he writes thus. Intelligitis quae dico? cui h••norem h••norem: omnis anima inquit potestatibus sublimioribuus subdita sit. Si omnis, & vestra. Quis vos excipit ab vniversalitate? Si quis tentat excipere omatur decipere. S. Bernard here indeed labours to perswade the Archbishop to a more plenary obedience to the See Apostolick: and to perswade him to this, argues thus a minori. If by the law divine we be all commanded to be subject to even secular civil powers, how much more are we by the same law commanded to be subject also to the spiritual powers? In prosecu∣tion of which argument, mind, or sense of his he adds presently, advising the Archbishop not to hearken to such as would perswade him to defend his own proper dignity against the Apostolical See: Haec isti. Christus aliter jussit & gessi••: Reddite (ait) quae sunt Caesaris Caesari, & quae sunt Dei Deo. Quod ere l••••••utus est, m••x opere implere curavit. C••nditor Caesaris Caesari non cunctatus est reddere censum. Exemplum enim dedit vobis, ut & vos ita faciatis. Quom d••verò Dei sacerd••tibus debitam negaret reverentiam, qui hanc saeculari∣bus qu••{que} potestatibus exhibere curavit? Perro vos, si Caesaris Successori, id est Regi, seduli in suis curis, consilijs, negotijs, exercitibus{que} adestis, indignum erit v••bis cui••uma; Christi Vica••io taliter exhibere, qualiter ab antiquo inter Ecclesias ordinatum est? Therefore it is cleer enough that Bernard expounds not Paul here of the powers Ecclesiastical, but onely applyes that command of Paul a fortier, (as we say) to the same Ecclesiastical powers, or to that in particu∣lar of the See Apostolick. Where yet it is worthy our observation, though it be not to my present purpose, how he seems to insinuate very much by his qualiter ab antiquo inter Ecclesias ordinatum est, against the more common doctrine of our School-Divines concerning the powers of the See Aposto∣lick over other Sees or Bishops. For Bernard speaks here of it in the very same or like language to that of the Fathers of Chalcedon in their 27. canon: attributing wholly the Papal jurisdiction and priviledges, as such, to the plea∣sure and institution of the Fathers; not to that which is immediately de jure divin••, as our Schools now do commonly teach. But herein I will not inter∣po••••: being it is no part of my present purpose. What I conclude is that neither Bernard himself is any more for the exposition of our Adversaries then Symmachus or Anselme. And the same I say of all others of the Ancients, if any other be who seem to include also the powers Ecclesiastical in those more sublime powe••s of Paul: because the very self same explication must be that of their se••••e or mind; being there was none of them all but taught where they had occasion, that all souls, even every one vniversally, none at all excepted, were subject in temporal things to the temporal Princes placed o••e•• the Nations where they lived, according to that precept of Paul, omnis anima &c.

To which purpose let us yet further see what Origen teaches on that place of Paul, in epist. ad R••manos, l. 9. in. cap. 13. where explicating that place of the subjection due to higher powers, he writes thus. Ordinat quidem per haec Paulus Ecclesiam Dei, ut nihil adversi Principibus & potestatibus saeculi gerens, per quietem & tranquillitatem vitae, opus justitiae & pietatis exerceat. Si enim ponamus, verbi gratia, credentes Christo, Potestatibus saeculi non esse subjectos, tri∣buta non reddere, nec vectigalia pensitare, nulli timorem, nulli honorem deferre, nonne per haec Rectorum ac Principum merito in semetipsos arma converterent? & persequutores quidem suos excusabiles, semetipsos verò culpabiles redderent? Non enim jam fidei, sed contumaciae causa impugnari viderentur, & esse eis quidem causa mortis, meritum verò mortis indignum. Where this great and most anci∣ent Doctor not onely teaches that by Paul's more sublime powers, onely the secular lay or civil powers are understood; but gives also the necessary cau∣ses of the observance of that general precept of Paul.

And yet, before Origen, Ignatius, in his seaventh Epistle, most prudently admonish'd the Christians of Antioch to be subject to the very gentil Idola∣trous Caesar of his own time; and yet he was the immediate successour of Peter in Antioch. Caesari subjecti estote (sayes he) in ijs in quibus subdi nul∣lam animae periculum est. Principes nolite irritare, ut exacerbentur, ne ansam detis eis qui illam contra nos quaerunt.

But let us here again S. Augustine, the third time; from whom to a word S. Anselme derived his exposition. Augustin's text, which I quote now, is in lib. exposit, quarumd. proposit. ex epist. ad Romanos. Quod autem ait (sayes he) omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit: non enim est potestas nisi a Deo: rectissime admonet, ne quis ex eo, quod a Domino suo in libertatem vocatus est, factus Christianus, extollatur in superbiam, & non arbitretur in hujus vitae itenere servandum esse ordinem suum, ut potestatibus sublimioribus, quibus pro tem∣pore rerum temporalium gubernatio tradita est, existimet non esse se subdendum. Cum enim constemus ex anima & corpore, quamdiu in hac vita temporali sumus, etiam rebus temporalibus ad subsidium degendae hujus vitae vtamur, oportet nos ex ea par∣te quae ad hanc vitam pertinet, subditos esse potestatibus, id est, hominibus res hu∣manas cum aliquo honore administrantibus. Ex illa vero parte quae credimus Deo, & in regnum ejus vocamus, non nos oportet esse subditos cuiquam homini, idipsum in nobis evertere cupienti, quod Deus ad vitam aeternam donare dignatus est. Si quis ergo putat quoniam Christianus est, non sibi esse vectigal reddendum, aut tribu∣tum, aut non esse exhibendum honorem debitum eis qui haec curant Potestatibus, in magno errore versatur. Item si quis putat se esse subdendum, ut etiam in sua fide habere potestatem eum qui temporalibus administrandis aliqua sublimitate prae∣cellit, in majorem errorem labitur. Sed modus iste servandus est quem Dominus ipse praescribit, ut reddamus Caesari quae Caesaris sunt, & Deo quae Dei sunt. Hether∣to S. Augustine. Where nothing can be more evident then that he expounds those powers in S. Paul Rom. 13.1. onely of the lay or civil powers: and that he exempts no Christian at all from being subject to them: and that moreover he declares them to be in a great errour who teach otherwise: and further that his reason proves (which is our being composed, for one part of us, of a body that needs bodily helps during our being in this world) equal∣ly concludes for the extension of S. Pauls command to and the comprehensi∣on of Clergiemen under it as well as of the meerest laymen: and finally that he distinguisheth plainly wherein we ought to be subject to them, and wherein we ought not; that is, to be subject in all things which are not of concern to our eternal salvation, whether they were commanded by them or not; but in such as are, not to be.

And in other places, that is, in Epist. 164. & cont. epist. Parm. l. 1. cap. 7. the same Augustine, and out of the same text of the Apostle, proves that the secular Princes, to wit the Roman Emperours who then were, ex officio pro∣prio, by vertue of their own proper imperial, civil or worldly power and office proceeded against the Donatist Bishops, and proceeded against them too by the laws and corporal punishment and coercion, nay and that also when the cause was Ecclesiastical, or a sin or charge of the sin of Schisme. Qui potestati, resistit Dei ordinationi resistit. Illa regula (sayes he) terrenae potesta∣tes cum Schismatices persequuntur se defendunt. An Apostolum delebimus?

To Augustine we may annex Theodulus Caelesiriensis: who sayes, the Apostle Paul in that passage of the 13. Rom. multa providentia monstrare, Christi Evan∣gelium, non ad publicae bonae ordinationis subversionem datum esse, eo quod satis esset hostium qui veritatis nomine sint nos oppugnaturi: & quod nos adversus tot hostes, eoso; superfluos, cogitare oporteat.

And Ambrose the second time, in epist. 88. where he writes in these tearms to Eugenius Augustus (though also, if my memory faile me not, a meer Vsur∣per of the Empire.) In his in quibus vos rogari decet, etiam & me exhibere sedu∣litatem potestati debitam: sicut & scriptum est Rom. 13.7. cui honorem honorem, cui tributum &c. Nam cum privato detulerim corde intimo, quomodo ei non deferrem

Imperatori? Sed qui nobis deferri vultis, patimini ut deferamus e••, quem Imperij vestri vultis Authorem probari.

You see in Ambrose, a Bishop, and a most learned & holy Bishop, the distinction of his being a man, and being a Bishop. As a man he gives the Emperour all obedience in humane things according to the precept of Paul. But as a Bishop who had the superintendency of divine matters, he refuses to be sub∣ject in the same divine matters to the Emperour.

To all these holy Fathers who of purpose either expounded or expresly ap∣plyed to our purpose this text of Paul Rom. 13. we may also annex some other holy Fathers, who have (without any peradventure) implicitly or virtually given the same exposition of it, forasmuch as they, having been Churchmen themselves, professed themselves and all other Christians generally, without any exception, nay and some of them in particular or in specie professed the very Churchmen, the very Priests of God, to be subjected by God himself to worldly Princes.

For (to pass by that sentence of Iustinus Martyr, Apol. 2. ad Anton. I••∣peratorem: Nos solum Deum adoramus, & vobis in rebus alijs laeti inservimus; Imperatores ac Principes hominum esse profitentes: and that also of Athanasius, in Apolog. ad Constantium: where he speaks thus even to an Arrian Emperour, who yet unjustly persecuted him. Nequaqam restiti mandatis tuae pietatis. Mi∣nimè gentium. Absit. Non enim ego is sum, qui vel Quaestori civitatis restitero, ne∣dum tamen Imperatori. Cert•• me profectioni adornabam. Nam & hujus qno{que} rei conscius est Montanus, ut litteris tuis acceptis, si dignatus fuisset scribere, statim decederem, & promptitudine obsequendi mandatum tuum antevenirem. Non enim ita insanio, vt istiusmodi praeceptis contradicendum putarim. Ex decreto ••uae Ma∣jestatis voluntatem tuam cognoscere studebam. Sed ne{que} tum accepi quod jure postu∣labam: & jam impraesentiarum nulla alia de causa aecusor. Non enim restiti de∣creto tuae pietatis, ne{que} Alexandriam ingredi conabor, quamdiu id per tuam huma∣nitatem non licebit: And yet the controversy with Athanasius was about his very unjust banishment, and of his very just restitution back again to his own Patriarchal See of Alexandria: And yet also he confesses here, it had been abso∣lute frenzy or madness for him, not to depart into exile from even that his own proper See, at that very Arrian Emperour Constantius's bare command, without any further violence or force of Souldiers to pull him out or carry him away expected: as likewise to return back at any time before he had his Imperial Majestie's gracious condescension to his return:) I say (For notwithstanding, that I pass by these sayings of Ignatius and Athanasius:)

What is more cleer, in the consequence, then that even S. Gregory the Great himself, a most holy Roman Pontiff (though jealous enough too of and no less zealous for both all the just priviledges of the Clergie in general, and all the honours of the Papacy in particular, or the prerogatives due to his own See) then I say that this very same so holy so concerned and learned Gregory is implicitly and virtually cleer enough to our purpose, where l. 4. Regist. ep. 31. ad Mauritium Augustum, and epist. 64. ad Theodorum intimum medicum Mauritij, he acknowledges the Dominion of the Emperour Mauritius as given by God himself overall the Priests of his Empire? Sacerdotibus au∣tem non ex terrena potestate Dominus noster citius indignotur; sed excellenti consi∣deratione, propter eum cujus servi sunt, eis ita dominetur, ut etiam debitam reve∣rentiam impendat: for he speaks, in the said 31. epistle, writing to the Empe∣rour himself. And again, writing to Theodorus, the said Emperours intimate or chief Physitian, epist. 64. of an other matter: Valde autem mihi durum videtur (sayes he) ut ab ejus servitio milites suos prohibeat: qui ei & omnia tri∣buit, & dominari eum non solum militibus, sed etiam Sacerdotibus concessit.

And what is more clear too in the consequence to our purpose, then what another ancient Pope, I mean Gelasius, writes in his tenth Epistle to the Em∣perour Anastasius? Quantum ad ordinem perti••et publica disciplinae (sayes he) cog∣noscentes imperium tibi superna dispositione collatum, legibus tuis ipsi quo{que} pa∣rent

Religionis Antistites, &c. where he confesses, that the very chief Pon∣tiffs of Christian Religion ought to obey the Emperours laws in matters be∣longing to publick discipline: and gives for reason, that it was from God he received the Empire.

And lastly, what is, to our purpose, more clear in the consequence then that of those other most religious and godly ancient Fathers (in history Eccle∣siastical stiled Archimandritae Constantinopolitant) the Abbots of Constanti∣nople, writing to Pope Agapetus, in Quinta. Synod. act. 1. tom. 2. Concilio∣rum? Licenter omnia accident (say they) non contra Ecclesiasticos solos, sed etiam contra ipsum piissimum Imperatorem, nostrum & vestrum honorabile c••put. Where you see these very most religious Fathers of the Greek Church, of such ancient times, and of the same Catholick Communion with the Pope, writing to the Pope himself, do, notwithstanding, stile the Emperour, nostrum & vestrum honorabile Caput, both their own honourable head and the Popes head too, or, our and your honourable Head. Which I could wish the Catho∣licks, both Layety and Clergie of England, had well considered before they divided so unhappily about the title of Head given at the beginning, or be∣fore the beginning of the change, to Henry the 8. and continued after to some of the following Princes: as I could also heartily wish, the framers of the Oath, which had that title in it, had been more circumspect in using such words as would more to the understanding of the vulgar signifie the politick Headship only, and which only questionless those framers intended to give their Kings, either in spiritual or temporal things or causes. But hereof, elsewhere. It sufficeth at present, that these good Abbots of Constantinople by this title of Headship, by consequence, or implicitly and virtually concurr in acknowledging the supream civil coercive power of the Emperour over all Clergiemen, even the very Pope himself: being that Headship, could be no other but a Headship of civil direction by his civil laws, and coercion by the material Sword. And it sufficeth moreover to conclude, that not those holy Fathers only, who purposely expound, or expresly apply the text of Paul, ad Rom. 13. by Pauls more sublime powers understand the civil Princes; but all other holy Fathers also, who acknowledge, as they all do, the subjecti∣on of Churchmen to Princes, do by consequence, or implicitly and virtually understand the very same.

And therefore out of all said hitherto out of the holy Fathers, I conclude my main purpose in this third way: that is, I conclude, that as I have for∣merly, or in my two former wayes, both out of the ••etter of the text, and end of it, ruind all the several three answers of our Adversaries to my fourth grand argument, in this Section, out of St. Paul: so I have now in this third way out of the clear sense, or doctrine of the Fathers concerning the sense of that text of Paul, as delivered to us by Tradition, or especially in their writings, or at least by such of them as purposely expound St. Paul.

To all these evidences, nay to the very clearest, most express and particu∣lar of them to the point, for the sense of the holy Fathers generally, or of any one, or moe of them, our Adversaries find no other answer but first to say, as Bellarmine doth against Barclay, cap. 3. that (etiamsi non eximebat Apostolos ab ••••la subjecti••••e professio Christianae Religionis, eximebat tamen principatus Aposto∣licus, qui sublimior est omni principatu naturali) albeit the profession of Christian Religion did not exempt the very Apostles themselves from that subjection to say Princes; yet the Apostolical Principality, which is more sublime then any natural Principality, did exempt them. Secondly to say as others do cont. F••••g. there is a great difference twixt the Sacrament of Bap∣tisme and that other which is of Holy Orders. For say they (Baptismus re∣linquit hominem in comwani hominum caetu: Ordo verò elevat ad Paternitatem etiam supra Principem) Baptisme leaves a man in the common ranke of men: but Order rayseth to a paternity (or fatherhood) above even the Prince himself.

Albeit not onely the reasons given by several of the holy Fathers, in some of those very passages quoted by me already in this present Section, evident∣ly destroy these last answers also, (as they do the three former) and shew them to be against the letter of the law, and end of the law, and against that very sense too which those Fathers themselves conceived and believed to have been of Paul in that general precept omnis anima &c; but also my own discourses and reasons given, partly in my two last Sections, LXXI. and LXXII. in answer to some objections or evasions of Bellarmine and of others: yet I think not amiss, for the Readers more ample satisfaction, & fuller confuta∣tion of our Adversarie's in this also, to handle briefly the same matter again, with some necessary additions, as a further illustration of what I said before.

And therefore, I observe First, that for what concern's Bellarmine's said evasion, or pretence of Apostolical Principality (which he sayes did exempt the Clergie, albeit their profession of Christianity did not: and must say also, if he will answer to the argument grounded on the now given doctrine of the Fathers, that the Fathers intended not to teach that that of Apostleship (did not:) I say we must observe first, that whereas that of Apostolick principality or Apostleship, is, as they grant, found or continued onely in Bishops; nay per∣haps, according to their doctrine, found or continued in the chief Bishop onely, that is, in the Pope alone; it must follow, that either onely the Pope, or at most, the Bishops onely, must be exempted by this evasion of Bellarmine. Why then doth he exempt, and, notwithstanding S. Paul, by the very law of God pretend to exempt the rest of the infinit multitude of inferiour Clerks from lay Princes, whether the same Princes will or no? nay why doth he and others of his way pretend to exempt so, or even by the sole canons, the very cooks and scullions of Clerks or Monks? cap. Parrochianos. de sent. Excom in 6. O Vemerandos lixas (for I may here against my Adversaries exclaime and admire so with a certain late Writer) & extra omnes saeculi potestates positos qui scilicet••e monachali culina vncti, adeo pulchri emergunt, vt & sacram ordinis Ecclesiastici vnctionem aequiparent, & ipsos vnctos Domini Reges dominos suos non agnoscant. I know my self (sayes the same writer) a little pittifull dorp or village (in Insula Vegliensi) of scarse a hundred straw or thatch'd hou••es, wherein there are above three-score Priests and other Clerks: who use to confess ingenuously, that so many of them take orders of Clerkship to the end they may be freed from the burdens wherewith other Plebeians or the Peasants are loaden by their Prince, especially from rowing in the gallies. So that under pretext of Sacred orders, Princes are deluded by their own pro∣per Subjects, the commonwealth suffers, ac interim Ecclesia repletur quisquilijs otiosorum, imo & sordidorum sacerdotum, sayes he. But however this complaint, be well or ill grounded, and however that abuse be of the priviledg of Clerks by the Clerks themselves, or by the intention or design of such as receive orders: it is not my intention here or elswhere to complain of the observance of all or any priviledges of theirs, which the Princes themselves have bestowed or custome hath allowed them. In this Authors admiration onely I concurre, where instancing the very cook of a Convent he exclaims at the pretended exemption of Bellarmine, or of even such a cook from the very supream civil power of all earthly Princes in all causes whatsoever.

Secondly, I observe, and answer directly (or rather directly refute both the above last answers of Bellarmine, and his fellow-stickler) that if Bap∣tisme ought not to be injurious to Princes, by exempting their subjects from subjection to them, so neither should Apostleship nor any sacred Order. Be∣cause otherwise it is plain enough, that Princes would have just cause to apprehend the growth, admission, or tolleration of the Faith of Christians or of themselves. To prevent which apprehension or fear of Princes, and of their people too, it was (the Fathers tel us) that even Christ himself, would have that subjection (which himself did owe presumptively, but his Apostles naturally) observed not onely in and by his Apostles but even by himself

too: as in the payment of the tribute money, or didrachma, Matth. 7.17. and in the sufferance of Judgment, John. 18. and in the clear command given, that by all persons, what was Caesars due should be rendered to Caesar, Matt. 22.20. If therefore Christ would not exempt himself, nor his Apostles, especially Peter, from this subjection: S. Paul had reason to include all Christians vniversally, without any exception or distinction, in his gene∣ral praecept, omnis anima, &c. especially being that, as Chrysostome well noteth, this kind of subjection doth not subvert piety. Non enim pictatem evertit hujusmodi subjectio. What argument then have our Adversaries to perswade themselves that on or by the title of Apostleship or Sacred Orders they may presume to exempt themselves in civil or humane things from obedience to Princes? Apostleship or Sacred Orders do not take away from man that nature which is human. Certainly how much or holily soever a man be ordered, or highly soever promoted to Ecclesiastical offices, yet he is still a man, and as a man naturally civil, or a civil part or member of the civil commonwealth or society of other men: and therefore, by the very law divine natural, must be in humane things subject to the powers of this world: especially whereas neither Apostleship nor Sacred Orders implye essentially or properly more then a naked ministry and servitude (however divine and supernatural) for the salvation of Souls. And therefore if Baptisme takes not away the natural state or condition of man, nor at all frees him from those obligations which humane nature draws along with it self: much less will or can Sacred Orders or even Apostleship change that condition, or remove those obligations.

As for Bellarmine's other evasion, which sayes that the law of Christ does not (per se ac propriè, quasi hoc ipsum intendat) directly, properly, and intentio∣nally bereave Princes of their Dominion over Clerks; but onely consequen∣te••, consequently, as directly intending to honour Clerks by raising them to a higher order; but not to injure Princes at all: and for his exemplifying (this matter and evasion) in the cases of a private subject or servant of some Earl, made a Prince or Duke by the King, and having jurisdiction too given him ••over that very Earl; of a simple Priest made a Metrapolitan by the Pope, and con∣sequently made Superiour to the very Bishop who so lately before was the Or∣dinary of that Priest; of an Infidel husband who is by the conversion of his wife to Christianity deprived of his husbandly right;* 31.10 of a Christian husband also, who is, by the ingress of his wife to a Cloysterd life, and profession of it, deprived likewise of all right to her; and finally of a Son made a Bishop, over whom hoc ipso his Father looses all Fatherly power: albeit I have said enough already Sect. LXXII. to this evasion and to all and every of these examples apart; yet that I may shew further how they are not even here more then elsewhere to Bellarmine's purpose:

First I demand of Bellarmine himself, and of all his Schollars, which is pro∣portionably the greater elevation, or evection (for Bellarmine useth this kind of phrase, evehit laicos ad ordinem altiorem, as you may see in the margent) or which in due proportion is the greater heightning or raysing of a man, which the more eminent degree, Christianisme in relation to an Infidel, or Clerkship in relation to a lay Christian? Certainly in the former evection or elevation a man who immediately before was the son of the Devil, and slave of sin, and condemned to Hell, is suddenly raysed to the adoption of the Sons of God, nay is made the very Heir of God and co-heir of Christ him∣self, as the Apostle speaks. But in the later, what hath a Clerk above a Laick? the very Priests, the very Bishops, the very Popes themselves, as such, have onely over and above holy Christian Laicks but a bare ministery or a bare ministerial office for the service and salvation of others. As for Deacons, Sub-deacons, and those other Clerks initated onely with the four lesser Or∣ders (as they are called) and those Clerks also who have neither greater nor lesser Orders but onely the bare first tonsure; who sees not but their con∣dition or designation imports much less incomparably?

Therefore the evection or elevation, or the raysing heightning or dignifi∣ing which is by the Sacrament of Order is respectively farre beneath that which is by that of Baptisme. And much more that evection which is by bare Clerkship, as such. For bare Clerkship, as such, is conferr'd even by the very first consure: which I am sure is no Order at all. And yet Bellarmine must in his principles denye that S. Paul did comprehend such bare and onely tonsur'd Clerks in his foresaid general precept; albeit the above evasion of Apostleship or of Sacred or not Sacred Orders cannot serve his turn any way or with any kind of even bad colour to evade the cleerness of arguments proving the contrary, and the dignity of Baptisme by an argument a majori above that of prima tonsura.

And therefore too, from first to last, neither Bellarmine, nor his other stickler or associat, says any thing at all, or any thing that hath the least probability of truth, at least to their purpose, either by this last evasion of Clergiemens be∣ing directly intended to be raysed to a higher order (which though true, is not to purpose) or by the former of Apostleship and order, and of the pre∣tended difference twixt Baptisme and Order; both which are plainly false. As for Bellarmines per se & proprie, quasi hoc ipsum intendat, I have said enough to that in my former Section: and it cannot be material here to repeat any thing or add concerning that. And so I have done with my first demand. Now there∣fore,

Next, I demand of Bellarmine's admirers, whether themselves must not see that that subjection which is taken away or dissolved in all those cases wherein he makes instance is of a quite different nature from that of the subjection which the Fathers (teach out of the Apostle and natural reason also) to be due by all sorts of men to the supream temporal Princes? And consequently whe∣ther they see not that those cases or examples are to no other purpose but to shew that he sayes nothing by them to conclude that which should be his onely purpose? Certainly there is no impartial cleer-sighted man but will answer these Queries affirmatively.

For the former subjection, or that which is or was in those cases of Bellar∣mine, is of that nature that the very laws, humane, or divine, or both toge∣ther, or those for some of the cases and these for the rest, have expresly speci∣fically and determinatly provided it should remain no longer: and is of that nature too that it may be easily destroyed by humane power it self, vz. by destroying its foundation or ground, which is certainly known to depend also of humane laws. For 1. that private person (formerly subject to the Earl) made so now a Prince, lyes no more under any such bond of subjection to the Earl; being all subjection of him is destroyed as to the same Earl: because the bond or subjection under which he was formerly to him, wholly depended of the pleasure or will of the supream Prince, King, or Emperour; being it was by a power delegated from the said Supream &c, the said Earl formerly commanded the said privat subject, & this delegation was revoked when such private man was by the King made a Prince: for though a Prince still inferiour & subordi∣nate to the King himself that made him such, yet alwayes equal at least, & some∣times (even in a commanding power of jurisdiction) superiour to the very same Earl. This person therefore, so formerly subject to this Earl, was onely (tanquam privatus) as a private and as such a private person formerly subject to the same Earl. Now the King removes, takes away, or destroyes by the Principality given that former privateness, or that quality of being any more a private man: which quality with the Kings delegation was the onely ground of his former sub∣jection to the Earl. 2. Even so is the former subjection of that simple or∣dinary Priest wholly destroyed when he is no more such, or a simple, ordinary, or private person or Priest. 3. And even so too is the subjection of the said wives destroyed by the destruction of the matrimonial contract, which was it that founded or grounded their former subjection. 4. And lastly so is the filial subjection to his Father taken away by the Sons Episcopacy; I mean

that filia, subjection which is leg••ly nor 〈…〉〈…〉 this kind 〈…〉〈…〉 sub∣jection is taken away by the humane laws of emancipation. And Prince••, or States supream, who are the Lord of legal things 〈…〉〈…〉 Episcopacy have the power of 〈…〉〈…〉. So much 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that subjection which was or might have bee•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to have been 〈…〉〈…〉 in those cases of Bellarmine.

But for the subjection whereof, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 us 〈◊〉〈◊〉 fro•••••••• person 〈◊〉〈◊〉 tempo∣ral things, and at all times whatsoever to the st••p 〈…〉〈…〉 under whom such persons live▪ we have she•••••• already 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it 〈…〉〈…〉 vino, and that the foundation or ground of li•••• 〈…〉〈…〉 conse∣quently, that it cannot be destroyed if that very humane and is 〈…〉〈…〉 founds that subjection, be not wholly destroyed in him who pretend 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to be subject to the Prince; or, at least, if God himself do not expresly exempt him, being it was God himself alone that subjected him. If the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, by ordering one with the orders of Priesthood, might consequently destroy humane nature in that person so ordered, or make that such person should not be any more a man; as the King destroyes the quality of a private per∣son in him whom he creates a Prince, and makes him that he is no longer a private man; and as he destroyes the legal tye of a Son to his Father; and as humane laws also, not onely canonical, but civil and municipal, as we see by custome and experience, destroy in many cases the contract of Matrimony; because all these may be easily destroyed by men (being they depend of the will of men or humane law••••) the examples would be to some purpose. Nay I add, that the King may exempt a private person from his former sub∣jection to an Earl, and subject him hereafter immediately and onely to his own Royal cognizance, though such person remain still a private person, not even chang his habitation. For being the King is the supream or Soveraign Prince who hath for Subjects both that Earl himself and the same Earls sub∣jects (as tis supposed in the case) he may if he please at least upon just ground deprive the Earl of that delegated power which he had from him over that private person. And so might God (for who denyes it) exempt Clerks, without destroying humane nature in them. But that he hath done so, we have no warrant no argument yet to convince us. And we have seen so many cleer arguments to convince us that he hath not: and those too, several of them, from the very rights of natural reason. And I hope by this time the Reader is satisfied that our Adversaries answers to the passages quot∣ed out of the Fathers and for the sense of the Fathers to be that I maintain, or to any thing else I asserted hether too, are but meer pittifull unsignificant evasions. And consequently that, even by the doctrine of the Holy-Fathers, that general precept of Paul, Omnis ••••ima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit, Rom. 13.1. must hold alwayes, in all temporal things, and as to all Christian Clerks whatsoever, as well as to Laicks.

Certainly very Catholick, Classick, and famous Doctors, as Occam, and Almainus de Eccles. & Laica potestate q. 2. c. 7. maintain, and with reason too, that if the Emperours servant were made Pope, forasmuch as belongs to divine right or law, and abstracting from the laws of men or from those hu∣mane rights acquired or lost by the same laws of men, that Pope, however true Pope, would notwithstanding remain still the Emperour's servant, until the Emperour had freely discharg'd him, or otherwise untill his tearm were en∣ded, if he was first bound for any time. Whence also, as formerly in the last Se∣ction from other arguments, you may conclude how unreasonable our great Cardinal is where he sayes, without any proof, Dia•••• qui Papam in terris Vicari∣um suum constituit, hoc ipso cum exemisse ab omni potestate Princepum terr••••. For this is said gratis: being that by the Papacy, humane nature, or the being, or essence and properties of a mortal man are not destroyed in or taken away from the Pope; and that God hath no where declared he exempted him. Nay, being also, the quite contrary appears out of the very letter and necessa∣ry

litteral sense of holy Scripture, especially Rom. 13. in the general precept to all souls, and Mat. 7.17. concerning the very persons of the Apostles, but more particularly of Peter, as also the person of Christ himself as he was a mortal man and further appears out of the motive and end of that ge∣neral precept of God in St. Paul, and lastly appears out of the cleer sense of the Fathers, the very words they speak and the arguments they make use of. Etiamsi, Apostola••sis, si Evangelista, si Propheta, sive quicum{que} tandem es. Non enim pietatem subvertit ista subjectio, is the expression of Chrisostome, as you have seen before. And the words and arguments of the rest you have seen also before to the same purpose in this very Section. Where, though I have not given all the Fathers through all Ages: it was not because I could not give them all, as many of them I mean as treated of the subject, untill at least the Schools began in Peter Lombards dayes, or at least untill Gregory VII. who was a little before; nay and many Fathers Interpreters and great School Divines too after the said Gregory and Lombards dayes; but that I would not without necessity be too tedious: these whom I have given, being both many, and, after the Apostles, the chief Fathers of Christianity whose writings are ex∣tant.

LXXIV.

Having so done (in pursuance of my promise in my LXXI. Sect.) with my fourth, and grand argument indeed, which is purely Theological, and is that grounded on the 13. Rom. according to the general and vnanimous expo∣sition of that passage by the holy Fathers untill the age of Gregory the VII. I am now come to my LXXIV. wherein I am to give (according also to my promise in the said LXXI. Sect.) some Instances of the practise of the holy Fathers in pursuance of this their doctrine, so given hetherto in the last Secti∣on, or in the LXXIII. going immediately before this present. And there∣fore this present Section is an appendage of the former, as containing the best confirmation can be of the holy doctrine of the Fathers by their as holy practise in all degrees.

But although, for matter of Instance or practise, the Instance or practise of Christ himself, who after commanding Peter to put up and sheath his sword, declared himself to have twelve legions of Angels at command to free him∣self and rest of his company from the both civil and Ecclesiastical power of those who apprehended him, and yet would not resist, but was obedient even to the civil powers, even to death it self, acknowledging the very power of an Idolater civil Lieutenant over his body, and acknowledging it as given from above; albeit I say this Instance or practise of Christ alone, should be and is enough for matter of example, as Christ himself alone is or should be the onely exemplar to us in all his actions (omnis enim Christi actio, nostra est instructio, said one of those auncient Fathers very well:) and albeit, after and, besides that of Christ our Lord, the practise of all his most blessed Disciples and great Apostles too, those infallible expositors of his will and law, those his own proper divine special extraordinary Embassadours to all Nations of the world, for teaching them by word and deed his true and pure doctrine, and no other, should make up Instances enough: being they all, even Peter himself not excepted, conformably to their express doctrine, practised so, that is obeyed so the civil and even Infidel Princes placed over the world by God, that they appeared not onely at their tribunals, nay sometimes also of their own free will appealed to them, but suffered patiently death it self at their command: and this without pleading any exemption, without other reluctancy whatsoever, nay and without attempting once to make use (against these Princes) of even their so divine extraordinary miraculous power whereby notwithstanding in other cases and against other men they could make and did make both men and Devils and the very elements to obey their

commands: and albeit, after and besides this Instance too of all those imme∣diate Disciples and Apostles of our Lord, we read, in general, other innume∣rable examples of all Christians both Laicks and Clerks, Priests, Bishops, Popes, and Councils also of both other Bishops and Popes, during the primi∣tive Ages of Christianity, and the first 300. years, and read so in general such innumerable Instances of their practise, in those Ages as well of purity as of persecution; conformable in all points to that which I have shewn to be the doctrine of all even the holy Fathers, who are (after the Apostles) most famous in the Church of Christ; and read these general and innumerable instances in no worse Authors and witnesses then Tertullian, Cyprian, and St. Augustine: albeit, I say, all this be true and absolutely certain, yet it is not my purpose to take up this Section with discouse upon either that particular Instance of the practise of our Lord himself, or of that other of his immedi∣ate Disciples and Apostles, or even on that general one of the practise of all Christians, the first 300. years, till Constantine the great. But my chief pur∣pose here is, to give some other and particular Instances of the practise (ac∣cording to that doctrine) of very eminent and holy Fathers, even Bishops, Patriarchs and Popes, after the said first 300 years, and the conformable pra∣ctise also of Christian Princes, in their times.

However, it may be worth your patience first to read over transiently this following note, extracted out of My More Ample Account, pag. 88. 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94. inclusively, concerning that general practise, or that of all Christi∣ans in general within the very first 300. years, as the said Tertullian (in his Apologetick cap. 37.) Lactantius, (l. 5.) Cyprian (ad Demetrianum) and Austin (de Civit. Dei, l. 22.) relate it.

But now, that nothing may be wanting to confirme throughly and ac∣cording to my first intent, this necessary doctrine, nothing desired more to illustrate or perswade it to be infallible truth of Christian Religion, let us, in pursuance of the maximes, consider the practise of all primitive Christians for the space of many hundred years, while the Church was most holy, and most pure: and let us consider this practise in the undubitable writings, and clearest passages of the before named most famous primitive Fathers, who delivered to after ages as well the letter, as the sense of the new Testa∣ment, and consequently the belief or judgment of the B. Apostles and Evangelists, the Commandements of Christ, and pleasure of God in our case. Wherein if any thing be more evident then a religious, holy Con∣science, or perswasion of suffering rather all losses the most grievous, all tortures the most exquisite, death it self, the worst of evills in this world, rather then take armes against the Soveraign Magistrate, or against the lawes; or any thing more evident then that the primitive Christians, at least for three or foure, the first and best ages of the Church, did suffer accordingly, and upon this account, as well as that of glory, and of Christian belief that God in his own time would revenge their quarrel, as to whom alone it be∣longed to right them against the powers of the ••••rth: or any thing like∣wise more evident then that conscience, constant practice, belief, even ge∣neral, throughout the whole world amongst Christians, in Europe, Asia, Africk, without any one exception whereever they lived, and even there and then, where and when they were so numerous, that by secession onely, without rebellion, without armes, without committing treason, they might have ruined the greatest Empire in the world: if, I say, any thing may be more evident then all this in the primitive practice, Let eloquent Tertullian speake in the first place, and in his Apologetick for those of his own Age to the Roman Emperors and Senate. Quoties enim in Christianos desaevitis par∣tim animis propriis, partim legibus obsequentes? Quoties etiam praeteriti•• à vobis, suo jure nos inimicum vulgus invadit lapidibus & incendiis? Ipsis Bacchanali∣um furiis nec mortuis parcunt Christianis, quin illos de requie Sepulturae, de asylo quodam mortis, jam alios, jam nec totos avellant, dissecent, distrabant? Quid

tamen de tam conspiratis unquam denotatis, de tam animatis ad mortem us{que} p•••• injuria repensatis? quamvis vel una nox pauculis faculis largitatem ultimis p••sset operari, si malum malo dispungi penes nos liceret. Sed absit ut aut igni humano vindicetur divina secta; aut dolcat pati in quo probatur. Si enim in hostes exortos non tantum vindices occultos agere vellemus, decesset nobis vis nume∣rorum & copiarum? Plures nimirum Mauri & Marcomanni, & ipsi{que} Parthi, vel quantaecun{que}, unius tamen loci & sucrum finium gentes, quam toti••s orbis? Externi sumus & vestra omnia implevimus, urbes, Insulas, castella, municipia, conciliabula, castra ipsa, tribus, decurias, palatium, senatum, forum; sola vobis relinquimus templa. Cui bello non idonei, non prompti fuissemū, etiam impares copiis qui tam libenter trucidamur? Si non apud istam disciplinam magis occidi liceret quam occidere. Potuimus & inermes, nec rebelles, sed tantummod•• dis∣cordes, solius divortji invidia adversum vos dimicasse. Si enim tanta vis homi∣num in aliquem orbis remoti sinum abrupissemus à vobis, suffudisset uti{que} dam∣nationem vestram tot qualiumcun{que} amissio civium, imo etiam & ipsa institutione punisset. Proculdubio expavissetis ad solitudinem vestram, ad silentium rerum, & stuporem quendam quasi mortui urbes quae sissetis quibus imperaretis. Pluces hostes quam civis vobis remansissent. Nunc enim pauciores hostes habitis prae multitudine Christianorum, pene omnium Civium. How often do you rage against the Christians, partly out of your own inclinations, and partly out of your observance of the lawes? How often are we, being connived at by you, invaded nevertheless by the enemp-plebeian-multitude, and even with stones, and firing of our houses persecuted by them? not even amidst the fury of Bacchanals, do they spare the Christians so far, as not to pull their very corpses from the repose of graves, from the Sanctuary of death, now dragging out whole carkases, now mangling, and distracting them by parcells? And yet what have you ever found these men so conspiring to∣gether, guilty of? What satisfaction for these injuries do you make a peo∣ple so resolved even to death? Although even one night, and a few Torches might afford plenty of revenge, were it lawfull amongst us to return evill for evill. But far be it from our divine Sect to be revenged by humane fire, or that we be loath to suffer that whereby we are tryed. For if we were minded to carry our selves not only as private or secret avengers, even against publick foes, could the strength of numbers and armies be wanting to us? peradventure the Moores and Marcomans, the Parthians, or other Nations how great soever, yet confined within their own particular Countries and bounds, are more numerous then such as fill the whole earth. We are strangers; and yet we have replenished all among you, your Cities, Islands, Castles, Corporations, Councels, Camps, Tribes, Tenths, your Palace, Senate, Courts; only we leave the Temples for your selves alone. What warr is it we would not be fit and ready for, that are so willingly slaughte∣red? if in our Religion it were not more lawfull to be killed then to kill. Even without arming, without rebelling, by discord only and envy of di∣vorce we might have ••ight against you. For if so great a power of peo∣ple as we have, had broke from you into some other tract of the remote world, our very departure so, and the loss of so many Citizens, whatever we be, had both abundantly confounded and punished you. Doubtless you would in such a case, be frighted at your sollitude, at the silence of things, and being altogether astonished as dying people, you would seek for other Cities wherein to command. You would have more enemies left then Citizens. For now your enemies appear fewer by reason of the multitude of Christians, who almost all are your fellow Citizens. Let in the next place holy Cyprian deliver his mind, where he admonishes Demetrian. Lae∣dere Dei & Cqristi servos persecutionibus tuis desine, quos laesos ultio divina de∣sendit. Inde est enim quod nemo nostrum quando apprehenditur, reluctatur, nee se adversus injustam violentiam vestram, quamvis nemius & copiosus noster sit populus, ulciscitur. Patientes facit de secutura ultione, securitas. Innocentes

nocentibus cedunt. Insonies paenis & cruciatibus acquiescunt, certi & fidentes quod inultum non remaneat qundcun{que} perpetimur, quanto{que} major fuerit perse∣cutionis injuria tanto & arclior fiat & gravior pro persecutione vindicta. Cease to annoy with your persecutions, the servants of God and Christ, whom the revenging hand of Heaven defends when they are annoyed. From whence it is that none of us resists when apprehended, nor, although our people are too many, and copious, revengeth himself of your unjust violence. The certainty we have of vengeance to come upon you, makes us patient. In∣nocents acquiesce under punishments and torments, being certain and con∣fident that whatever we suffer will not remain unrevenged, and that by how much the injuries of persecution will be greater, by so much, and the more just and grievous must be the vengeance for it. And Lactantius in his fift book may be an additional witness saying, Confidimus enim Majestati ejus qui tam contemptum sui possit ulcisci quam servorum suorum labores & in∣jurias. Et ideo cum tam nefanda perpetimur, ne verbo quidem reluctamur, sed Deo remittimus ultionem. We confide in his Majesty that can as well revenge the contempt of himself as the labours and injuries of his Servants. And hence it is that when we suffer such unspeakable evills, we resist not, not even by word, but leave the revenge to God. And great Augustine in his City of God lib. 22. an other to conclude all. Ne{que} tunc Civitas Christi quamvis adhuc peregrinaretur in terra, & haberet tam magnorum agmina popu∣lorum, adversus impios persecutores pro temporali salute pugnavit, sed potius ut obtineret aeternam non repugnavit. Ligabantur, includebantur, caedebantur, torquebantur, urebantur, laniebantur, cruciabantur, & multiplicabantur. N••n erat iis pro salute pugnare nisi salutem pro salute contemnere. Nor did the City of God then, although as yet a Pilgrimage on earth, and having such num∣bers of mighty people, fight for temporall salvation against impious per∣secutors; but rather to obtain that which is eternal, would not resist. They were bound, they were shut up, they were beaten, they were racked, burn'd, killed, tormented, and yet they were multiplied. They knew no other fight for safety, but to contemne safety for safety. Besides these, let all other Fathers, nay all Historians both sacred and profane, both Christian and Heathen of those dayes, that are extant, speak their knowledg of this matter. Let the raignes of Constantius, Valens, and even Julian the Apostat speak theirs. And verily Mr. Prinn or Mr. Goodwin either, or any else, how industrious soever to except against the Rhetorick of Tertullian, will find themselves m••te, as to any colour against the number of Christians and ability, according humane wayes of strength, to carry on a design, would their conscience permit them to entertain any, against these perse∣cuting Emperors. Nor can it be denied that in their dayes the Catholicks, and Christian Subjects had the greatest provocations and best opportunities could be thought on to carry it. The orient, and the occident, the Nobili∣ty, army, Prelates, and people were all Catholicks, if you except a very few, which in comparison, made no number, ••hen first Constance would have, and really endeavoured with all his Authority; to establish Arrianisme. They were so for the matter, when Valens thundered. And upon Iulians entry on the Empire, the world, at least whereever the Roman Eagles spread their wings, was altogether Christian; unless peradventure you bring in competition a small inconsiderable number of Iewes, and Pagans who had no command, no force. Yet we know they all suffered patiently with armes across all that which the fury of those heretick Emperours, or the malici∣ous cunning of even that Idolatrous Apostat could inflict on them, and suffered the foundations to be laid again of Salomons temple to restore Ju∣daisme, and all the rites of Numa, and sacrifices of heathen Gods, to be reestablished, rather then they would draw a sword against the Soveraign power. Their Bishops and Clergie were more divinely principled then to infuse other maximes, or lead them to any other practice then that which

they read in the Apostles and Evangelists, and which all the Christians ever since their dayes recommended to them by their lives and by their deaths.

Now to my before said purpose, in this present Section, or to that of my onely intended particular Instances here, of some Bishops, Patriarchs, Popes, and Princes, after the first 300. years, those Ages of the ten general persecu∣tions (wherein questionless all Christians, almost every where, had occasion and provocation enough to practice whatever they thought was lawfull for them to practise.) Of which particular Instances,

The first Instance shall be that of S. Athanasius, one of the Fathers of the very first general Council was ever held, &, soon after, Patriarch of Alexandria. I must confess I have already given this in my former Section; but in latin onely, and not so directly to my purpose there as to that of this present Section. And therefore I repeat it here in English, out of his Apology to the Empe∣rour Constantius. I have by no means resisted the commands of your Piety. Farr be that from me. For I am not hee that will resist as much as the City Questor, and not onely not the Emperour. Truly I prepared my self for going away. For of this matter too Montanus is conscious, that upon receiving your letters, if he had vouchafed to write, I had presently departed, and by my promptitude in obeying had forerun your commandement. For I am not so mad as to have thought such com∣mands were to be contradicted. Out of the Decree of your Majesty I studied to know your will. But neither did I then receive what by right I postulated: and yet now, at this present, I am not accused of any other cause. For I have not resisted the De∣cree of your Piety. Nor will I endeavour to enter Alexandria as long as it shall not by your Piety be lawfull for me. And yet the matter in agitation here was the unjust exile of this great and holy Catholick Patriarch Athanasius, and his just restitution to his own See (as I noted before.) And yet he acknowledges that himself had been mad, if he had not obeyed an Arrian (that is a mani∣fest Heretick) Emperour, by a bare decree, or letter onely, exiling him from his own proper Episcopal See. And declares moreover plainly that he would never as much as endeavour to return to his said See, without the same Em∣perours command or licence to return. So conformable was his practise to the doctrine of all the holy Fathers, as the doctrine of the Apostle in that precept Rom. 13. omnis anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit.

The second Instance is of Eusebius Bishop of Sam••sata, that most holy and most laudable man, of whom Theodoret, Hyst. l. 4. c. 15. tells and writes in these very words. Cum edictum Imperatorium quo jubebatur in Thraciam proficisci &c. When (sayes Theodoret) the Imperial Edict, whereby he was commanded to go to (banishment in) Thracia, was brought to him, I think it very necessary to be known to such as are yet ignorant, how he carried himself. For the Messenger that brought this Edict arrived at twylight. Whom Eusebius com∣manded to be silent, and to conceal the cause of his coming. For, sayes he, if the people, educated in studies of piety, shall understand of it, they will drawn you in the river, and I must answer for your death. Having said this, and according to custome done his office in the ministery of evening prayers, then when sleep scizeth all men this good old man, having trusted his secret to onely one servant, departs the City. His servant follows, bringing onely a pillow and a book with him. But when he came to the banks of the river (for Euphrates runs by the walls of the City) having entered a ship he bids the watermen steer directly to Zeugma: where he arrives by morning. Samosata is all in plaints and tears. For his departure being discovered by means of that Servant's giving some necessary directions to some frends, and who went in his company, and what books were carried for him, all the Cittizens universally lamented themselves as now being Orphanlike bereaved of their Father and Pastour. Therefore in multitudes and vessels pursueing and searching for him up and down the river, they overtake him at last. And when first they mett and saw their desired Pastor, nothing was to be heard or seen but plaints and sighs and a huge power of tears, whereby to perswade him to remain with

them, and not suffer his sheep to be delivered to Wolves. But when they could not perswade, and had heard him reciting the precept of the Apostle, wherein we are perspicu••••sly enjoyned to obey the Magistrats and Powers: some offer him Gold, s••me Silver, others Garments and others Servants, being he was departing to a strange country, and so farre distant from theirs. But he, having received some few things from such as were more intimately familiar with him, and after he had by doctrine and by prayer armed and vehemently exhorted them to defend manfully the Apostolical Dogmats, went on towards Ister. And they being return'd to their town City, endeavor to excite one an other, and strongly resist the incursions of the Wolves.

To me truly this Narrative or History seems very admirable, where I see that such a man as this Eusebius was, that is (according to Gregory Nazi∣anzen's testimony of him, in epist. 28. et 30.) a most holy man, was of this perswasion, that he ought much more to esteem of and observe the natural and Apostolical precept of paying obedience to Princes then to regard his own proper and so great afflictions, or even to regard those most dangerous and grievous hazards of his flock to be devoured by Wolves, that is by the Arrian Bishops and Priests; for whom to make place, and that they being once introduced might also introduce Arrianisme to Samosata, it was and for no other cause, that Valens the Emperour (an Impious Arrian himself, and cruel Tyrant indeed, to all the opposers of that heresy) banished the said most holy Eusebius. Who, albeit he had streingth to resist, being he had so much pow∣er with the people and they so much fervour in his concern, chose neverthe∣less to obey an impious edict of the Emperour's, and obey it not so much out any feare of the Prince, as out of that of conscience. For, sayes the Histo∣ry, he recited the Apostles praecept, whereby we are perspicuously commanded, to obey the Magistrats and Powers. Nor did Athanasius dissent; as presently we have seen. Albeit some of the Bishops of our dayes, and many also of the inferi∣our Clergie, would in such cases, and having that power with the people S. Athanasius and Eusebius had, beat an allarme and sound a charge inconti∣nentl•• to opposition, sedition, and plain rebellion, and, all over armed with thundering censures and curses, would fight obstinatly and hazard all even to dethrone such Princes.

Third Instance is of Gregory the Great, and first of that name. A Pope in∣deed, however so great a Saint, and withall as carefull to preserve and vindi∣cate his own Ecclesiasticall eminency as could become him, yet as perfect an exemplar of subjection and obedience to secular Princes in humane things as any. Mauritius the Emperour publish'd a law at Constantinople (other∣wise called new Rome) and sent it to old Rome, and to St. Gregory himself, wherein it was enacted, Vt nulli, qui in manu signatus est, converti liceret, that it should not be lawfull for any who had been marked in the hand, to be con∣ve••ted. Which law, hindering souldiers from conversion to a religious life in Monasteries (for this was the conversion mean'd by it) seem'd unjust to S. Gregory: and yet the Emperour commanded him to publish it. But he, (as you may read in himself l. 2. Regist. epist. 61. indic. XI.) and that he might do his own duty both to God and Caesar, and so in all respects discharge a good conscience, by his letters modestly admonishes the Emperour of the in∣justice of the law: & (this notwithstanding) at the same time, to shew his subje∣ction and obedience to the Emperour, fulfills his command by transmitting to several parts of the Empire that very law and having it publish'd. And never∣theless in one of his letters to the Emperour he brings our Saviour Christ as speaking thus to the same Emperour: Sacerdotes meos tuae manui commisi, & tua me•• servitio milites tuos subtrahis? And yet concludes at last, with these words (I have elsewhere quoted) Ego quidem jussioni subjectus, eamdem legem per diversas terrarum partes transmitti feci: & quia lex ipsa omnipotenti Deo mi∣nimè concordet, ecce per suggestionis meae paginam, serenissimis Dominis nunciavi. Vtr••bi{que} ergo quae debui, ex••lui, qui & Imperatori obedientiam praebui, & pro Deo quod sensi minimè tacui.

Three great Instances, great examples indeed, & every one of them (but more especially the last) by so much the farre greater, by how much tis clear to us the commands were so unjust as that they were against God himself: because the two first were against the true Orthodox Religion, & the last against the true genuine liberty of the Church, at least as was conceaved by Gregory. Yet Atha∣nasius, Eusebius, & Gregory chose rather to execute the divine precept for obey∣ing Princes, then trust to their own judgments & call that obedience in questi∣on. And yet in aftertimes, & even for such laws of Princes wherein farre less in∣juries were contained or enjoyned, Excommunications, Interdicts, warrs, priva∣tions, depositions were both denounced and executed. O tempora! O mores! Gregory doth not approve of the law, nay he reprehends it. And yet Gregory doth not onely not annul nor attempt to annul it; but also, that he may shew his obedience to the Prince, is himself the chief Promulger of it. Therefore, what Pope Gelasius said to the Emperour Anastasius, Legibus tuis ipsi quo{que} parent Religionis Antistites, that all three, at least both Eusebius and Gregory, verified in effect and in all respects, and not out of equity and decency (as some of our modern Authors, Carmelita. cont. Fulg. both ungroundedly and falsely in∣terpret) but out of a true sense of justice, and of their obligation of con∣science to do so, by reason of the jurisdiction and power of Princes, as given them by God. For therefore also it was that Gregory said to the Em∣perour, that Christ had committed his own Priests to his hands. And least any should say or think here, that Gregory did onely mean to signifie a bare recommendation of the Priests to the Emperours care, but not a subjection of them to his power (for this evasion too some of our Moderns have:) let our Opposers consider the same Gregory's words in his 64. epist. (ad Theodorum Me∣dicum intimum Mauritji Imperatoris) speaking again of the very same law. Ʋalde autem mihi durum videtur (sayes he) vt ab ejus servitio milites suos pro∣hibeat: qui ei & omnia tribuit, & dominari eum non solum militibus, sed etiam sacerdotibus concessit. Where I plainly see dominion over Priests given by God to the Emperours, and as well over Priests as over Souldiers, in the judgment of Gregory: and therefore jurisdiction: being Imperial dominion cannot be without Imperial jurisdiction (let such Canonists, and such late School Di∣vines, Summists or Casuists talke contradictory non sense endlesly, who (treat∣ing on Bulla cenae) acknowledg in secular Princes, in many cases, a bare civil and natural power to coerce Clerks (as for the preservation of the Common∣wealth, or the relief of Innocents unjustly oppress'd, &c.) and yet denye them jurisdiction over Clerks: as if the latin word jurisdictio had not prima∣rily and originally & most commonly and properly meaned that pronouncing of judgment, or of the law and right, which is in secular Courts, or which is by authority of the supream civil Power.)

So great a testimony, being that of as great and as holy a Pope as Gregotius Magnus, torments our Adversaries extreamly. And therefore they leave no stone unremoved to elude it, though with ridiculous answers. Wherein, as in a matter of so much gravity, Cardinal Baronius took more pains then any other. Which is the cause that I insert this great Annalist'e whole dispute of this matter.

Sed amabo te, hic, pie lector (sayes he in his 8. tome, ad an. 593. n. 16.) siste gradum. Etenim ni fallor, dum haec audisti, te admiratum vidi, & subiu∣dignatum obduxisse supercilia, eo quòd abiectè nimis visus sit tibi loquutus S. Gre∣gorius, dum praeter alia, tum in epistola ad Mauritium, tum in ista ad Theodorum data, quodammodo professus appareat, sacerdotes a Deo subjectos esse Imperatori, verbis illis imprimis, cum ait ex persona Christi: sacerdotes me••s tuae manui commi∣si: & de Imperatore ad Theodorum: Ei & omnia tribuit, & deminari cum non solum militibus, sed etiam sacerdotibus concessit. But I, for my own part here, desire Baronius himself to hold himself a little, and consider well whether he that reading those passages, of Gregory's humility, subjection and obedience to the Emperour, would be troubled at them and angry with him, should not

rather be angry with Paul, nay and troubled at the very words, and deeds too, of Christ himself? In earnest, according to my judgment, there is no rational pious and learned Catholick but should be rather troubled at and angry with Baronius himself for his interpretation so remote from all piety, so frivolous and unskilfull too where he draws and wrests and forces S. Gregory to vain and we l-nigh impious senses. But let us heare the rest of his Praelti∣dium. At haec Novatores, non vt tu, maerentes accipiunt; sed hilari vultu exul∣tantes, in••o & insultantes, quasi irrefragabile nacti sint testimonium viri Sanctis∣simi, at{que} doctissimi, cui nefas sit contradici, qui docentis Cathedram cum ascende∣rit, tum apertis verbis videatur esse testatus, subjectum a Deo Imperatori Sacerdoti∣um esse, ut non nisi contumelia tanti Patris id negari, & astrui contrarium videri possit, nempe ipsum hallucinatum, & non vera loquutum, vel saltem Imperatori tur∣pitee idulatum. But verily, in this part of his praeludium our eminent An∣nalist is much deceived, where he most improperly and inconsiderately sayes, that Gregory seems to admit the Priesthood it self to have been subjected by God to the Emperour. For Gregory sayes not that the Priesthood was com∣mitted, granted, or subjected to the Emperour; but the Priests. Which are different things: being that must have been very falsely, and this no less truly, and without any kind of flattery, said. And yet Baronius goes on to trifle thus. Sed larvis istis absterreant Novatores ipsi infantes, & clamoribus isti∣jusm di fueris pavorem incutiant, non tibi, Lector, si bene nostivim Sanctionum Ecclesiasticarum, at{que} traditionum robur, & fortitudinem doctrinae Patrum: sed rid••bis nobiscum insultantium impudentiam & imprudentiam. What those No∣vators and Usurpers who have departed from us, and whom he perstringeth here, do say, as I valew not, so is it not to my present purpose to disprove or approve, as such; but what some Veterators, that is some old cunning decei∣vers amongst our selves, have without sufficient reason or authority imposed on the world, is that I ought in this place and do take notice of. Tis truth I love and enquire after. Nor will I suffer my self to be startled with those childish bugbears of Baronius. For I have without any peradventure shewd already, and shall yet further, not onely out of Ecclesiastical Sanctions, and doctrine of the Fathers abundantly given in the very last Section, but also out of plain Canonical Scripture and natural Reason, as you have also already seen, & shall yet further as to some particulars, that in Baronius as to our present matter and in this very passage of his, no less then in many others dispersed through∣out his Annals, there is much either of knowledg, or certainly of candour, nay and of prudence, and modesty, desired. For thus he writes, ibid. num. 17. Dum nulla habetur ratio rerum gestarum & temporum, id efficitur, ut frustica isti insultent, vel timeant pavidè. At cum accuratè cuncta perspêcta habue∣rint, planè intelligent S. Gregorium acerrimum fuisse vindicem Pontificiae aestima∣tionis, & assertorem immunitatis Ecclesiasticae. And then he goes on adding; Haec, ut omnes percipiant, inprimis meminisse oportet, quae superius dicta sunt, quantum idem Gregorius deploravit hoec infaelicissima tempora, quibus licet sub Im∣peratore Catholico, ipsa tamen Ecclesia fuerit, non secus ac sub Nerone & Dioclesi∣ano, captiva. To the former, I say, I could heartily wish, that many Roman Pontiffs, after Gregory's most holy Pontificat, had more regarded the glory of Christ, and propagation of his Church, then the vain oftentation of world∣ly power and pompe in the Papacy and Ecclesiastical Immunity. And to the later, that he exaggerats the matter very little piously, and less prudently; devesting himself (as tis his manner often) of all modesty, nay and of all conscience too: whereas it is certain that Mauritius never as much as attempt∣ed or intended any persecution of the Faith, or of the Faithfull; nay and that he had deserved very well both of the Faith, and of the Faithfull: (Evagr. l. 6. c. 20.21. Gregor. l. 2. indic. XI. ep. 64. & l. 9. ep. 40. indic. 4. & l. 8. ep. 2. indic. 3. & Nicephor. l. 18. c. 42.) being therefore, as was supposed, protected by God, in many occasions, especially in his expedition against the Persians. Nor could the most eminent Baronius, though indeed too too

audacious a censor, or rather a very Scourge in his writings of so many otherwise no less famous and glorious then Catholick and pious Emperours, bring any thing which might so denigrate the same and esteeme of so great and to Catholick an Emperour, as might deserve to have him compa••ed to Nero and Dioclesian; albeit I confess he was reprehensible (and but in that onely, without any excuse or good or just pretence) that he would not by a sum of Gold redeem some thousands of his own souldiers, whom Chaianus the Avar, whose prisoners of warr they were, did therefore kill every man. Theo••hanes in Miscella, apud Baron, tom. 8. an. 600. num. 8. But let us heare this mosr eminent Cardinal Annalist himself proceed.

Rev••canda (sayes he) hic tibi sunt in memoriam (quod rerum sic exigat argu∣mentum) quae idem S. Gregorius de his habeat, jam a nobis anno primo ejus Pon∣tificatus superius recitata. Vbi inter alia, Gregor. in Psalm. paenit. 5. Concitavit enim (Diabolus scilicet) aduersus Ecclesiam Dei n••n s••lum innumerabilem populi multitudinem, verùm etiam regiam, si fas est dicere, potestatem: nulla enim ratio sinit ut inter Reges habeatur qui destruit potiùs quàm reg•••• im••erium. Et paulo p••st: Ecclesiam quippe quam suo sanguinis praecio redemptam Sal••ater noster v••luit esse liberam, hanc iste, potestatis Regiae jura transcendens, facere conatur ancillam. Haec & alia fusiùs a nobis superius recitata. Here I cannot choose but wish Baronius had been more candid and conscientious. For certainly, against his own knowledge and conscience, in this passage he asperseth Mauritius with the foulest and most horrid stain could be: forasmuch as he affirms or suppo∣ses this sharp complaint of Gregory was against Mauritius (having neverthe∣less so little ground in Gregory himself for affirming or supposing so, that Gre∣gory doth not as much as once name him) and forasmuch as a little before he himself had writt thus, Cum tamen sive de Mauritio, sive eo qui successit Phoca, vel Tiberie, vel Iustine, qui hunc praecesserunt, Augustis (in whosoever's Empire of all these you will say that Gregory writt those Commentaries on the Penitential Psalmes) omnes reperiantur fuisse fide Catholica Orthodoxi. &c. Ba∣ronius tom. 8. an. 590. n. 6. Therefore, being it is certain that in the days of Gregory, wherein he might have written these Commentaries, at least Iustinus and Tiberius were Emperours, altltough before his Pontifica••; and that, in the time of his Pontificat, Mauritius and Phocas ruled the same Roman Empire: wherefore doth Baronius apply this complaint of Gregory to Mauritius? Nay being it appears out of the above quoted epistle, about which our chief con∣troversy is here, that Gregory speaks to Mauritius with the greatest reverence and submission may be; and that elsewhere also he doth most egregiously praise him, as even Baronius himself observes tom. 8. an. 599. n. 18. 19. & an. 602. n. 33. wherefore doth not Baronius not rather justly conjecture and perswade himself (as he ought in reason, or by reason of those other places of Gregory) that, in this place on the Psalms, Gregory means not Mauritius at all? Besides, who sees not it stood not with Gregory's sanctity and zeal or the duty of his Pastoral office, that if he had conceaved so ill an opinion of Mauritius, he should be so much wanting to himself, that is to his own Sacerdo∣tal and Episcopal charge, as not to do that which was the part of a pious Bishop, though withall a most humble subject, or as not rather too, and with∣out any disguise, to reprehend Mauritius sincerely, and modestly, then by flattering epistles to praise him and sooth him; and consequently to pour oyl of assentation on the sinners head? For he certainly that so freely told Mauritius of the injustice of his law, as we have seen, was not like to spare him for Simony, and much less for Tyranny, if there had been cause. Ensine, to him that will read Joannes Diacon. in vita Gregorij. l. 1. c. 10. Nauclerus, Generat. 20. & the Epistle of Pope Pelagius, apud Ioan. Diac. l. 1. c. 32. and cap. 27. and compare altogether and with that also I have said already out of St. Gregory himself: to him that shall yet particularly consider both the diffe∣rence which Iustinus the Emperour had (before Mauritius came to the helme) with Pelagius (who was Pope immediately before St. Gregory) for not pay∣ing

the ordinary tribute when he was chosen Pope (as was customarily payed then and long before by all Popes to the Emperour, and might be lawfully exacted by the Princes, (Gloss. in cap. Agatha. dist. 63.) to witt for the Re∣galities and temporal possessions given to the Popes, until the Princes and Em∣perours themselves remitted absolutely for ever the said tribute; which was done first by the Emperour Constantinus Pogonatus, in the Papacy of Agatho, after the sixt General Synod had been ended; Agatho's Legat to the said Synod, Ioannes Partuensis, having obtained, that whoever chanced to be elected Pope should pay no more any such tribute, no mony at all for his confirmation or ad∣mission by the Emperour; yet provided stil that whoever were chosen Pope should by all means expect the Emperour's confirmation. dist. 63. cap. Agatho: to him I say that shall compare all the above passages, & yet particularly consider this difference which the Emperour Justinus had with Pope Pelagius, because this Pelagius had, without expecting the said Iustinian's confirmation, both ac∣cepted of the Papacy and suffered himself to be consecrated, and in all things else also carried himself by actual execution as Pope: & to him that shall more∣over particularly consider how the same Pelagius the II. sent this very Gregory, being then his Deacon, to Constantinople, to appease the Emperour's anger, by laying the necessities open which made him not expect His Majestie's confirma∣tion: and to him finally that shall consider the friendship contracted then twixt Mauritius and Gregorius, being yet both of them private persons; how Gregorius receaved, as Gossip or Godfather, the Son of Mauritius from the Sacred Font: and how constant Mauritius, being made Emperour, continued in his friendship to Gregory, not onely approveing of Gregory's election after to the Papacy, but forcing him to accept of it when he by all means declined and fled from his own election and Electors: to him, I say again, that will consi∣der all this, and withall too, or rather above all, that as it is not certain, un∣der whose Empire of the four that raign'd in his days, Iustinus, Tiberius, Mauritius and Phocas, Gregory writt those commentaries on the Penitential Psalms; so it is more likely that he writt them (together with his Morals on Iob) when he was Legat or Agent at Constantinople, to appease the wrath of Iustinus against Pelagius; being this anger was so great that Pelagius feared he would give directions to his General and Army (then designed for Italy against the Longobards) to fall upon himself, &c, as Nauclerus writes: & consequent∣ly also, that it is not onely not certain that he writt them in the time of his own Pontificat; but most likely, to such as will consider all from first to last, that before: it will appear manifestly, that Baronius hath no ground at all to say that Gregory perstringed Mauritius in that passage of his commentaries on the Penitential Psalms, but rather certainly Iustinus: and consequently too it will appear that this pittifull illgrounded evasion of Baronius more and more betrayes the weakness of his cause.

Therefore, and that we may not ground certain, constant, and such impor∣tant explications, (especially where the honour of so great and Catholick Princes is concern'd) upon most uncertain and most doubtfull, if not plainly false assertions, it must be granted that Gregory, notwithstanding this passage alleadg'd out of his said Commentaries, obeyed Mauritius, not forced there∣unto by any fear of violence or tyranny (which was none at all, and whereof we see not as much as a shadow) but freely and voluntarily, and as moved onely by that which he conceaved and was indeed a tye of conscience. Though I confess withall, it be not altogether improbable, that Mauritius about the latter end of his raign was not so acceptable to Gregory. For Gregory, as greatly joyed, writes to Phocas (l. 11. indic. 6. ep. 43.) immediat Successor to Mauritius, That the yoake of sadness being now removed, the Church was come to the dayes of liberty: and that in the latter times of Mauritius he kept no Agents in the Imperial Cou••t, because the Ministers of the Roman Church, with fear declined and fled from those burdensome and sharper times. And writing to Leontia the Empress (ibid. ep. 44.) he gives God thankes, that such heavy

burdens of so long a tract of time were removed from his shoulders: and that now under Phocas he underwent a light easy yoak, and such as he was willing to bear, and that till now the Church of Peter was layed for in wait or ambushments. And yet I say also here, that Gregory writing thus to a most impious cruel Parricide o•• his very own supream Lieg Lord and of his wife & children altogether, and both to a trayterous & rebellious Vsurper of his Crown, such as all Histories acknowledg Phocas to have been, and praysing and soothing him so as perad∣venture carrying himself popularly at first and remitting or forgiving to Gre∣gory some of those regalities or of those imperial duties which Mauritius as lawfull Prince found himself have no cause to remit (but which Usurping Tyrants, do commonly remit, and see cause enough to remit to such as at first, or last, can make opposition to them) it cannot be denyed that herein Gregory was surprized with somewhat humane. And therefore we must not wonder if perhap, if I say at any time, though in a different or unlike mat∣ter, the same Gregory lying under those ordinary weaknesses of men, and not seldome of the very best or holiest men, expressed some little passion against Mauritius himself (without contradiction of any side or person, the lawfull Emperour) and expressed himself so, because Mauritius in defence and for ne••essary preservation of the Imperial rights, looked narrowly to the Bishops, kept them to their duty, and the very chief Pontiff himself, the Roman Pa∣triarch, in due subjection to the Empire.

Be it therefore so (and this is a second Answer to Baronius here) let us grant those complaints of Gregory were against Mauritius, let them be against whomsoever Baronius will of all those Emperours lived in the dayes of Gre∣gory; yet whereas they are onely against the either true or pretended Simony of such Emperour (as I have shewed before, and may be seen at large in the Authors and places quoted by me) and whereas they neither contain nor hint any thing as if such Emperour had hindered the Sacerdotal jurisdiction, or vsurped or encroached upon it: it is also plain enough that all this labour of Bar••nius is in vain. For in the election or confirmation of the Bishop of Rome, the Emperours of those times would and did exercise their own Im∣perial authority. That, Gregory took extreamly to heart. And these Emperours exacted money for such election or confirmation. But this seem'd alltogether intollerable to this good Pope, as (in his opinion) implicitly containing or in∣volving the very first heresy sprung up in the Church, that I mean which from Simon Magus is called the Simoniacal heresy. And this was the very greatest, nay all the cause Mauritius gave to the complaints of Gregory. And this was the grand, nay and sole and whole Simoniacal excess of that Emperour, (whoever he was, of whom Gregory so complains) as is manifest out of those very expres∣sions which are most ardent in Gregory; where nothing is read of any vsurped or tyrannical dominion over either the Priesthood it self or the Priests. Nor was this unknown to Baronius himself. For speaking of those Emperours, whom those complaints of Gregory might have touch'd, thus he sayes, Tom. 8. an. 590. nu. 6. Hac parte tantùm damnandi, quòd confirmationem electi in Romanum Pontificem sibi vindicarent. Imò adde; ita vindicarent, ut ex ipsa electione & confirmatione pecuniam etiam aliquam vellent acccipere.

But let us here this learned Annalist, making a little further progress, Ibid. tom. 8. an. 593. n. 18. Quibus imprimis (sayes he) vides sanctum Gregorium definire, non solum non esse subditam Regibus aliquo modo Ecclesiam, verumetiam firmiter asseverare non habendum esse Mauritium inter Imperatores, dum adversus Dei Sacerdotes Regiam potestatem exercet. What do you say Baronius? Is this indeed your candour? will you amuse and abuse your Readers so? That the Church, as such purely, is not subject to secular Princes, is very certain; but as certain also, that Churchmen, as men, or as parts of the civil common∣wealth, are in all humane things subject to the Politick Head of the same civil commonwealth. And no less certain too that such Politick Heads, Kings or Princes, have even by the very law of nature a special, peculiar, and royal

but still political interest and right in the election and confirmations of Bishops within their own dominions; though it be not hence consequent, that they have a power over the Church as a Church, or that the Church as a Church is subject to them. Nay it is certain and clear enough to any dis∣interessed and learned person that for the temporalties annexed to a Bishop∣rick, the Prince may, at the election or confirmation of the Bishop, and may without any kind of Simony require, exact, and receive such a sum of money as by the written laws or custome is or ought to be paid; though it be con∣fessed, those laws or customes would be damnable which should set Bishop∣ricks or any Churchlings to sale; or should exact even from such as are wor∣thily and canonically elected and confirmed, such a sum as in reason should be too grievous a burden to the Church, or hinderance to the service of God there; unless peradventure the manifest necessities of the Republick, either Ecclesiastical or civil, or both did require otherwise. Now whether, or how grievous, or how contrary to law, or how much hindering the service of God or not, that exaction was whereof Gregory complains, I know not. But I am sure of this, that Gregory never said nor dreamed that that Emperour, of whom he complains, should not be esteemed an Emperour, upon this account, that he exercised royal power towards, over, or against the Priests of God; but upon this other, that he destroyed rather then governd the Empire. Therefore Gregory observed some defects in that Emperour, as to or concern∣ing the very temporal regiment of his Empire. But what this defect was, let others enquire: as also, whether Gregory said well or no, that for any such or other defect whatsoever, he should not be esteemed Emperour. For nei∣ther belongs to my purpose here.

That which is more directly to my purpose is to observe what follows in Baronius. Rursum (sayes he) ejusdem Gregorij sententia reddi firmum intelligis, Christi Ecclesiam ab ipso liberam factam esse; quam Imperator iniquissimé redigere studuerit in servitatem. How this is made firme out of that sentence of Gre∣gory in his Commentaries, or any other elsewhere, I cannot by any means un∣derstand. In that sentence or passage, we have nothing at all of the recovery of the liberty of the Church, as he calls it: for he perpetually complains that a Simoniack Prince hath through avarice kept the Church under as a bond-woman, and that he would domineer over the Roman Church in par∣ticular. Indeed in his epistles to Phocas and Leontia, before quoted, he speaks of the times of liberty whereunto the Church was come under that Usurp∣ing Tyrant, but sayes not that himself restored this liberty. However, be∣cause it is not material whether so or no, but onely to shew Baronius's unwary (if not rather designed) manner of expressing the most immaterial things, that which I would observe indeed is what he so ushers in; even his material and main distinction. For having now done with his praeludium, he comes at last to the purpose, and sayes: Adeo, ut, quod dicit in duabus recitatis epistolis (he means the two epistles written to Mauritius himself and to his Physitian Theo∣dorus) a De•• subjectes fuisse sacerdotes Imperatori, ne ipse sibi contrarius Gregorius fuisse dicatut, necesse fit, ut aliud divi•••• itibuere voluerii voluntati, permissioni vero aliud. In Gregory there is no contrariety. For in the place alleadg'd out of his Commentaries, he reprehends Iustinus the younger, that by Simony he made the Church a servant, or slaves 〈◊〉〈◊〉 forasmuch as it seemed to him the Bishop was not freely elected, but the ele••tio•• bought and sold, where money must have intervers'd for obtaining a confirmation of it. And in those two epistles (whereof the dispute in) written so to Mauritius and Theodorus, he sayes the Emperour had in humane thinge by divine authority, and Apostoli∣cal precept, dominion over the very Priests. In all which, it is plain enough, there is no kind of contrariery to himself. Before S. Gregory's days, Facundus, a most praise-worthy Bishop and famous in the Church, did write (apud Ba∣ron. tom. 7. an. 547. n. 35. (how Theodosius the Emperour, when reprehend∣ed by St. Ambrose, knew very well, Quod non ex temporali potestate, qua fuerat

etiam sacerdotibus Dei praepositus, sed ex eo pervenire posset ad vitam, quod illis erat ipse subjectus.

Now albeit the other evasion of Baronius, where he interprets Gregory's commission or concession made by God of the very Priests to the Emperours dominion and power, so as if these words imported no more but a bare permission of God that Mauritius, although unjustly and tyrannically ruleing, should exer∣cise over and execute his power against the very Priests, albeit I say this eva∣sion appear out of what is already said to be what it is a meer groundless evasion; yet I think fit to sift and examine it heer of purpose throughly. For even Bellarmine too, cont. Barcl. c. 3. n. 10. & cont. Apol. P. Pauli, hath his refuge to it, saying that that obedience which S. Gregory writes himself to have given, was out of worldly feare and force, and was de facto onely, not de jure. And brings for proof a certain complaint of Gregory against Mauritius (whom he likewise, but not without some inconsiderancy, sayes to be the very same Emperour of whom Gregory complains in his Commentaries) even part of the very same we have given before, as here in these words, In ••ant••m autem sitae temeritatis extendit vesaniam, ut caput omnium Ecclesiarum Romanam Ecclesiam sibi vindicet, & in Do••••ina Gemium terrenae jus potestatibus vsurpet.

As for Ba••onius, he (tom. 8. an. 58••. n. 19.) explicates that permission, thus. Sed auomodo permissioni? cum videlicet permiserit Deus (ut ipse deplorat) n••n posse exequi munus suum Summum universae Ecclesiae Sacerdotem, nisi etiam perseluta pecunia electioni factae ipse consensisset Imperator. Sic igitur Deum subie∣cisse tradit Sacerdotes Mauritio Imperatori, ut olim eosdem subiccerat persocutoribus, Ner••ni at{que} Diocl. siam, aues in e••s etiam gladia agere permisit. Cum ijsdem certe constat Gregorium adnumer••sse Mauriticum, ubi in Psalm. paenit. ver. Iultio tu domine, ait: Quid Nero? Quid Dioclesianus? Quid deni{que} iste, qui hoc tempore Ecclesiam persequitur. Numquid non omnes, portae inferi? Habes ergo (sayes he) ex Gregorio ipsa, sensum verbarum ipsius. Qua interpretatione, nulla verior, nec germanior esse potest: ut sic dixisse voluerit, subjectos a Deo Sacerdotes Imperatori, quemadmodum Christus redemptor noster fatetur, se divina permissione subditum potestati Pilati; & sicut ••tidem dixit••ijs qui ipsum neci tradere satagobant, Haec est hora vestra & potestas tenebrarum. Quamobrem, sires jure agatur, non violen••ia ut solent latrones in silvis, non subjectos esse sacerdotes Imperatoribus, sed Imperato∣res Sacerdotibus, ejusdem Gregorij sicut & aliorum Sanctorum Doctorum omnium, const••ns est firma{que} sententia. Hetherto Baronius.

But certainly this rather of Baronius himself is, in its own kind, merum latrocinium, a meer robbery, whereby he invades the Reader, and spoyles him of his beleef and reason; not any right, just, or true patronage or defence whereby to support a faeeble cause. Omnium (sayes he) Sanctorum Doctorum haec est constans firma{que} sententia, and brings not one of all: because indeed he saw none of all the holy ancient Doctors whom he could bring o•• alleadg to his purpose, or who denye the subjection of Priests in temporal matters to the secular Magistrat; but endeavours to impose on the more simple unlearn∣ed Readers with his own bare single assertion, without any kind of proof. As for Gregory in particular, whereas Baronius alleadges nothing out of his writings to prove this assertion; must it not also be deemed a Robbery in the City and Vaticane, worse then that is committed in the woods, so, or on pretence of such a bare saying of one Bishop, to rob all the Emperours of so numerous and so considerable a part of their Subjects? and to say that was the sentence of Gregory, whereas nothing is more manifest in Gregory's own words And deeds then that he held the quite contrary? And further to averre that all Gregory's complaints were certainly against Mauritius, and his comparison to Nero and Dioclesian was of him individually and determinatlye whereas it is neither certain nor likely that Gregory mean'd or thought at all of Mauritius, in that passage?

Nor indeed is there any great difficulty to shut up this gap through which both these great Cardinals, Baronius and Bellarmine, think to escape. For even a School boy, that scarce had been taught the first rudiments of gram∣mar, will soon observe in the very bare words of Gregory our sentence, or the contrary of theirs, to have been delivered by him, most constantly and firmely, and from the very bottome of his Soule. Let Baronius teach or shew us, that Gregory hath any where complained of any unlawfull oppression of him∣self or of other Priests by the Emperour, that is, of the Usurpation of rule, power, jurisdiction, authority or dominion over the Clergie: let Baronius shew this to the end it may from such complaint appear that Gregory did not speak from his heart, or his own inward sense, when he said that priests were granted and committed by God himself to the Emperours dominion; but that by such words he mean'd onely that God permitted the Priests to be under him &c: I say, let Baronius shew any such place in Gregory, and we shall most willingly admit of his interpretation. Let Bellarmine shew that any where Gregory comylains in particular of Mauritius, as tyrannically or violently op∣pressing him, or Usurping either spiritual or temporal jurisdiction, or autho∣rity over him, or as hindering him in any respect to execute his Episcopal office, and we will then beleeve it appears out of Gregory himself, that he obeyed and professes himself to have obeyed Mauritius constrainedly, not freely; and that he obeyed him onely de facto, but not de jure. But I am sure that hethertoo neither of both hath brought any thing to help these inter∣pretations of theirs. Indeed Gregory complained that the Emperour Iustinus held the Roman Church under Symoniacal oppression; but that any Prince was injurious to his own person by Usurping jurisdiction over him, he never said. Nor must we wonder, he should not, whereas he knew well enough that he was himself not onely to expect his own confirmation (being elected Pope) from the Emperour Mauritius, but also hoped that he might decline the great burthen of the Pontificat by Mauritius's refusal to confirme his ele∣ction. Besides, long after he was admitted and confirmed by Mauritius, he sayes openly and expresly that he paid to Mauritius what he ought: and acknowledges and confesses that he ought him obedience; where certainly no violence, no coaction appears; but a duty of obedience de jure. The words of Gregory, expressing this much, you have l. 1. indic. 11. epist. 63: Vtrobi{que} ergo quae debui exolui, qui & imperatori obedientiam praebui, & pro Deo, quod sensi, minime ••acui. And there too he confesses himself subject to the command of the Emperour, juff••oni Imperatoris subjectum. Therefore it's plain enough that Bellarmine's Glosse of Gregory is not to be admitted: being it is so con∣trary to Gregory's words.

Baronius likewise brings indeed Gregory's complaints against Mauritius, though without sufficient ground, as if Mauritius had through Symony kept the Roman Church under oppression. But that Mauritius had been at any time injurious to the person of Gregory, or those of other Priests, or that Mauritius had ever hindered him or them from exercising duely their Episcopal or Sacerdotal functions, he had not a word to bring. And yet we, on the other side, can produce most clear and manifest passages, wherein and not a complaining but as affirming, nor as upbraiding but as praising first, that after he may the better object ingratitude, Gregory, l. 2. Ind. 11. ep. 61. assuming the person of Christ, reasons with Mauritius, recounting particular∣ly the mighty favours he had done and benefits bestowed upon him. Ego te, de Notasio Comitem Exeubitorum, de Comite Excubitorum Caesarem; de Cesare Imperatorem, nec solum hoc, sed Patrem feci; Sacerdotes meos tuae manu•• commisi: & in a meo servitio milites tuos subtrahis. Behold the ingratitude after so many benefits. And consider that as he is minded, as of a benefit conferr'd upon him, that of a Notary he was made a Count; and of a Count, made Caesar and Emperour: so among the same benefits he is minded by Christ, or by Gregory in the person of Christ, that to his hands he had committed

his own Priests. All which doubtless import not, represent not to us a bare permission of God, but the good will and pleasure of God, even that very will in God, which Divines call voluntatem beneplaciti: for they are all equal∣ly recounted as benefits and favours of God. In the same stile and manner doth Gregory, in his epistle to Theodorus, commemorat the divine benefits of God to Mauritius, and amongst others doth recount this of dominion over Priests, that he may the better taxe his ingratitude. Valde autem mihi durum videtur (sayes he ibid. ep. 64.) ut ab ejus servitio milites suos abstrahat, qui ei & omnia tribuit, & dominari eum non solum militibus, sed etiam sacerdotibus c••ncessit. Where, I cannot but admire the confidence of our new interpreters, that for concedere they give us permittere in the latin tongue: and make us be∣leeve that a concession or grant of dominion over Priests, made by God him∣self, and made by him intending it as a special savour and benefit, must be understood to be a bare permission onely, or an effect onely of the permissive will of God, and there too where it is in the same forme or stile recounted as the dominion over the Souldiers and the whole Empire is. Who (to witt God) gave him (to witt Mauritius) all, (not permissively questionless, but freely and willingly) and granted him to have dominion over not the Souldiers onely, but also over the Priests. Had Mauritius dominion over the Souldiers by a just and lawfull title? Or had he dominion over them, not out of or by a bare permission onely of God, but out of and by that which is truly and properly the concession or grant of God? It must be too great folly to answer negatively. And therefore, if Gregory be a competent witness, Mauritius by a lawfull and just title, that is, by the true and proper concession of God, and not by his bare permission onely had dominion over the Priests also. Which to have been the sence of Gregory, we need neither Logick nor Theology, but Grammar onely to teach us. As we are also taught by this other passage of the same Gregory, speaking to Mauritius, l. 4. ep. 15. Sacerdotibus non ex terrena potestate Dominus noster citius indignetur, sed excellenti considerati••ne, propter cum, cujus servi sunt, eis ita dominetur, ut etiam debitam reverentiam impendat. Where you see again that Gregory acknowledges in Mauritius dominion as to Priests, to witt, as, they are men and parts of the civil commonwealth: for as they are Priests, that is consecrated by holy orders, he desires for his sake to whom they are consecrated, that Mauritius shew them that reverence be∣cometh. Which passage of Gregory, whether it may for that of dominion be restrained to the legislative power onely, or onely import that Mauritius might oblige Priests by his bare civil laws, and in such matters onely too however temporal wherein the Church makes no contrary laws, and yet not oblige them but secundum aequum & bonum, as they shall think fit, to an ex∣ternal confirmity, and by the directive virtue and part onely of such laws, but by no means to or by the sanctions or coercive part (as Bellarmine holds:) and whether Gregory's entreating Mauritius, to shew due reverance to the Priests of God, import as much as that the Priests should not, ought not to be punished by the Emperour when they transgressed (for so too Bellarmine sayes that Gregory may be interpreted;) I leave to the discerning Reader. As also whether dominari imports nought else but legibus obligare; and whether reverentiam exhibere import the same with or as much, as non ••••••ire. Finally whether Cardinal Bellarmine not being content with these absurd Glosses, but adding moreover that it is not to be wondred at (Si Gregorius ita loquatur, ••t iugum tyrannicum Mauritij, si auferre non poterat, mitigare saltem & moderari n••gretur) if Gregory speaks with so great submission to mitigate and moderate the tyrannical yoak of Mauritius, being he could not wholly rid himself of it, whether I say Bellarmine saying so taxe not Gregory with dis∣simulation; and yet gives not any probable reason wherefore Gregory should so strangely dissemble. For certainly, for such a man, as Gregory was, to dissemble so or speak so in such a matter, against his conscience, was not to mitigate or moderate, but to nourish and encrease tyranny, and encrease it

also to the greatest prejudice could be against the Vniversal Church, if what Bellarmine and Baronius would faine defend as their main scope were true, that is, if it were true that Priests are by the law of God exempt from all secular even Imperial power.

And yet I must say now (and this is an other, but shorter and clearer. Answer both to Baronius and Bellarmine, and as to the place alleadged out of St. Gregory's commentaries) that as St. Gregory intended not, nor could make any strict or proper comparison twixt that Christian Emperour, he means in his commentaries on the penitential Psalms and, Nero and Dioclesian; but onely for example's sake to instance who were (though not all in the same degree) and might be called or said to be portae Inferi against the Church, as having persecuted her every one of them more or less, such as was (sayes he) Nero, and Dioclesian, and he that now persecutes; to wit, each of them in his own kind, Nero in his, and Dioclesian in his, and in some degree or mea∣sure he too that by or through Symoniacal avarice was thought by Gregory to vex and trouble the Church: and as that comparison made by Gregory, how proper or strict soever it may be taken to be, and though it were intend∣ed of Mauritius himself, doth nothing advantage Baronius or Bellarmine, is no way material, being (as I have said already) there is no specialty in it (or in the whole complaint) of the oppression of Priests in particular, but one∣ly of the Church in general: so it is manifest enough that if they cannot produce some passage out of Gregory where he teaches, that Priests, & onely for their being Priests, were not bound in meer temporal matters to obey the just commands of Nero and Dioclesian, (though otherwise or in other matters, as in those of true Religion, cruel persecutors) or that Priests for onely being Priests were not by the text of Paul, ad Roman. 13. subject in temporal mat∣ters to those very persecuting sublimer powers: they say nothing at all out of Gregory to decline this sense I have given to be the true proper genuine sense of Gregory in his often quoted epistles to Mauritius and Theodorus, for the sub∣jection of all Churchmen, nay even too of the Pope himself or of Gregory himself to Mauritius, or to any other Emperour. And I am sure they can alleadg no such place out of Gregory. 'Tis true that Gregory hath (super Psal. 5. Paenitent. vers. Tota die exprobrabant mihi inimici mei) this passage before quoted. Coneitavit enim (sayes he speaking of the Devil) adversus Ecclesiam non solum innumerabilem populi multitudinem, verum etiam regiam, si fas est di∣cere, potestatem: nulla enim ratio sinit ut inter Reges habeatur qui destruit potius quam regat imperiam &c. Where, as you see, after telling how the Devil had excited against the Church of God, not onely a numberless number of peo∣ple, but also the royal power, if it be lawfull to call it such: he adds immediate∣ly, For (sayes he) no reason permits that he be esteemed amongst Kings, who rather destroyes then governs the Empire. I say 'tis true that Gregory hath this passage. But I say also, it is no less true, that heer is not a word to Baronius's or Bellarmine's purpose in our present dispute. For, laying aside that themselves are bound in their own principles to interpret these words beningly, and with a graine of salt (as the phrase is in Schools) and to say that Gregory's meaning was not, that before a legal sentence of deposition by sufficient authority, that Emperour, whoever he was, retayn'd not still de jure all his imperial power, notwithstanding any ill-government or any kind of destruction which S. Gregory did or could (without an Hyperbole) charge upon him, pro∣perly and truely; nor consequently was, that it was not in strictness of speech and in reality of things lawfull to call his power the true Royall Imperial power; nor was, that in the same strictness and reality, no reason suffered him to be esteemed or accounted a King or Emperour; but was onely such meaning as they have who when they have a great disesteem for one and for some actions of his very much below a man use commonly to say, That he is no man: and, by consequence, that Gregory must not be understood here as speaking Philosophically or Grammatically; but Rhetorically, or as meaning

onely that he was a very bad, very unjust King as to the use of his Kingship in some thing, albeit still a true King as to the authority of a King, and to the use too in all other things wherein he govern'd according to the laws or to reason: I say that, laying aside this interpretation or exposition of Gregory's meaning, which themselves (Baronius and Bellarmine) are even in their own principles bound to give, and yet could have no place if Gregory's words here be taken rigorously or in a strict grammatical sense: it is manifest enough that here is not one word (take it in what sense you please, Philosophical, and Grammatical, or Theological or Rhetorical) that signifies he was no King for having challeng'd, vsurped, or executed a Royal power, jurisdicti∣on or authority over and against Preists in meer temporal things, or for having punish'd such Priests as were highly and enormously delinquent against the laws, in such temporal things. So that from first to last, nothing can be more evident than that our good Cardinals have lost all their pains in com∣menting on this passage of Gregory's Commentarie's, or in bringing these words to expound those other of Gregory in his foresaid two epistles to Mauritius and Theodorus.

To return therefore to those most true and proper words again of these two epistles of Gregory; I say now, that if you add to them the fact of Gre∣gory, whereof also before, that is, his actual and effectual obedience to Mau∣ritius in promulging that law, albeit Gregory thought it an unjust law, and if you add also his notable profession of obedience and subjection in these tearms Ego quidem jussi••ni subjectus, &c, and I say that if you take alltogether, I see ••••••t how it is possible that you may doubt hereafter of Gregory's sense in this matter; but be absolutely and firmely perswaded, it was Gregory's doctrine that all Christians universally, both Layety and Clergie, not even the very great Pontiff himself, or the Bishop of Rome, excepted, are bound in con∣science and according to S. Paul's command, to be most humbly obedient in all civil affairs to the sublimer powers of King, Emperours, or other supream politick States, within their respective dominions. And I say also that I do not see how any professing the law of Christ, much less any Priest, can have the confidence to say that Gregory's acknowledgement of his due subjection, or submission and obedience to Mauritius hath any thing of a dejected Soul, any thing flaccid or weak, or any thing at all unworthy of the Apostolical vigour, as Barenius, very little piously excusing the expressions of Gregory, speaks. For even this great Annalist himself could not but know, it was the perpetual custome of the Church, in its spiritual Rectors, and before the later and worser times of the too much worldly greatness and ambitious designes of some of them, to treat with all humility and greatest submission could be with earthly Princes, Kings and Emperours, and to treat so with them even when they were evil and wicked Princes; as Christ himself did, and his Apostles did, and as even very many of the most holy Pontiffs of Rome did, before too much avarice and ambition seized some others that succeeded in that holy See of Peter, and in many other particular Sees too, parts, and per∣sons of the vniversal Church. Which indeed is it and nothing else made Baronius give here his animadversions of fear on these epistles of Gregory, least any pious Reader should cast down his brows, eo quòd abjectè nimis visus sit tibi loquutus S. Gregorius. But certainly the vigour Apostolical, the nerves and strength which are truly Pontifical or Episcopal, do not consist in vain worldly and proud ambition, or desire of dominion, or imprudent stiffness, hardness, or obstinacy against Princes, and for any matters that are temporal; but in the preaching of the Gospel, in the propogation of the Faith, and in sowing the seed of the word of God, although it were certain that for doing so the Apostolical man or Bishop should be an object of scorn and a subject too of pain. Ibant Apostoli gaudentes a conspectu Concilij, quoni∣am digni habiti sunt pro nomine Jesu contumeliam pati. Act. 5.21.

Therefore Gregory is rather very much to be praised herein, that in his own very Episcopal, Patriarchal, or Papal person (which you please) not in any comical or scenical, he speaks to the Emperour withall respect and mo∣desty. For albeit he sayes in the beginning of his epistle to Mauritius, that he writes not as a Bishop, but as a private man; this he sayes to the end he may the more easily prepare and obtain the benevolence of Mauritius, with whom in a private quality he was long before both personally acquainted, and in that quality held an especiall friendship, when as yet neither Mauritius him∣self was other then a private man. Besides, he writes in this manner, that he might give no cause of indignation, or of supposition, that he mean'd for the matter in agitation to deal with him as a Bishop or Pastour with his sheep, or to correct or rebuke him with authority. And therefore, least Mauritius should think that which was to follow by way of reprehension of that law in it self pro∣ceeded from Gregory as pretending to have an authoritative power, though onely episcopal, to reprehend him, and alter it, but that he should rather take what followed in good and friendly part, it was therefore (I say) Gre∣gory protests in the very beginning of his letter, that he writes not as a Bishop, but as a friend to a friend. Which is not to personat, or assume an other person, as in a scene; according to the most vain conception of Baronius, whom the due modesty and subjection of Gregory, so contrary to that of our days, did beyond measure gall. Yet I would have the Reader observe, that Gregory might justly, as or when occasion required, admonish and rebuke more severely the very Emperour himself, and that he had from God autho∣rity to do so. For I do constantly profess, that even all Kings and Emperours, no less then all other men, are as faithfull men, or as Christian believers, sub∣ject to the spiritual correction of the Church, where it is necessary or expedi∣ent. And yet Gregory chose rather, onely to insinuat the iniquity of that law as he conceaved it, and this with the greatest modesty could be, then to rebuke Mauritius with any kind of severity.

However Baronius cannot abide that Gregory should have obeyed the Em∣perour in the promulgation of that law, albeit that at the same time or be∣fore, he had so insinuated the iniquity of it. What doth he invent to rid him∣self out of this labyrinth? He makes Gregory not the censor onely but the corrector also and amender of this very law, and so, that Gregory gave thereby arguments enough of his sacerdotal vigour, Pontifical authority, and power too over the very Empire it self. Dum accedens (sayes Baronius tom. 8. an. 593. nu. 21.) censor, & arbiter constitutionis Imperatoriae, & admovens ad sa∣cram, quam vocabant, tabulam stylum, edicti illius quaedam addidit; jungent ac minuens pro arbitrio, ut ad rectam Catholicae Ecclesiae normam, & disciplinam ap∣taret, nihil{que} penitus in eo, quod Ecclesiasticae officeret libertati, & sacris canonibus contradiceret, praetermittens intactum: posteris egregium relinquens exemplum, quicquid leges sanciendo delirant Imperatores, ac Reges, a Romanae Ecclesiae Pontifi∣cibus esse pretinus emendandum, & corrigendum; sic{que} ab ipsis favendum eorum votis, ut eos errantes, cum mansuetudine, ut vidimus Gregorium fecisse, corrigant, & Pontificia potestate, quod perperam factum nossent, Apostolica censura castigent, se{que} exhibeant eorum Magistros, Doctores, & correctores, juxta illud divinum oracu∣lam, Hier. 1. 10. non illi tantum Prophetae pronunciatum, sed omnibus qui pro Deo ad populum divina legatione funguntur: Constitui te hodie super gentes, & super regna, ut euellas, & destruas, & disperdas, & dissipes, & edifices, & plan∣tes.

But I could heartily wish that Baronius writing thus of this law, had not rather himself both doted and raved then Christian Princes do in making their own laws. And I could wish too, this of Baronius were an effect of sick∣ness or age: for so it would work compassion of, not a version from him. But alass! this evil of his is a farr worse and more pernicious evil of the mind, to witt, a voluntary but cloaked dotage, to context together long discourses, and sow together manifest impostures, of meer purpose to deceave the simple

and unlearned Readers. For in truth what Baronius obt••••deth on us for truth, of the correction and amendment of that law, as done authoritatively by Gregory, is both vain and forged: and therefore that specious authority of the Roman Pontiff in temporals, as pretended hence, or as in a dream grounded ••n and augmented by this fained fact of Gregory, falls wholly to ground. For it is a manifest truth out of St. Gregory himself, that he, as an obedient man, and as even in this perfectly subject, published that same very whole entire law as it was written and sign'd by the Emperour. Here Grego∣rie's own words and testimony hereof. Ego quidem jussioni subjectus, camdem l••gem, per diversas terrarum partes transmitti feci: & quia l••x ipsa omnipotenti Deo minime concordat, ecce per suggestionis meae paginam seren••ssimis Diminis nun∣ciavi. Therefore Gregory publish'd that very law, as yet (when he publish'd it) not agreeing with the law of God, in the same Gregory's opinion. Which yet if he had corrected, and so corrected as he thought fit or agreeable to God, and then being so corrected, had publish'd it, who sees not as clear as may be, that he had not said to the Emperour, as he doth in these words, I truly being subject to your command have sent that very same law to diverse parts of the world. And forasmuch as the law it self d••th not in any wise agree with God, behold I have by this page of my sugg••sti••n told so much to my most serene Lords? And who sees not also, that if he had corrected it, and so after cor∣rection publish'd it, he had not further and immediately after the former words added these other, Vtrobi{que} ergo, quae debui ex••lui, qui & Imperatori obe∣dientiam praebui, & pro Deo, quod sensi, minimè tacui? For surely, if he had corrected it, he had not said, pro Deo quod sensi, minimé tacui; but had inform∣ed the Emperour of the correction made. And yet in relation to the iniquity of that law, he expresses not that he had done any more then not to have been silent, but to have signified his mind or judgment thereupon to the Emperour.

Nor let Bellarmine think to evade by saying again that Gregory did so out of fear and by constraint, or coaction. For Gregory himself confesses that what he did herein, he ought to have done. Vtrobi{que} ergo quae debui, exolui. Now it is plain that what we ought to do, we either do not by constraint, or certainly, if we be thereto constrain'd, that we are deservedly and justly con∣strain'd, and that coaction to such lessens not the conscientious tye to such. Besides who sees not this Dilemma is unanswerable by Bellarmine? the pro∣mulgation of that law by Gregory was in it self just or unjust, or (which is the same thing) good or evil. If unjust or evil, Gregorys obedience was both foolish and impious: nor doth any coaction excuse it from being such, because no man can be necessitated, nor ever yet was necessitated to do evil; for there is not any nor ever yet was any but might have avoyded and may for the future avoyd evil (notwithstanding any coaction) by undergoing the punishment which peradventure attends him if he do it not: and this under∣going or not undergoing, is in his own free will. If just or good, then is the recourse to coaction frustraneous. And indeed that it was both just and good, Gregory himself teaches where he sayes, that in this matter he did that which he ought to have done: where you see he acknowledges a duty of obedience: and I am sure that to comply with or discharge a duty of obedience, is both just and good.

But let us leave Bellarmine, and return to Baronius. This famous Annalist gives God thankes that he lighted on a certain epistle of Gregory, l. 7. indic. 1. epist. XI. wherewith he might give some colour to his above forgery, that (I mean) which he pretends of the correction and amendment (of that law of Mauritius) as made by S. Gregory. And this epistle it self (directed to many Metropolitans of as well the East as the West) because it is but short, I give here, good Reader, for thy more ample satisfaction. Lege•• (sayes Gregory writing to Eusebius Thessalonicensis, Vrbitius Deracitanus, Constantinus Medi••lanensis, Andrea•• Nicopolitanus, Ioannes Corinthi, Ioannes

primae Iustinianae, Ioannes Cretensis Coritanus, Ioannes Larisseus, Marianus Ra∣vennas, Ian. Claral. Sard. and to all the Bishops of Sicily) Legem, sayes he, quam piissimus Imperator dedit, ne fortasse ij, qui militiae vel rationibus sun•• pub∣licis obligati, dum causarum suarum periculum fugiunt, ad Ecclesiasticum habitum veniant, vel in Monasterijs convertantur, pestrae studui faternitati transmitters: hoc maxime exhortans, quod ij, qui seculi actionibus implicati sunt, in Clero. Eccle∣siae praepropere suscipiendi non sunt, quia dum in Ecclesiastico habitu non dissimiliter quam vixerant, vivunt: nequaquam student saeculum fugere, sed mutare. Quod si etiam tales quo{que} monasterium petunt, suscipiendi nullo modo sunt, nisi prius actio∣nibus publicis absoluti fuerint. Si qui vero ex militaribus virit in monasterijs converti festinant, non sunt temere suscipiendi, nisi eorum vita fuerit subtiliter in∣quisita. Et juxta normam Regularem debent suo habitu per triennium probari, & tunc M••nachicum habitum Deo auctore suscipere. Qui si ita probati at{que} suscepti, & pro anima sua paenitentiam de perpetratis culpis agere student: pro eorum vita, & lucro celesti, non est eorum conversio renuenda. Qua de re etiam Serenissimus & Christianissimus Imperator, mihi credite, omnimodo placatur, & libenter eorum conversionem suscipit, quos in rationibus publitis implicatos non esse cognovit. He∣therto that epistle of Gregory, for the lighting on which Baronius gives thankes to God.

But I have already proved with all evidence imaginable out of Gregory himself, that is, out of his other epistles to Mauritius himself, and to his in∣timate Physician Theodorus, that he published that law not corrected, nor amended, nor altered by him, but as it was conceived and sent by Mauritius, that is, as it was not (in the opinion of Gregory) conformable or pleasing to God. And therefore it must either be admitted, (if we do not tax Gregory with a manifest lye to the very Emperour himself, and to Theodorus, in his said epistles to them) that this other epistle, whereof Baronius brags so much, was writt some time after the said publication by S. Gregory, and after he had obtained (by those very two letters, or perhaps by other letters too, and messengers also) from the Emperour himself this moderation of that law which he signifies so as you read in this later letter to the Metropolitans. Whereof a great argument also is, among others, that those letters to Mauri∣tius and Theodorus are dated the third year of Gregorie's Pontisicat; which was in the eleventh Iudiction; but this other which Baronius insuls upon, is dated the first Indiction, to witt, five whole years after those. According to which diversity in the date or years, those to Mauritius and Theodorus are pla∣ced in the second book of Gregory's epistles (ex Registro;) but this to the Me∣tropolitans (which intimats the pleasure of Mauritius concerning some mo∣deration of that law) in the Seaventh book. For to that which Baronius sayes here to this last animadversion of the place or book wherein this (which I call the later) epistle is ranked, vz, that it is not duly placed, ut de multis alijs (sayes he nu. 22.) accidisse vidimus, I need say no more, being he brings no particular proof as to this, but that he either divines or dreams. And yet I do not absolutely or positively contend, that this epistle was not written then when the promulgation or publication of that law was made by Gregory: nor absolutely or positively contend but that peradventure this very epistle was that publication which was done by Gregory, the law it self being sent along with it either annexed or enclosed by Gregory to those Metropolitanes. But that which I contend is, that supposing or admitting this very case, yet Ba∣ronius therefore hath no cause to triumph, as he does. For then too it must be granted, that either S. Gregory told a manifest and scandalous untruth to the Emperour himself, and of this very matter, as likewise to Theodorus also, or that together with this letter to the Metropolitans he sent that very law, either annexed or enclosed, without any correction, expunction, diminution, or other change whatsoever, but as it came first from the Emperour, that is, as it was (in Gregory's opinion) displeasing to God the all-powerfull. Although Gregory (building on his own former old friendship with the Emperour, and

relying on the good offices and sedulity of Theodorus, the same Emperour's intimate Physician (added, concerning the observation or execution of this law, but added onely in his own said monitory letter apart, not in the law it self, some moderation to be observed by the Bishops, least otherwise obser∣ved it might be some hinderance to the salvation of Souls, as Gregory was of opinion. This confidence in the Emperour, Gregory expresses in this very same epistle, wherein he sayes, that he confides or at least hopes very much, nay that he doubts not, but that the most Serene and Christian Emperour (for these are the titles, which Gregory gives him there) will take these modera∣tions, concerning the use of that law, in good part, and will ratifie them. Nay, and peradventure also, that he had already obtained the Emperour's consent, is signified to the Bishops by Gregory in this letter, and by these words of it: Qua de re etiant Serenissimus & Christianissimus Imperator, mihi credite, omnimodo placatur, & libenter eorum conversionem suscipit, quos in ratio∣nibus publicis implicatos non esse cognivit.

Do you therefore now consider, good Reader, whether this moderation, which it pleased Gregory to express so or insert in his own letter, onely out of such confidence, and with all entire dependence from the will of the Empe∣rour, or even perhaps out of the express consent of the Emperour, already obtained, whether I say this moderation so expressed or notified import as much as the admotion of Gregories pen or style to the Sacred Table, with expuncti∣on of some parts of the Edict: with addition and diminution, at his own pleasure: without any relation to or dependence from the Emperour: with correction and amendment of that law, in the making of which the Emperour doted and raved: and finally with a plenary power over the Empire it self.

Of such impostures this great Annalist is full in many places: though other∣wise, I confess, where the worldly greatness of his own Roman Court is not too neerly concern'd, a most labourious and excellent writer of Ecclesiastical History: and one to whom, on this account, besides that other of his eminency of Cardinalship, very much respect is due from all writers, and other persons also whatsoever. And yet I must say too again, for the love of truth, and ac∣cording to my own judgment, but still with all due respects to his eminency, that, where that worldly interest, which he would make to be the Papal Inte∣rest, is any way concern'd, as an Historical Annalist, and even also as a Theo∣logical Interpreter he is in many places full of imposture; faining that, which was done one way, to have been done farre otherwise, nay and often to have been done the quite contrary way; and painting all things, of such concern, so with false colours, to deceave the weak eyes of his unlearned or unconsiderate Readers.

And yet also I say of Baronius, that he is very unconstant even to himself, in this very matter we have here in hand. For he that so earnestly and migh∣tily contends now, for this law's not having been promulgated by Gregory as it was prescribed by Mauritius, but corrected and amended first by Gregory, and by vertue of the sole Pontifical power of Gregory, without any regard of the Imperial power of Mauritius, even he, the very same Baronius, a little after confesses, that Gregory was forced to suffer and observe for some time that very unjust law of Mauritius. And this he gathers out of some words which Gregory himself hath in the Preface to his first book of Dialogues, to witt, these here, Quadam die nimijs quorumdam saecularium tumultibus depres∣sus, quibus in suis negotiis plerum{que} cogimur soluere etiam, quod nos certum est n••n debere. On which words of Gregory. Baronius spends his judgment thus. Ista dicens (sayes he) videtur plane alludere ad controversiam illam, quam exercu∣it cum Mauritio Imperatore de iniqua lege ab ipso edita, quam ad tempus perferre cogeretur, licet ea minimé posset perstringi. But if, as he sayes here, Gregory was constrained for some time to beare with and lye under this wicked law of Mauritius, surely Baronius cannot pretend it was corrected or amended, or made conformable to the laws of the Church and of God by Gregory, at least

during that time in which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was constrain•• so. For it cannot be ••aid that the law amended, and as amended by Gregory was iniqua ••ex, a wicked law: as neither said properly or truely at all, that Gregory was forced to observe o•• that otherwise then by force he did not observe that law as corrected, or as made in all points agreeable to the laws of God, and made so too even by himself, and by himself also published as such. Yet I must here advertise the Reader, that although I argue this, ad hominem, out of Baronius's own proper exposition of this last place of Gregory, we may thence not onely con∣clude his inconstancy to himself, but his unadvertency also (that I may say no more) of the true meaning of Gregory in the said words (of his Preface to the first book of his Dialogues.) For the truth is that those words contain nothing less than that allusion of Baronius. Because in that passage, or by those words, Gregory speaks onely of the troubles which his occupation or employment of himself in hearing the differences and controversies of the faithfull, according to the rules of charity, and that of Paul. 1. Corinth. 6. give him. To the determining and composing of which controversies, albeit he was not bound, yet through the importunity or at oppressed by the tumults of some seculars on a certain day, as himself speaks, he was forced to attend. Whereof also (that is, of the like) to have happened to himself, S. Augustine complains in the like manner. And this is the manifest sense of that place of Gregory out of his said Preface of his Dialogues, not that which Baronius, both un∣groundly as to the matter it self, and contradictorily as to himself, pitch'd upon.

And so I have done at last with my third Instance. In the making out of which, that is, in the explication of that memorable and most notable place and fact of Gregory, which appears in his often quoted epistle to Mauritius, and in the vindication of both from those injurious interpretations of some of our own writers, I confess I have somewhat long enlarged my self; but not without much reason: for it is an irrefragable testimony, a testimony above controul, of the subjection of all the very Ecclesiasticks, nay and of the very chief Ecclesiastick of the world, the Roman Pontiff himself, in civil matters, to secular Princes: and a testimony yet of so much the more moment, by how much we know that although Gregory was a most holy man, he was not∣withstanding one of those more ancient and more inclinable Popes whom the thoughts of an vniversal but spiritual Monarchy in the Church did now and then pleasantly move. And yet this very same Gregory, so holy a man as he was, and so retentive withall to his power and as handsomely as he could of all the rights, or pretences also then of his own See over all other Episco∣pal Sees in the world, in spiritual matters, even this Gregory doth not in one or two places onely confirme his own subjection to the Emperour, but in several other places too, both approveth and praiseth the Emperour's juris∣dictional care, even over and as to the very Ecclesiasticks in general. Iobinus (sayes he l. 1. indic. 9. epist. 43.) excellentissimus vir, filius noster, praepositus per Illyricum, scriptis suis nobis indicasse dignoscitur, ad se sacris apicibus destinatis, jussum fuisse, Episcopos, quos e propriis locis hostilitatis furor expulerat, ad eos Episcopos, qui nunc us{que} in locis propriis degunt, Pro sustentatione & stipendiis pre∣sentis vitae esse jungendos. Et licet ad hoc Paternitatem vestram jussio Principalis admoneat, habemus tamen majus mandatum aeterni Principis, quo ad haec terribi∣lius peragenda compellimur. Oportet ergó vos ad hanc rem & caelesti primitus Principi obedientes existere, & Imperialibus jussionibus consentire. And to Con∣stantia the Empress, writing in the concern of Maximus Bishop of Spalata, he sayes l. 4. epist. 54. At{que} ad me venire secundum jussionem Dominorum noluit: ego autem praeceptioni pietatis eorum obediens eidem Maximo ex corde laxavi. And to the Bishops or souldiers of Naples. l. 12. epist. 24. speaks in the same stile. Vnde (sayes he) scriptis vos presentibus curanius admonendos, vti predicto magnifico viro tribuno, sicut & fecistis, omnem debeatis, pro serenissimorum Domi∣norum vtilitate, vel conservand a civitate, diligentiam exhibere. In all which, be∣sides

that you see with how much respect he speaks of Mauritius, giving him the attribute or title of Piety, and calling him so often his Lord, and his most Serene Lord, also you see in obedience to the Emperours will what he writes to the Resident Bishops, concerning such other Bishops are were banish'd by the arms of the Barbarians. What will our late Bellarminians or Baronians say here? the Emperour commands the Bishops possessing still peaceably their own proper Sees and revenues, that they receave and maintain, out of their said Episcopal revenues such other Bishops as were by hostile force driven from their own: and Gregory cals this command (next to that of God) jussinem principalem: that is (according to the phrase of the Fathers, as may be seen also in many of their very canons) a command proceeding im∣mediately from the Prince: and sayes that it is to be obeyed, as such: nor doth he add any precept of his own; but onely urges the execution of that Im∣perial command. Did he this de facto onely, and not de jure? Did he correct, expunge, or amend, or alter this command? Did he rayse tumults against Mauritius for having said his commands for on Bishops, and by his own su∣pream civil and imperial authority shared or disposed of their Ecclesiastical revenues? And yet for such, and less then such, in aftertimes, Monitories, Interdicts, and actual Excommunications have been multiplied.

But now at last, omitting Gregory, let us proceed a little further, and shew that for the very Pope himself by actual Instance to obey the Emperour, was not peculiar to this one holy Pope St. Gregory: nor the doctrine of a tye of conscience on all Popes too as well as on others, peculiar to him, for such obedience in temporal things. To prove the former part, I believe that which Anastasius Bibliothecarius writes (in Constantino Papa) may be suffici∣ent enough for this time. Misit Imperator (says he, and understand you, by this Emperour, Iustinianus posterior, or the later of that name) ad Constantinum Pontificem Sacram, per quam jussit eum ad Regiam ascendere urbem. Qui sanctis∣s••mus••uir jussis Imperialibus obtemperans, illico navigia fecit parari, quatenus iter aggrederetur marinum. Therefore it was not peculiar to one Pope onely, or to Gregory alone to be so in fact (or by actual Instance) obedient to the Roman Emperours. Here you see Constantine, an other most holy Pope, after the days of Gregory, crossing in person so vast a Sea as is from Rome (or some other part of Italy) to Constantinople, at the sole command of Iustinian the Younger. To prove both parts, I shall not make vse of Adalbertus Bishop of Hamburg, albeit a holy man too, and most celebrious Legat of the See Apostolick, or although it be related of him in Adam. l. 4. c. 46. apud Baroni∣um, tom. XI. an. 1097. n. 17. how he used to glory that he had onely two Lords or Masters, to witt, the Pope and the King: to whose dominion, jure subja∣ceant omnes seculi & Ecclesiae potestates, all the powers of the world and Church were de jure subject: and that he had both fear and honour for these two Masters: I say notwithstanding that to prove the later part, I shall not make use of this however a most clear and material testimony, if rightly understood, of both a celebrious and holy Legat Apostolick; but I will produce Gerbertus, sometime, that is, first, Archbishop of Rhemes in France, next of Ravennas in Italy, and last of all of Rome, where and when he was called Silvester the Second. Even this very Silvester, and this Gerbertus it is that writes thus epist. 154. to the Emperour. Paremus ergo (sayes he) Caesar, Imperialibus edictis, tum in hoc, tum in omnibus quaecum{que} divina Majestas vestra decreverit: non enim d••esse possumus obsequio, qui nihil inter humanas res dulcius vestro aspi∣cimus Imperio.

This treatise would swell beyond measure if I should bring all particular Instances I could, even of Bishops and Popes, out of learned holy writers, either for the fact, or right, or both, of such obedience in temporals, given heretofore to the supream civil Princes, in all temporal things. But for that reason I abstain from any more such Instances, until at least I come to

those I promised of Princes. For I cannot well treat of the one, but some∣what of the other sort must be annexed.

Yet I cannot abstain here from observing how strangely the Church is al∣tered now from that it was then, and how different the carriage of the chief Bishops hath been (at least as to many of them) in the later ages from that was not onely of the most holy but of all universally in the former and more primitive ages.

Nicholas, the first Pope of that name, and Innocent, the third of his, chose rather to wrest aside, and set awry, nay to corrupt plainly the genuine sense of holy scripture than yeeld to Emperours that obedience due to them. Let us heare Nicholas, writing to Adventius Bishop of Mets. Apud. Baron. tom. 10. an. 863. nu. 66. Illud ••ero (sayes he) quod dicitis, Regibus & Principibus vos esse subiectos, eo quod dicat Apostolus 1. Pet. 2.13. Sive Regi, tanquam praecel lenti, placet. Veruntamen videte, utrum Reges isti & Principes, quibus vos subiectos esse dicitis, veraciter Reges & Principes sint, videte si primum se bene regant, deinde subditum populum. Nam qui sibi nequam est, cui alij bonus? videte si jure princi∣pantur, aliequi potiùs tyranni credendi sunt quàm Reges habendi, quibus magis resistere, & ex adverso ascendere, quàm subdi debemus. Alioquin si talibus subditi & non praelati fuerimus, nos necesse est eorum vitijs faveamus. Ergo Regi quasi praecellenti, virtutibus scilicet, & non vitijs, subditi estote: sed Apostolus ait, propter Deum, & non, contra Deum. Hetherto Pope Nicholas. Paul enjoyns obedience to Nero, to witt in all politick affairs, or things belonging to humane policy or government: nor doth he enquire by what right or title he is Prince of the Roman Empire. But Nicholas will have us enquire by what right any is King or Prince, and whether he be truly such in his sense, when we obey him in temporals. The former holy Fathers and Pontiffs both obeyed (in their own persons and actions) evil Princes, heretick and tyrant Princes, and by their doctrine, with Paul the Apostle, taught others also that they should obey even such Princes. But Nicholas tels us here the quite contrary, and sayes that we ought not obey not even in such things any civil Prince that is not truly a Prince over all his own passions and affections, and is not moreover a just and good Prince in the government of his people; nay tels us plainly that if he be defective in either, that is, according to our judgment, we ought to rise and rebell against him. Is this the doctrine of the former holy Fathers, and Pontiffs, or of the Apostle Paul, or of the holy Spirit of God himself in the writings of any of the Apostles? Or is it not rather the hissing of the old Serpent, though proceeding from the mouth of a Roman Pontiff, but certainly in so much not a Christian Pontiff, however in other doctrines and in his life or conversation as religious, precise, strict, holy as you please. Against God, that secular Princes, nay that the very spiritual supream Pontiffs themselves are not to be obeyed in either spiritual or tem∣poral things, who ever yet doubted? But that secular Princes are not to be obeyed in human things which are indifferent of their own nature, which are such that by giving obedience either active or passive or both in them to the Prince, we transgress no law of God or nature, we commit no sin at all, though the Princes themselves were known to be loaden with sin, I am sure was not the doctrine receaved by Nicholas from his most holy Fore-fathers, from tradition, or from Scripture.

As for Innocent the Third, it is no less clear to me, that he stuffed that Answer of his to the Emperour of Constantinople (which in part you may read in the Decretals of Gregory the Ninth, c. Solicitae benignitatis. de majoritate & obedientia) with many subtleties to decline or disswade this obedience due to Princes, or disswade it as due from Ecclesiasticks: but indeed with such subtle∣ties (I mean of distinctions or interpretations of Scripture examples, and other passages, especially one out of S. Peter) as appeare evidently upon sober exa∣mination to be vain inventions, and meer frivolous toyes, if compared with the common sense or interpretation and practise also of the holy Fathers and

Pontiffs in the preceeding purer ages of the Church, and even for so many such ages together until at least the eight or ninth century; nay or if com∣pared but with the very bare letter and necessary sense either theological or grammatical of S. Paul himself, Rom. 13. who certainly did not teach against the epistle of Peter; or if compared with the whole & sole drift of that great Apostle Paul there. Farre enough, God himself knows, were both these and all the rest of the most blessed Apostles, & were also those most holy Successours of theirs for so many ages of Christianity, from hammering or thinking of such cun∣ning evasions. The divine spirit of true Christian simplicity and humility taught them much otherwise, and made them also teach others plainly and honestly without aequivocation or reservation, and practise too in their own persons humbly and sincerely (without the least opposition or contradiction) as farre otherwise as from East to West.

Yet I confess, the first occasion of that writing of Innocent's to the Em∣perour of Constantinople, or that which he intended, or at least pretended finally, to instruct or advise the Emperour in, was very just: viz, that the same Emperour should beare a greater respect to the Patriarch of Constanti∣nople, then to make him sit at the left side of his foot-stool: so contrary to the laudable custome of other Christian Emperours and Kings: cum alij Reges & Principes (sayes he) Archiepiscopis & Episcopissuis (sicut debent) reverenter assurgant, & eis juxta sevenerabilem sedem assignent.

But for any thing else in that epistle of Innocent, which relates either directly or indirectly to our present purpose, I must confess I see nothing at all but what is quite contrary in his application to the sense, to the belief, and to the practise too of all Antiquity; if peradventure you except not that onely passage, where he sayes, Quod autem sequitur, Regi, tanquam praecellenti, non negamus quin praecellat Imperator in temporalibus illos dumtaxat qui ab eo suscipi∣unt temporalia. Which yet I for my own part do not except: because under the word dumtaxat there lyes much restriction, nay and under the word or verb praecellat also. Because that (dumtaxat) restraines the latitude of those who might or should be said in temporals, or by reason of their temporals, to be under the Emperour, and subject and obedient to him, to such onely who receave temporals, to witt lands, revenues, or perhaps (besides these) onely some temporal jurisdiction: and consequently excludes all other Clerks from subjection or obedience to the Emperour who receave no such tempo∣rals from him, albeit they have the benefit of temporal protection from his laws and sword; for this last is not, by Innocents doctrine, as to our present purpose, accounted among such temporals as he speaks of here. And because this (praecellat) by reason of its more abstract and more common signification, of it self imports not as much as a praecellency in power, authority, or jurisdicti∣on over those very same Clerks who receave even such temporals (of Innocent) from the Emperour.

But however this be of Innocent's meaning by these two words, or wary manner of expression by them: I am sure he declares his mind plain∣ly in the rest, or in his answers to and distinctions of the Emperour's arguments out of Scripture, especially of the place out of Peter, to be, that Clerks are not by the law of God to be subject to the Emperour. For the refutation of which answers or distinctions, I remit the Reader to what I have said formerly at large out of the law of God and Nature for the sub∣jection of Clerks: and to what besides I said before at leingth in answer to Bellarmines arguments for the exemption of Clerks either by the law of God or man or nature. Where albeit I have said nothing in particular to that place of Peter, or to Innocents quibble upon it, as not being va••••ed by Bellar∣mine himself, and therefore not produced by him for himself; yet I have given abundantly what may shew the impertinency of alleadging that place of Pe∣ter against me, or that quibble of Innocent upon it, or even any thing else said by the same Innocent well or ill either in this canon Solicitae benignitatis. de Major. & obed. or elsewhere, and particularly in cap. N••vit ille. de Judicijs.

Which 〈◊〉〈◊〉 chapter I note particularly: because the Catholick Bishop of Ferns alledges it singularly (in a letter of his I have) as very much relyed upon by the Irish Divines who live abroad in Spain, and by them relyed upon as upon a strong argument for a power in the Pope to depose Kings, at least ratione peccat••, and consequently for the unlawfulness to sign our Remonstrance of 61. or 62. which cleerly and expresly disclaims and renounceth any such pow∣er in the Pope either upon the account of sin, or any other whatsoever; but onely in relation to such Kings as hold their Kingdoms in fee from him, and who consequently are not absolute Soveraigns, or not absolutely the supream Lords of their Kingdoms, not even I mean in temporals, nor hold of God immediately, but of the Pope; whom they themselves acknowledg to be the chief & truly supream Lord of such Kingdoms, though by human right onely.

But the truth is, that no such deposing power in the Pope, as to other Kings who do not acknowledg themselves to hold in fee from him, can be gathered out of this cap. N••vit il••e. de Iudicijs. Where, if strictly examined, Innocent does no more, sayes no more, upon complaint made to the same Pope Inno∣cent by a King of England against a King of France, That he of France, though admonished by him several times to keep the treaty sworn and peace agreed upon betwixt them, and particularly in relation to the County of Poitiers, which England held in fee from France, and as agreed upon too by articles of the said treaty and peace mutually sworn, did without any regard of his oath or any just cause endeavour to force in hostile manner that fee of Poitiers back again from the possession of the English: where, I say upon this complaint, and for ought appears out of this canon, (in it self) Novit ille. de Iudiciis, Inno∣cent doth no more but write to the Clergie of France, that he deputed a certain French Arch-bishop & an other French Abbot to examine the matter of Fact, and proceed thereupon to give sentence: and, besides this, sayes no more in this chapter to any such purpose as the said Irish Divines alleadg him for, but that the King of France being so Evangelically denounced to the Church (accord∣ing to that rule of the Gospel, Si peccaverit in te frater tuus &c, dic Ecclesiae) and complained of as a publick scandalous breaker of a just Peace and religious Oath, he (the said Innocent) did not intend to judg of the Fee, being the iudg∣ment of this belong'd to the King of France, but onely of the sin committed in the breach of peace and oath; Non enim intendimus (sayes he) judicare, de feudo, cujus ad ipsum spectat judicium, &c; sed decernere de peccat••, cujus ad n••s pertinet sine dubitatione censura, quam in quemlibet exercere possumus & debe∣mus. Now whether the said Irish Divines may hence and onely hence conclude their deposing power, I mean as much as according to the judgment of the same Innocent himself alone, I see nothing at all in all this which may force us to yeeld. Innocent, & his Delegats might have observed all he prescribes herein or in that whole chapter, and all which the Gospel allows to him or to the Church in the case, that i••, he and they might in case of such a publick sin in the French King, & of the Church's admonition, and of his contumacy against such admonition have proceeded to excommunicate him evangelically, that is, might have deprived him of the communication of the Church and even (of that of his own subiects) in spiritual things, or (which is the same thing) might have declared him to be thenceforth (or until he did hear the Church) no better then a Heathen or a Publican, and that all the rest of the faithfull should hold him for such until he submitted. But it is plain enough that nei∣ther Publican or Heathen, as such, or for being such, were by any law deposed from their principalities, or deprived of any other temporal rights, especi∣ally when our Saviour gave that rule: being the Roman Emperours, their under Governours and Garrisons in Ierusalem and Iury, and the Collectors of their publick taxes there, were heathens and publicans, and held as such by the Jews and by the Apostles, and consequently excommunicated evange∣lically, or excluded from their religious rites: and yet were not held by either Jews or Christians, at least not by the Christians, to have forfeited any tempo∣ral

dominion over them, or other right amongst them. And it is plain enough, for any thing may be known out of this chapter, Novit ille. de Major. & obed. that Innocent prescribes no more therein for his said Legats or him∣self, but to proceed to an Evangelical censure against that King of France: in which censure, that (as we have now seen) of deposition from or depriva∣tion of his Crown or of that see of Poitiers is not involv'd. Wherefore then do the said Irish Divines relye on this canon, to their said purpose?

And yet withall I confess that because I know Innocent was elsewhere of their opinion, or seem'd at least so: cap. per Venerabilem. Qui filij sint legittimi. and that moreover he certainly practised according to such opinion: and practised also as highly almost according to it as any Pope, and more frequent∣ly then any sate in St. Peters chayre: and that he scarce left one King of his time in all Europe but he vexed and shaked by his sentences either of formal deposition, or of that which in his doctrine was virtual for the matter (al∣though not such according to sound doctrine) by excommunication, I mean, which was praeliminary to the other, and which he as many other Popes would have to have other effects then the Gospel annexed to it: and that Henricus Spondanus (that Catholick Bishop Continuator of the Annals of Baronius) is, in the long life of the said Innocent, a witness beyond exception (in this matter) of the too too many menaces and actual thunders too of this good Pope against all and singular the said very supream Princes of Eu∣rope; though in effect he held none supream, not even in temporals, at least in some cases, but himself alone: and because it is manifest that (however this matter be of his opinion or practise of a power in himself, direct or indirect, or casual (as he phrases it cap. per Venerabilem. Qui filij sint legittimi.) for deposing Princes) what he held concerning the exemption of all Ecclesi∣astick persons, at least all Priests, appears without contradiction or controule in that epistle of his to the Constantinopolitan Emperour, in the foresaid cap. Sollicitae benignitatis. de Major. & obed: and because that exemption might be without the other pretension: and finally because our present maine purpose requires onely to instance the change in the doctrine or practise of Exemption: therefore it is I have thought fit to instance here and annex Innocent, imme∣diately after Pope Nicholas (though in the mean time I omit Gregory the VII and some others with him, whose Histories are so famous) especially because this Innocent gives the very same corrupt interpretation of St. Peter's epistle which Nicholas gave before him.

And yet also I confess there may be very much observed on and very much said against that fine artifice, that misterious hook of Innocent, which you may discover plainly under that subtle distinction of his in the above cap. Novit ille. de Major & Obed. Non enim intendimus judicare de feudo, &c: sed decernere de delicto, cujus ad nos ••pertinet sine dubitatione cen∣sura, quam in quemlibet exercere possumus, & debemus. A misterious hook indeed, whereby, if once swallowed, all the meerest temporal causes in all Christian Kingdoms and States in the world, nay and I mean too in all kind of trades, handecrafts, or other callings whatsoever, must of necessity be decided in the external consistories of the Pope and of his Legats, whensoe∣ver it shall please his Holiness to erect such Courts, either at home in his own country, or abroad in all other Countries for his Legats. For it is clear enough, there are sins whereof (for example) the Marchant and the Taylor, the Lawyer and the Clerk, the Councellour and the Client, the Statesman and the Souldier, the Baker, Brewer, Shoomaker, &c, may be accused, or sins of them or of each of them, and (at least pretended) injustices of the parti∣cular laws, rules, customes of every kind of secular Corporation, which may be denounced evangelically to the Pope or to his Legats. And therefore it is also clear that by this subtle interpretation, made by Innocent, of Evangeli∣cal correction, or of the power of the Church and of the Pope by vertue of it, he may (were it true) hook into his own proper Ecclesiastical consistories all the temporal causes in the world, and consequently render all the lay ju∣dicatories

in the world unsignificant, evacuat them all every one, among Christians, especially if his other text in cap. Per Venerubilem. Qui filij sint legittimi. were admitted as a rule, where he sayes, Verum ••••man in al••s Regionibus (non solum in Ecclesiae Patri••••nio, super quo plenam temporalium gerimus potestatem) certis causis inspectio temporalem j••••isdictionem casualiter ex∣ercemus: and further also consequently, might without much difficulty make himself de jure and de facto the sole supream Prince indeed both spiritual and temporal among Christians. But forasmuch as it is not my business here to examine this matter any further then to shew the change or difference of opinions and practises betwixt some of the later Popes and the former, as to that of acknowledging and yielding obedience, or not, to the supream lay Princes:

I proceed, and an•••••• (to Nicholas and Innocent the ••••ird) Boniface the VIII. And I am sure if I had annexed also Innocent the Fourth in particular, & many others with him, whom I do not mention at all, I should not do it imperti∣nently. But, to avoyd too much prolixity, I content my self at this present with Boniface the Eight. With him, above others, I end this comparison that it may be rendred the more conspicuous Paul the Apostle said Rom. 13.7. Cui tributum tributum, cui vectigal vectigal. The succeeding Fathers taught by word, and confirmed by deed what Christ himself had taught also by word Matth. 22.21. viz. that what was Cesar's should be paid to Cesar, and what he moreover confirmed by deed, that is, by actual payment of the didrachma and for his own very person, Matth. 17.27. But this Boniface (exalting himself in so much, that is, in temporal power, above earthly Princes and States farre more then nay quite contrary to that which our Lord and Saviour Christ is read to have done himself in mortal flesh at any time or by any Instance) had the confidence to attempt the bereaving even the very highest supream temporal Princes of those rights and of those duties which by the very law of God himself were theirs, and were to be paid unto them, unless peradventure themselves had voluntarily devested themselves of such rights or freely remitted such duties, in this or that contingency. I have before (Section LXI.) though upon an others occasion, and to other purpose, quoted the Canon, which is in cap. Clerici•• de Immun. Ecclesia••. in 6. wherein and whereby, Boniface made this bold attempt, as particularly or specifically excommunicating (and by an excommunication too reserved for absolution to the Pope himself, nisi in articulo mortis) all Officials, Rectors Captains, Magistrats, Barons, Counts, Dukes, Princes, and even all Kings and Emperours, and generally all others of whatever praeeminency, condition, or estate, who should upon any kind of occasion, title, or pretext whatsoever impose any tallies, taxes, collections, or any tenths, twentieths, or hundreths, upon any Church persons, Churchlands, or Church-revenues, or who should exact, or even receave any such without special licence of the Apostolick See; and moreover excommunicating all orders and degrees of the very Churchmen themselves, who should as much as promise to pay or consent to the payment of any such impositions, or even promise or consent to pay or give any kind of money or quantity or portion of money to such Princes, States, Lords, Officials &c, under any other title as that of a charitable sub∣sidy or help-money, or that of loane-money, or that also of gift-money, without the authority or licence of the said Apostolick See. But this too excessive boldness of Boniface was both acknowledg'd and corrected by Clement the V. and by the General Council of Vienna. In which Council, the said Clement presiding, that canon of Boniface, with all the several branches or declarations of it was totally expung'd and abolished: as appears by Cle∣mentina, Quoniam. de Immun. Ecclesia••. But whether that Decree of Boni∣face was principally made by him in hatred of Phillip King of France, as whom Boniface could not or would suffer to bestow the Ecclesiastical benefi∣ces of France at his own pleasure on such as he would, and impose also or

receave from the Churchmen or Church-revenues of France such moneyes as he wanted for the carrying on of his warr in Flanders, whether so or no (I say) it matters not. For he made it, and made it generally even for all Kings, Emperours &c. Indeed the Gloss in Extravag. Quod olim. de Immunit. Ecclesiarum. sayes it was for the former cause he made that constitution: as also that out of it orta fuerunt multa scandala; Vnde Clemens Papa in Clement. Quoniam. de Immunit. Ecclesiar. voluit quod antiqna Iura servarentur, & non alla Constitutio. But we know out of Ecclesiastical History the first original and whole procedure, and by what degrees Boniface came at last to that ex∣travagancy as to write also to that very Phillip, that he held them all for Hereticks who did not acknowledg the Papal supremacy in the Kingdome of France and in all temporals as well as in spirituals. Which great exorbitancy as well of the said canon as of all the precedent concountant and subsequent proceedings of Boniface occasion'd so much trouble to the vniversal Church, as we know the translation of the Papacy it self to France, and the frequent, long, scandalous, and pernicious schysmes betwixt Anti popes (which en••••ed thereupon) amounted unto. For so it naturally and commonly happens, that while the spiritual Prelats of the Church, do, according to the doctrine and practise of the ancient Church, with all Christian humility, obey the temporal Princes in temporal matters, the Church it self and these Prelats in her enjoy Halcyon dayes, peace and rest and tranquillity: as that when and as often as the same Prelats, replenish'd with the spirit of this world, lift up their horns against Princes, pushing at their temporals, there is nothing to be seen but scandal and trouble and woe and calamity both in Church and State.

And so I have ended my comparison, 'twixt the more ancient holy Popes and some of their later successors, in the matter of subjection and obedience (as due or not due from all Clergiemen, and consequently from the very Popes themselves) in temporal things to supream lay Princes; I mean foras∣much as can appear out of the law of God, and I mean too where Church∣men themselves are not by humane right the supream temporal Princes. And consequently do not mean at all by this, or any other dispute or passage in this whole book, to assert the subjection of Popes, as they are at present, though not at best but by humane right onely supposed by some or perhaps most writers to be absolute in their own temporal Patrimony and Principality, (that I mean of some Citties and territories of Italy) and to be wholly ex∣empt even in all kind of temporals, from the Imperial power. As neither do I on the other side mean to assert their such exemption or any in all kind of cases and temporals from the Emperour; but abstract wholly from both the one and the other, as not concerning my purpose. Which purpose, as I have often declared, is onely and solely to oppose the exemption of all or any Churchmen in the world, even of the very Pope himself, from lay temporal Princes, in temporal matters, upon any such account as that of Sacerdotal, Episcopal, Papal, or even Apostolical Order: and my particular purpose in this present Section, being to prove their subjection to lay Princes by the examples or practise of as well Popes as other Bishops, nay and of most Christian Princes too, in the more ancient and more holy Ages of the Church. Now who sees not, it is very wide from this purpose to dispute whether any Churchman, any Bishop, Arch-bishop, Patriarch, or Pope, hath upon some other account been at any time, or be at present, exempt from all earthly powers of other Princes: that is, whether upon account of meer humane right given them by the Emperours or people, as that acqui∣red by donation, prescription, submission, a just or lawfull conquest, or by sale and emption, &c? Or to dispute, whether the investiture or election of the German Emperours to the title and rights of the Empire of Rome, and King of the Romans, or whether also the entry of their Embassadours to Rome with a naked sword in their hands or carried before them (which

the Embassadours of other Princes have not, nor do challenge) whether I say these very ceremonies be sufficient, or no, to hinder the Pope to be ab∣solutely or independently supream temporal Prince in any of the Citties or territories which he either actually possesses or challengeth to himself as such an absolute or supream independent temporal Prince? To enquire into any such intrigue is not material, nor any part of my purpose. And all I say of it, because I mention'd it accidentally, is that if the Pope be not so, I could heartily wish he were so; provided all Popes made that good use of it, and onely that good use which some blessed Popes have. For I am farre enough for envying the Apostolical See or even present Roman or Papal Court any even worldly greatness, which may be to the glory of God, and general good of Christian people: was verily such even worldly greatness not onely of the Popes of Rome but of other Bishops, and of other Priests too, may be with∣out any peradventure if regulated and applyed well. And I am also farre enough from perswading my self, that no Christian Priest can be found who may for natural parts and gifts of God be among Christians, and if it please the Christians themselves, such an other as Hermes Trismegist••s was among Heathens, a great Priest, great Prophet, and great King withall. Nay I con∣fess, that many Clergiemen have many excellencies and advantages for go∣vernment above most Laymen. Yet I say withall that if in elective Kingdoms or States they were by the people put at the Helme of supream temporal government, or if in hereditary Kingdoms any of them came by succession to it, their being Priests, Bishops, or even Popes, would not, could not en∣large their temporal power in any kind of respect, nor give them any more temporal exemption, as from any pure law of God or Christian Religion, then they had before they were Priests &c. It is not therefore against any power Ecclesiastical, or even Papal as such, I dispute here; but onely against the unwarrantable extension of such, and as onely such, by those two most eminent writers, Cardinal Baronius and Cardinal Bellarmine.

Yet I will say this much for Cardinal Bellarmine (albeit shewing 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this also his contradiction of himself) that in his great work of controversies, de Concil. & Eccles. l. 1. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 13. I know lot how but by the too great power of truth, he confesses in very express worth, that even the very Popes themselves have been subject and even too subjected themselves in temporal affairs to the Emperours; and consequently that their Pontifical or Papal office or dignity did not exempt them from subjection to the lay supream power. For considering there how the fo•••• first general Councils of the vniversal Church had been convoked by the Emperours, and fearing least such convo∣cation might prejudice that authority which he ascribes to the great Pontiff, and consequently bringing four causes or reasons why the Popes then were necessitated to make use of the power Imperial (as he sayes) for the convo∣cation of those four first general Councils, he delivers th•••• his fourth Reason. Quarta ratio est (sayes he) quia to tempore Po••••tyex e••si in spiritu••libus essex caput omnium, etiam Imperatorum, tamen in temporalibus sub••••citbus se Impera∣toribus, & ideo non peterat invito Imperatore aliquid agere, & cum tantum ••••b••∣isset petere ab Imperatore auxilium ad convocandum Synodum, vel ut permitteret Synodum convocari; tamen quia Dominum suum temporalem cum agnoscebal, supplicabat, ut jubere•• Synodum convo••••i. At post illa tempora ista omnes causae mutata sunt: Nam neo illa lex viget (he means that old Imperial constitution, which prohibited all Colleges, and frequent or numerous Assemblies, with∣out the Emperours licence, to prevent seditions designs. Vide l. 1. ff. de Collegiis illicitis, & l. Conventicula. ff. de Episcopis & Clericis) noc Impe∣ratores in ••oto orbe dominantur, nec sumptibus publicis fiunt Concilia, nec sunt Gentiles, qui impedire possint, & Pontifex, qui est caput in spiritualibus, cum etiam ipse in suis Provinoiis sit Princeps supremus temporalis, sicut sunt Reges & Prin∣cipes alij, id quod divina providentia factum est, ut Pontifex libere manus suum exequi possit. So Bellarmine cleerly and expresly, to a word. Therefore by

this ingenuous confession of Bellarmine himself, the Pope hath no freedom, no exemption at all in temporal matters from the civil power of the Empe∣rour, by virtue (I mean) of his Pontificat or Papal office. But hath all his exemption, in such matters, by vertue onely of the supream temporal Prin∣cipality, which he acquired after, as Bellarmine's sayes and which he possesses yet. And consequently Bellarmine confesses also, that this temporal Princi∣pality being removed, or lost, (as by a just conquest and many other legal wayes it may be) the Pope will be no more exempt in temporals from the Emperour or King of Rome, but subject to him wholly in such. Which is that onely I contend all along in this dispute of the Pope. And therefore it must also follow evidently out of this doctrine and confession of Bellarmine himself, that all other Priests, Bishops, and Clerks whatsoever, even Card••∣nals, who have no supream earthly power and Principality of their own, must be throughly and entirely subject in temporal matters, to those supream lay Princes in whose dominions they live, and whom they acknowledge to be their own very true Soveraign Lords. Which is that moreover which I contend for in all the Sections of this whole and long dispute of Ecclesiasti∣cal Immunity, against the Divines of Lovain. And I am extremely deceaved if Bellarmine yeeld it not fairely and freely in this place; however he coyned a new faith for himself after, in his old age, and in his little books against Bar∣clay, Widdrington, and some others.

But forasmuch as nothing more confirmes the rightfull power and authori∣ty of Kings in all humane things over also their subjects, even all Ecclesiasticks whatsoever, then the most ancient custome and perpetual practise in the Christian Catholick Church, this very Church her self not onely not resisting, but consenting also and approving such custome and practise: therefore it is, that to those particular Instances already given of such practise or matter of fact, in the persons of those two most holy Bishops Athanasius and Eusebius, and in the persons also of those other two and not onely most holy but even the very Head Bishops of the whole Earth in their own time, as being the great Pontiffs then of the Roman See, to witt Gregory and Constantine, I must now moreover add those other particular Instances in such matter of fact which I promised of Princes. Wherein if I be somewhat prolix in bringing not a few examples down along throughout almost all ages of Christianity from the days of Constantine the great and first Christian Emperour, the profit will yours, good Reader, and the labour mine. For you may cull out and pause on such as you find the most illustrious: the rest you may read over cursority, on pass by wholly.

The first Prince therefore I bring to my purpose, is that very same first and greatest of all Christian Emperours, Constantine himself. A Prince, who as (by the confession of all sides and all writers) he was most pious, and of all Princes deserved most and best of the Christian Catholick Churches: so no man I think of all our Hieromonarchical sticklers will have the confidence to accuse him of having usurped any kind of authority over Churchmen, or practised any at all over them, but that was allowed him by the laws of God and nature, and approved also by the State civil and Ecclesiastical. But if any would be so impudent as to charge him in this matter, I am sure he hath the general vote and patronage of all the ancient holy Church to clear him in it. Theodoret. Histar. l. 1. c. XI. & Sozom. l. 1. c. 16. And yet this very great and pious Constantine is he who (in the Council of Nice, or when it sate, himself being present with them at Nice, and often in the very Session Hall amidst the Council, which was in his own Pallace there) commanded the libels or petitions of accusations and criminations offered to him by Priests and Bishops against other Priests and other Bishops, and, as a Judge of them all of both sides, and in such criminal matters, commanded the said libels to be brought before him, and receaved them; albeit immediately thereupon having first brought all parties to a friendly attonement by his Princely wise∣dome

and piety, and by checking and rebuking severely both the accusers and accused for criminating and recriminating one an other with personal failings, he cast before their faces all those libels into a fire: as thinking it more expe∣dient and pious that such humane imperfections or frailties of Bishops and Priests should be altogether hid and for ever unknown, least otherwise, or if their vices were known or publish'd, the vulgar, the lay people universally might be scandalized and corrupted, as takeing from such examples a greater liberty for themselves to commit sin without remorse or shame. Indeed Sozomen tells, that Constantine said in this occasion, It was not lawfull for him as being a man to take upon or unto himself the cognizance of such causes, where the accu∣sers and the accused were Priests. But if Constantine said so at all; without any kind of doubt, he must be supposed to have said so partly out of some excess of reverence and piety to their Order, which he would not have then and in the face of the world to be blemish'd publickly with such foule asper∣sions, and partly must be understood to mean that part of the accusations which contained meer Ecclesiastical (and not lay) crimes, to witt heresy and the like whereof he was not so competent a judg; and above all said so, that he might the more easily bring them to concord, and for the more quick dispatch of the grand controversy, that of Arrius's pestilent heresy in the Faith; the debate of which was the great end of gathering that Council: to which dispatch, or even debate, that of privat criminations of one another was a great delay, and might be a farre greater if Constantine had not carried himself in this matter so prudently and piously. For if Constantine had said so indeed, and withall meand to be understood of even meer lay crimes, or strictly or in a strict sense of the word fas or lawfull, in order to such crimes of Priests, or even also to signifie that himself was not a competent judge nor the sole Iudge for the punishing of heresy in them by external coercion, as by corporal or pecuniary mulcts, by imprisonment, exile, death: he had never receaved the petitions either of the accusers or accused, but remitted them on both sides to their own proper judges and judicatories, the tribunals of Bishops. Nay the Bishops themselves, at least such of them as were not particularly concern'd in such criminations, had likely admonish'd him not to give eare or audience to the accusers of Bishops, or at all receave their libels, as not being their competent judge in any cause whatsoever, at least to punish or coerce them. And yet for any thing out of History none of them ever admonish'd, much less reprehended him in this matter.

And do not we know, it was that very Constantine, who soon after, and by his own Imperial authority proceeded with just coercive rigour against Arrius the Priest, and for his most pestilent and most turbulent heresy sent him to banishment. For although it was the said Council of Bishops at Nice that by their own episcopal censure condemned him for an heretick, and separated him from the communion of the faithfull; yet his corporal punishment was from the Tole imperial power of Constantine. As when the question was again of his restitution, it was neither that Council, nor any other Bishops that revoked him from exile, but Constantine alone, and by his own Imperial power alone. Athanasius de Synod. & Socrat. l. 1. c. 25. & Sozom. l. 2. c. 28.

And we know also that the same Constantine and by his own sole and pro∣per imperial power banish'd many Bishops too that were accused to be com∣plices in that heresy with Arrius the Priest: as Constantine himself confesses of Eusebius, Theognides, and several others, in his letter to the Nicomedians. Theodoretus l. ••. c. 20. Sed isti (sayes Constantine) honesti boni{que} scilicet Episcopi, qui vera Concilij dividicatione ad paenitentiam agendam reservati sunt, non solum eos admiserunt ad se, & secum in tuto collocarunt, verum etiam illorum depravatis moribus communicarunt. Quam ••••rem erga istos ingratos aliquod supplicium censui statuendum, & propterea mandatum dedi, ut asuis abrepti sedibus quàm longissimè religarentur. So Constantine himself. Where he expresly sayes, that himself or∣dained their punishment, and himself had given order for their being forced

from their Episcopal Sees and carried exiles to the very remotest parts of the whole Empire. But Cradinal Baronius cannot endure this Imperial stile. And therefore, in his tome. 3. an. 329. n. 13. endeavours to make us beleeve, it was by the authority of the Nicene Council that Constantine sent these Bishops to banishment. Caeterum (sayes Baronius) quod spectat ad Constantinum, non no∣vam in Episcopos depositionis & exilij sententiam protulii, sed quam sciebat olim la∣tam a Niceno Concilio, suis vero precibus revocatam, voluit iterum val dari. Depo∣sitos hos namo; in Niceno Concilio constat, tum ex ijs quae superius suo loco dicta sunt, tum etiam ex ijs quae habentur in Epistola Synodali Concilij Alexandrini (apud Athanasium in Apologia secunda) ubi haec leguntur. Postquam de Eusebio Theognide Arianis Episcopis depositis in Niceno Concilio plura Patres l••qunti fue∣rant, &c. So our great Annalist knows not how to distinguish (or rather will not distinguish) twixt a meer Ecclesiastical or meerly spiritual sentence of deposition pronounced by the Nicene Council, and a civil Imperial sentence of exile and corporal extermination, issued from Constantine. For you shall never find that any Council especially this of Nice, forced or gave sentence of forceing corpo∣rally a Bishop from his See and City and haling him into banishment; but onely a bare spiritual sentence or declaration of his being now deposed from such authority as the Church gave him formerly. And on the other side you shall never see it was the Prince alone that by his own Royal power onely sent Bishops to exile; nay and this too not seldome without any previous sentence of deposition by other Bishops; as also that, not seldome also, the sole exile of a Bishop from his See by the onely sentence of the Secular Prince, was by the Church held for a sufficient deposition of such Bishop, and that the Cler∣gie proceeded to election and consecration of an other, when the Prince de∣sired it, as holding the See absolutely vacant.

And we know moreover, that the very same Constantine expelled Athanasius himself from Alexandria, and turned him to banishment. Theod. Histor. l. 1. c. 31. And yet we know that although as well Athanasius himself as others with him acknowledge this banishment to have been unjust, because the exiled person was innocent of the crime charg'd upon him, yet no man ever opened his mouth herein against Constantine upon account of having usurped juris∣diction over Athanasius; nay in the whole procedure, or as to the cause it self, he is excused by very many. Baronius himself sa••es tom. 3. an. 336. that deceived by the Arrians, he proceeded bona fide to this banishment. And certainly Theodoretus alleadges a meer lay crime, or temporal cause. Accusatus enim fuerat Athanasius, minatus esse (sayes Theodoret) se prohibiturum, quo minns frumentum, ut solet, Alexandria Constantinopolim adveheretur. For (sayes he) Athanasius was accused, to have threatned, that he would hinder corne to be transported to Constantinople, as was accustomed. And yet that the Em∣perour himself assumed to himself the judgement and sate as judge of this accusation offered by other Bishops against Athanasius, as also of the accusa∣tion which on the other side the same Athanasius offered to the Emperour against them as having unjustly condemned him, Theodoret is witness. For thus he writes: Postquam verò Athanasius ad eum venit, de iniquo judicio con∣questurus, Episcopos, quos ea de re accusabat, ad se adveniare jubet Imperator. And of the same Athanasius the Bishops of Egypt writt thus (apud Athanas. apol. 2.) Cum nihil culpae in comministro nostro Athanasio reperirent, Comes{que} sum∣ma vi imminens plura contra Athanasium moliretur, Episcopus Comitis violentiam fugiens, ad religiosissimum Imperatorem ascendit, deprecans, & iniquitatem hominis, & adversariorum calumnias, postulans{que} ut legittima Episcaporum Synodus indice∣retur, aut ipse audiret suam defensionem. Imperator rei indignitate motus scriptis suis accusatores citat, suam{que} ipsius audientiam promittens, simul{que} Synodum indici jubet. Here we see this very great and holy Athanasius submitting himself entirely to the judgement not of a Synod onely, but also of an Emperour.

Besides we know that when this very same Emperour Constantine, heard (ubi supra, apud Athanas. apol. 2.) Athanasius accused of Murder, he sent

letters to Dalmatius the Censor at Antioch warranting and commanding him to take cognizance of this cause of Murder charg'd on Athanasius. And we know further, that the Egyptian Catholick Bishops of the Synod of Tyrus writt and gave this protestation to Flavius the Count. Libellum hunc tibi porri∣gimus, cum multis obsecrationibus, ut Dei metu in animo servato, qui Imperium Augustissimi & pientissimi Imperatoris Constantini tuetur, cognitionem causarum nostrarum ipsi Augustissimo Imperatori reserves. Aequum enim est te ab Imperatore missum negotium hoc integrum Imperatori retinere. Whereupon I cannot but observe, that whereas I see not Constantine reprehended by any writer, as if he had boldly usurped Ecclesiastical judgements, who in the Council of Nice pro∣fessed that the Ecclesiastical or spiritual causes of Bishops were to be left wholly to the judgement of God alone: it plainly appears that these causes of the Catholick Egyptian Bishops and such others of other Bishops, where∣in Constantine did carry himself as judge, were either of humane crimes (I mean those we tearm lay crimes) or, if they were of heresy, that the Empe∣rour admitted of them to be judged by himself, not that he thought or car∣ried himself as the proper judge of heresy; but that he saw heresies to be such as bred much dissention, schysme and trouble amongst the people, and might at last (if not prevented) disturb the peace and whole frame even of the civil Commonwealth; and knew that himself was the best and most pro∣per judge to sentence punish and coerce any Doctors or doctrine whatsoever happened to ayme at such disturbance, as ayming at such, according to that canon, which after Constantine's dayes was made in the general Council of Chalcedon. Act. 4. Si autem permanserit turbas faciens, & seditiones Ecclesiae, per extraneam potestatem, tanquam seditiosum debere corripi.

In judgeing the causes of Caecilian Bishop of Carthage and Primate of all Affrick, and in those too of the Donatist Bishops, the same Constantine the Great, did not not onely once, or twice, but three several times interpose his own authority. Augustinus epist. 28. For it is plain that the Donatist Bishops accused Caecilian to Anulinus the Proconsul, and by Anulinus to Constantine, of having (to witt in time of persecution) betrayed and bur••ied the Sacred books: and that the said Donatist accusers did not at first so much desire Constantine himself to judge that cause, as that he would be pleased to de∣pute or delegate Ecclesiastical Judges to sift and determine it. Who's saying as this truly was, Petitis a me in saeculo judicium, cum ego ipse Christi judicium expectem, Optat. l. 1. contra Carmenian: so it is also true (as Augustine and Optatus tell) that Maternus Bishop of Agrippina, Rhetitius Bishop of Au∣gustodunum, and Marinus Bishop of Orleans were commission'd by Constan∣tine to judge that very cause. Euseb. l. X. c. 5. Whom he sent out of Gaule to Rome, that together with Melchiades, Bishop of that chief City, they might discusse the whole matter, and put a final end to it. Whence it appears that although Constantine did not himself immediately or personally judge, or determine it; yet by his own proper authority he committed it to others, delegated Judges, and appointed the Pope himself Melchiades to be one of the Delegats. Aug. epist. 116. and that the same Melchiades, should by his Imperial Commission, together with the said three French Bishops, proceed and judge finally this cause. August de Captis. cont. C••til. c. 16.

As for the excuse of Baronius, tom. 3. an. 313. ••. ••••. that Constantine did so against his will; that he was as yet then a Novice in the Faith and that he ••••∣mitted the matter to the Roman Pontiff; I say this excuse is wholly vain. For first, who could constrain him? next, he was no late Convert; and the matter of usurping jurisdiction over the Church was so great, notable, extraordinary among Christians, and of such important consequence too that tis impossible he should not be instructed in it, and especially in such an instance of it, though he had till then been a meer Novice, or even Catechumen. And in the last place, who sees not, it is one thing, to acknowledge himself an incompetent Judge and remit the parties to their own proper Judges: and an other, to assign and delegat Judges to the parties; which Constantine did. Nor was he

reprehended herein or instructed either by those three French Bishops, or by Melchiades himself, not even although it was known that he was most pious, and most ready both to heare and obey all divine instructions. Nay so farre were these French Bishops, was Melchiades himself from any such exception, that in pursuance of this Commission or delegation from and by Constantine, a Council was gathered together at Rome, to the end this troublesome cause of Caecilian and the Donatist Bishops might be the more throughly and fully discussed. Optatus. l. 1. wherein yet onely they did sit as Judges who were so delegated by Constantine, Melchiades, Maternus, Rhetitius and Marinus, who also, the matter having been heard and examined from first to last, absolved Caecilianus and condemned the Donatists. Augustinus, in Brevic. coll. di. 3. c. 22.

Nay Augustine insinuats no less then that the sole judgement of Melchia∣des, had he undertaken any such himself alone in this controversie, as it was then, had been usurped; or had been so if he had without the Emperour's special delegation presumed to determine it but together with those other his French Collegues. For Augustine treating of the pertinacy of the Dona∣tists in their refusing to yeeld to so many former Judgements which absolved Caecilian, and labouring to clear those former judgements from all oppositi∣on: he objects to himself in behalf of the Donatists, epist. 162. thus: An forte non debuit Romanae Ecclesiae Melchiades Episcopus, cum collegis transmarinis Episcopis, illud sibi usurpare juditium; quod ab Afris septuaginta, ubi primus Tifi∣gitanus praesedit, fuerat terminatum? To this what doth Augustine answer? Certainly he does not denye that such judgement of Melchiades might be justly thought in the case to be usurped; but excuses the judgement of Mel∣chiades which really de facto was (not that which onely might be falsely sup∣posed or bruted to have been) and defends it (that so was truly) by saying again thus: Quid quod nec ipse usurpavit? Rogatus quippe Imperator judices misit Episcopos, qui cum eo viderent; & de tota illa causa, quod justum videretur, statuerent. Hoc probamus, & Donatistarum precibus, & verbis ipsius Imperatoris. So &c. So Augustine, above, or in the foresaid epistle.

The appeall of the Donatists to the Emperour himself doth follow upon and against the foresaid judgement of the Bishops at Rome. Optatus, l. 1. cont. Parm. And what doth Constantine then? tis true, he breaks out into this no less just then admiring exclamation: O rabida furoris audacia! sicut in causis Gentilium fieri solet, appellationem interposuerant. Yet this imports not, signifies not by any means, that Constantine abominats the ignorance of the Appellants for having or as if they had against any divine or humane rule or canon had recourse to a laye tribunal. For had it been so, or had this been the motive of his exclamation, he had dismissed them, and remitted them back again to their own proper Episcopal Judges; which yet he did not, but admitted their appeal. There∣fore this exclamation of Constantine imports no more, but his great wonder at the too great obstinacy, of these Donatist Appellants, and their too much want of Christian humility, resignation, simplicity, and even of their too much want also of either peace or charity, that they in professing themselves to be Christian Priests and Bishops would never leave of persecuting an other Bishop, not acquiesce at all in such manifold Judgements of even stranger Bishops, who sate so numerously on the cause both in Affrick and Europe; but would rather as contentiously as even the meerest Gentils in the world by all the most odious and tedious advantages of secular laws and in so impro∣bable a cause, and even by such an appeal from the Emperours such Delegats, continue then inveterat malice against an other Christian Bishop. But how∣ever this be, or whatever moved Constantine to this exclamation, the matter of fact which followed cannot be denyed. For sure enough it is, that Con∣stantine admitted this Appeal: and not onely admitted it, but would have it and had it discussed in an other Council of Bishops, which he summond and convened at Orleance in France, wherein too himself would be and was pre∣sent

to heare and see this cause again discussed, and the late judgement there∣upon of Melchiades the Roman Bishop and of the other three Delegats re∣viewed. Euseb. l. x. c. 5. &. Aug. epist. 68.

This admission of the appeal, and this reexamination by Constantine and by his Councel of Orleance seems very harsh to Baronius, tom. 3. an 314. n. 35. And therefore sayes that Constantine was drawn against his will to admit so unjust an Appeal from the judgement or sentence of the great Pontiff. But to that of being drawn against his will, we have said before enough, or that there was none could force him. And for the fact in it self, that is, for his ad∣mission, I am sure Augustine never once reprehends it, how reprehensible soever the Appeal was in it self, or on the behalf of the Appellants. Nor did any other of the Bishops of those times reprehend Constantine's said admission of it. But if Constantine, however against his own will or rather inclination, did so any way tyrannically, or by usurpation extend his imperial power to Ecclesi∣astical matters, or to such matters of the Church as by the law of God were out or beyond the proper sphere of his lay or civil power, why were the Ro∣man Pontiff, silent? Why did not Caecilianus except, and not obey, as he did? Why so many other Bishops of greatest name and fame, gathered together, and celebrating great Councils, and sitting as Judges, to obey the command of Constantine? Therefore it must follow, that all the Bishops then were meer stupid brutes, or certainly that Constantine was so a most cruel raging tyrant and trampler under••oot of all the liberties of the Church that they dared not gainsay him. And whereas neither can be said; that we allow Constan∣tine to be a competent Judge of those affairs which are properly and strictly Ecclesiastical, that is, spiritual, at least in such as are meer questions of right, or of the spiritual doctrine in it self purely, or as abstracting from matter of fact: we say two things here, to clear all the fog, which many of our late School Divines do raise without any cause at all to loose themselves and others in it. The one is, that in this cause of Caecilian, and such others of Church∣men, wherein Constantine or other Christian Emperours interposed their im∣perial authority and carried themselves properly as Judges, that wherein they did so was pure matter of fact: whereof questionless the lay Emperours, when judicious and just, were secundum allegata & probata, as competent Judges as any Ecclesiastick. And the other is, that whereas the Emperour (and the same we must say of every other supream or Soveraign Prince within his own dominions) is of supream, absolute, independent power within his Empire, he must consequently have sufficient authority from God himself to promote all that may be for the publick good peace or safety of his people in this life, and of their happiness too in the other, according as he is directed by the law of God: and therefore also must have sufficient power from God himself to see and take effectual care and such effectual course as is necessary that the very Ecclesiastical affairs within his Empire be duely carried on. Therefore albeit he be not the competent Judge, in a doubtfull case, what was or was not the Faith delivered once in such or such a point controverted; yet he is a competent Judge to see and determine as to matter of Fact, whe∣ther the Ecclesiasticks of his Kingdom duely observe the uncontroverted Faith, or that part of Faith which all men, which even themselves confess & acknowledge to be that which was once so delivered: or whether they duely observe the known and holy canons of the Church, made for preservation of that Faith. And he is a competent Judge also, or hath a competent, suffici∣ent, absolute independent power to force the very Ecclesiasticks themselves to keep that Faith entire and sound, even also I mean as to the very Theory of it, and to all questions of divine right; especially where and when he sees that by reason of controversies arising about such very questions or Theory, the publick external peace of either Church or State may be en∣dangered, or that the publick tranquillity depends of the unity of his people in such matters, according to what was from the beginning taught. By

which very consideration that Constantine himself was very much indu••ced ••o interess himself in these matters of Faith, even himself also writes, apud ••arr••nium, tom. 3. an. 313. n. 37. least otherwise he should have seen dange∣••ous troubles and commotions in his Empire, and thence have suffered also very much in his reputation, as not governing well or prudently, or also as haveing imprudently embraced that religion whose professours he could not keep in peace or unity amongst themselves. Of which consideration and judgement of Constantine, or rather of which power and authority of Con∣stantine, or indeed of both the one and the other, St. Augustine speaks, ep. 162. where he writes thus. Quasi verò ipse sibi (he means, Felix Aptungitanus) ••••c comparavit, ac non Imperator ita quasi jusserit, ad cujus curam, de qua rationem Deo redditurus esset, res illa maximè pertinebat. But of this authority and superintendency in general of Emperours, Kings, Princes, and other supream temporal or politick States, in and over the Church or the spiritual or Eccle∣siastical both Superiours and Inferiours of the same Christian Catholick Church, this is not the proper place to treat at large. It sufficeth at present to say that forasmuch as Constantine did so and so often too interess himself in this cause of Caecilian, and deputed Judges to hear and determine it, he did all this by the true proper genuine authority of an Emperour, and even of a Christian Emperour: whose duty it is, when the Ecclesiasticks themselves alone cannot end or compose their own dissentions, that he by his own su∣pream authority assist and promote their agreement, and even force them to a just and equitable agreement. Which the Milevitan Council approves in effect, canone 19 (and ponitur xi. q. 1. c. 11.) and in these tearms. Placuit ut quicum{que} ab Imperatore cognitionem judiciorum publicorum petierit, honore proprio privetur. Si autem Episcopale judicium ab Imperatore postulaverit, nihil ei obsit. But that Constantine did in aftertimes adorn and magnifie the Church, or Churchmen, with most singular and most ample priviledges, concerning civil judgments, or judgments in civil affairs; this he did not, (as Baronius tom. 3. an. 314. n. 37. would make us believe he did) to correct, or by way of correction of those former judgments of his own in the said or like affairs of Ecclesiastical persons (which judgments our great Annalist sayes were unduly and unjustly usurped by the Emperour) but did so, or gave such priviledges, out of his meer liberality and piety: alway, nevertheless, re∣serving his own proper, supream and general and imperial authority to provide upon emergencies by himself, or by such others as he should think fit to depute, for the necessities of the Church and Churchmen, as often as he saw need. However, let us proceed in the matter of fact, which is our proper subject here.

For notwithstanding the aforesaid judgment also of the Council of Orleance, the Donatists yet appeal even from it, and the second time to the Emperour himself, against and in that cause of Cecilian: and the Emperour admits again their appeal, judges the matter himself, absolves Cecilian, and con∣demns the Donatists. St. Augustine is my author and witness, ep. 48. and epist. 162. where yet he neither accuses nor reprehends the Emperour. Nor doth Cecilian except; but obeyes, and freely presents himself to be judged by the Emperour. For it was a criminal judgment, that is, the matter de∣bated was a crime charged upon him. Nay St. Augustine openly sayes and avers, that neither the accusing or appealing Bishops themselves were to be reprehended on this account, that they drew or brought the affairs, or causes of, or accusations against other Bishops, to a lay secular Judicatory. For thus he writes, ep. 48. Si autem, sicut falso arbitramini, vere criminosum, Cae∣cilianum, judicandum terrenis potestatibus tradiderant, quid objicitis quod v••stro∣rum praesumptio primitus fecit (he speaks to the later Donatists) quod eos non arguerimus (sayes he) quia fecerunt; si non animo inuido & noxio, sed emendan∣di & corrigendi voluntate fecissent. Therefore St. Augustine sayes, that where and when the dispute concerns the correction and amendment of Ecclesia∣sticks,

to demand the judgment or sentence, and to appeal to the power of earthly Princes, is not reprehensible, if the accusers proceed not, in such (or indeed any other) application, out of envie or malice.

Concerning this second admission of Constantine, or indeed rather con∣cerning his whole procedure in this affair, by admitting any appeal at all, or delegating others, or sitting himself alone, or with others, in judgment on this cause of Cecilian, a Bishop, the other excuse of Baronius, tom. 3. an. 316. n. 58. is no less vain and frivolous then his former pretences. For now he sayes, that Constantine yielded to or admitted of such unlawful, unjust appeals, to the end the schismatick Donatists being so in all tribunals overcome, should at last desist from that cause, and be ever after quiet, and the Affrican Church, so then divided by schisme, might be sometime again united in peace and concord: and because he thought Affrick could otherwise hardly be continued under the Roman Empire, being so power∣ful a faction as that of the Donatists did shake the Affricans already as to their allegiance: ut sic victi (sayes he, speaking of these schismaticks) à causa desisterent, penitus{que} conquiescerent, & Ecclesia Affricana, schismate scissa, pace atque concordia uniretur: quodque existimaret, haud facile posse sub Roma∣no Imperio contineri Affricam, tam potenti factione labantem. To which ex∣cuse, I suppose first in general, that evil is not to be done for any end, how good soever. And yet, even in such a case of Affrick, the procedure of Constantine must have been evil, because against both the natural & positive law of God, if the suppositions (and positions too) of Baronius and Bel∣larmine were true, concerning the Immunity of Ecclesiasticks, even also in criminal causes, from all kind of lay or civil Judicatories. Next I sup∣pose in particular, that the politick rules of some worldly Princes for go∣verning or containing their people in obedience, cannot excuse a pious Prince, if the true liberties of the Church be hurt by the practice of such.

And I say moreover, it is very strange that Baronius a Priest, and a Cardinal Priest, should admit here of such politick reasons of Constantine, or rather in and for Constantine, against Ecclesiastical Immunity; which yet himself maintains all along, also here, to have been usurped upon, and unjustly hurt by such procedure of Constantine; yea, notwithstanding that pretence of danger in Affrick. In his fifth Tome an. 400. n. 41. he himself praises, and perhaps justly too praises the vigour and piety of St. Iohn Chrysostome in dissuading the Emperour Arcadius from granting to to Gainas the Arian Rebel, that only one Church which he desired for the people of his Sect within Constantinople (Theodoret. l. 5. c. 32.) albeit the Emperour was otherwise, and vehemently too inclined, as considering the power of Gainas, and suspecting he aimed at the Empire, and therefore praying Chrysostome's consent for giving him that one Church, to try if that would lessen the rage of Gainas, for he was already in the head of an army. But all was in vain; for Chrysostome would not be moved. But whether this was, in the case, rather too much rigour, then true vigour in Chrysostome, according to prudential maximes, and pious too, I leave others to judge. I am sure other good Churchmen, and even great Bishops, have also in our own age, and some former too, consented to the giving awaye from Catholicks to Protestants, and to the use of Protestant Ministers and their divine services, not one Church only, but some hundreds, if not thousands of Churches in Germany, France, Flanders, &c. and this also for ever, and even by publick articles of pacification, And I am sure also, if this were not lawfull, and I mean in point of conscience or of Gods law, I see not how Caholicks, living under the dominion of Protestant Princes or States, now at present in Europe, may with any colourable argument of reason urge the restoring or bestowing on themselves some or any of the Churches which are at present, and have been so long in the possession, and made use of by protestant Ministers and Bishops. For these Princes, States,

Ministers, Bishops, and their protestant people, must (at least for the gene∣rality of them) be supposed to hold the Roman Religion and rites to be prophanations of those Churches, as Chrysostome held of the Arrian Religi∣on and Rites; so that until they be convinced that the present Roman Religion and rites are the true ancient, and true rites of the true Christi∣an Apostolick Church, or that their own Religion or Rites are false, no man will be able to perswade, that is, to convince them by reason, it may be safe in point of conscience for them to permit freely in their own dominions, where they can otherwise avoid it, the use of any Churches to Roman Catholicks, if I say Chrysostome justly and prudently (speaking not accor∣ding only to his opinion, but according to the verity of things in them∣selves) denied his own consent to the Emperour Arcadius for giving that one Church in Constantinople to the Arrians at that time, or in that con∣juncture, and denied it justly and prudently (I mean still) upon that only account of being against conscience, or against the law of God. Other politick and wise considerations he might have had indeed (as I beleeve he had, and as I beleeve also, whether he had or not, he advised that herein which he thought most pious) but such concern us not here. As no more doth this whole Instance it self, nor any part of it, but only to argue ad hominem out of Baronius himself against himself; and to shew that if Chry∣sostome be praise worthy for choosing rather to let the whole Empire, nay the whole Catholick Church too, run the risco of being over-run by an Arrian rebel Tyrant, then consent to, or permit the delivering up to the Arrians for their divine service one material Church or Temple, or House only, however consecrated, yet composed of lime and stone, or brick, in∣animate things: Constantine is not excusable by him, and by his pretence here, if he transgressed Ecclesiastical Immunity, in usurping on, and pro∣faning the sacred persons of Bishops, who are the principal parts of the very living Church, albeit a portion of the Empire were in hazard, if he had not done so. To pass by therefore this excuse of Baronius, or to say no more of it, Constantine is far better defended by saying, what the truth is and was, that he wanted no excuse at all: being he did nothing in this whole procedure, or any other of judging Churchmen in criminal causes and such dangerous variance, but what became, and was the duty of a pious Prince, who carries the sword, and ministers vindicative justice. For by actual and effectual Instances to appease the tumults of the very Sacerdotal Order, and to assume the protection of the Faith, peace and tranquillity of the Church, and to force also (when necessary) the Churchmen them∣selves to live in peace among themselves, and with others, is part of this princely, royal, and imperial duty.

I say nothing here of Iohn the Meletian Bishop, or of those many other Egyptian Bishops, commanded and actually sent by Constantine to exile: of whom Baronius tom. 3. an. 336. n. 16, 17. But forasmuch as Baronius sayes, ibid n. 18. these Bishops had been precondemned in the Council: I must again advertise the Reader, that the Council never condemned any otherwise then by declaring him an Heretick, and excommunicate, or, at most, to be deprived of, or deposed from his See. That, besides, that pre-damnation, especially to exile, no where appears in Councils. Nay, that St. Hierom (in Chron. ubi de Maximino Treuerensi) not acknowledge∣ing these pre-damnations, affirms expresly, Constantinum quaesivisse ad paenam Athanasium, that Constantine sought for Athanasius to punishment. And certainly Felix, the Aptungitan Bishop, who was the Orderer, that is, the Consecrator of Cecilian (about whom the great contest was) was by the command or warrant of the same Constantine sent to his Proconsul in Affrick, Helianus, to be judged by him. Augustinus, post collat. ep. 33 & ep. 152. & Opt. And Photinus, condemned in the general Council of Sardi∣ca, obtained new Judges from the very self same Constantine, as Epiphan. heres. 71. tells.

The before often mentioned St. Athanasius was, to the said pious and great Emperour Constantine, accused as a homicide, or of having mur∣thered Arsenius. And Constantine committed the cognizance hereof (as we have to••ched before) to Delmatiu••s, the Censor of Antioch, a meer lay Of∣ficer of the Empire, that he might proceed therein as a Judge Delegat. For verily so doth St. Athanasius himself (in Apol.) and for to defend his own innocency in that matter, tell us. And yet he doth not upbraid the Em∣perour, nor at all object to him, that his Majesty had herein usurped a po∣wer which he had not by the laws of God, or canons of the Church, or ••ules of natural reason, over a Churchman. From which objection he was so far, as himself tells that his submission to Constantin's delegation in that, and more to his own immediat imperial and personal cognizance in all such matters, was ready and voluntary.

Behold hitherto, Good Reader, arguments enough of the practise, to our main purpose, of that very Constantine, who notwithstanding all hitherto given, is said to have said to the Bishops, in the Nicene Council, accusing one another to him, Deus constituit vos sacerdotes, & potestatem dedit de nobis quoque judicandi, & ideo nos à vobis recte judicamur; vos au∣tem non potestis ab hominibus judicari: propter quod Dei solius inter vos expecta∣te judicium. Ruffin. l. 1. c. 2. But, but if it be true that Constantine said so at all: as it is very true and certain, that this saying, whosoever's it be, must either be expounded not rigorously or strictly, according to the bare words, but very benignly and gently, or questionless must be rejected and condemned even by those who alledge it for themselves, as appears at least out of the two later clauses, viz. that, Vos autem non potestis ab hominibus ju∣dicari; and that other, Propter quod Dei solius inter vos expectate judicium, yet, I say, if it be true that Constantine said so at all, and even I say did say so also in any good sense whatsoever, wherefore did not his following deeds agree with his words, as much as in that very sense our Adversaries pre∣tend? Therefore if Constantine said any such thing, or expressed himself in such words; according to reason it must be said by us, and by all whoever examine and weigh that expression, or those bare words rightly, that either he spoke them out of some excess of piety and reverence to the Bishops: or certainly that for what concern'd the denying or not acknowledging a power in men to judge the Bishops, and saying, that they were reserved, or ra∣ther desiring that they should be left to the judgment of God alone, and in saying before, that they received power from God to judge of himself the Emperour; he must be understood to mean, First, that Priests had a spiritual power from God to judge even himself spiritually, or in a spiritual way, and by a meer kind of spiritual judgment, or in relation only to his spirit, to wit, by declaring to him wherein he had sinned, and by remitting or re∣taining his sins by their judicial absolution or censure in the confessional seat or penitential Court of conscience; but not that they had a power ex∣ternal, and temporal, or coercive of him in his meer temporals, or by any sentence at all transferring his temporal or civil rights or jurisdiction, or able to bereave him of any such, or obliging him to submit his said tempo∣ral rights to them. Secondly, That meer Lay-men could not judge of them in causes properly Ecclesiastical and Spiritual; such as those of Faith and Heresie, and religious rites are, as to the questions of right. Or if he mean'd any matter of pure fact, especially of those are called lay crimes, that then he understood nothing else by non potestis ab hominibus judicari, but the same we do our selves commonly or in ordinary speech, when we say we cannot do a thing, this, or that, whatever it it be we have no mind to do, or think not expedient to do. We signifie therefore by such words not alwayes an absolute defect of either natural or legal power in us to do that we are desired; but our own unwillingness to do it, and our resolu∣tion not to do it for some unexpediency we conceive in doing it. Constan∣tine

therefore cannot be concluded to have otherwise mean'd when he said to the Bishops and of their personal failings, non potestis ab hominibus judi∣cari, but that it was so unexpedient to bring their private failings to the publick hearing of the world before the lay people by a judicial procedure, that it should not be done, nor would he suffer it, especially in that con∣juncture, when a good repute of all, and peace and charity amongst them all was so necessary to carry the matters of Faith in the Council, against the growing heresie of Arrius. For verily otherwise, or if you take non potestis philosophically and rigourously or strictly, as denying a natural or legal power, and a power too either temporal or spiritual, and take homi∣nibus universally, or even indistinctly for what this word of it self may im∣port, as not determined of it self, nor by any other word here, to lay-men, more then to churchmen; you must consequently fix that sense to these words of Constantine, which neither Baronius himself nor Bellarmine will allow. For so they will also signifie no legal, canonical, or spiritual power in the Pope himself, nor even in a general Council of Bishops, where the Pope himself presides, to judge and censure, condemn or punish, not even in a spiritual way (I mean) the very most scandalous sailings of other Bi∣shops. And therefore thirdly, Constantine must be understood, where he sayes, sed Dei s••lius judicium expectate, that as he mean'd not thereby to de∣ny a canonical power in a general Council of Bishops to censure and con∣demn other Bishops, when their failings deserved it, but only that he thought it more expedient (as the case then stood either of such crimes, peradventure till then private, as they charg'd with one the other, or of the indeed publick and truly general concern of all for which the Council was called) not to bring at that time, or before that Council any such scan∣dalous accusations and animosities of orthodox Bishops to debate: and therefore advised both the accusers and accused to choose rather to leave also the amendment expected, or wrong done to the judgment of God himself on the final day when he shall judge us all: so also it must be said that he mean'd not thereby to disown or deny his own proper civil imperi∣al and external coercive power of such crimes, or such criminals; but only the expediencie of acting at that time, and in such an occasion, and for such crimes against them as a judge: and therefore advised them not to press him therein, but leave all to God, and, in the mean time, agree amongst themselves. Which, and no other to have been the meaning of Constan∣tine in that famous saying of his, if it was his at all, I have evicted before, I mean by his after carriage towards criminal Bishops in so many publick famous instances throughout all his life, and by the general silence of all Bishops and Popes too, who yet were all most highly concern'd not to be si∣lent if he had miscarried as much as in any of those Instances. By all which questionless, and by the natural equity of such meaning and con∣formity of it to the express law of God in many places of holy Scripture, and particularly in St. Paul's 13. chap. to the Romans, I say it is clear enough, that if you attribute not that saying of Constantine in the strict∣ness of the words to some then present excess of piety and reverence towards those Bishops he treated with, or of tenderness or care of their esteem, or to at least a civil complement and politick art of his to carry on the more easily all the Bishops united together in peace against the heresie of Arrius, this I have now given, and no other must of necessity have been his meaning in all the several branches of that very saying.

And so I have done with great Constantine, the very first Christian Em∣perour who established the Church by law, and consequently who deserved more and better of the Church then all Emperours, Kings or Princes that preceeded or succeeded him to this day.

Only this I will add in relation to that so famous a saying of Constantine, if it was his, and particularly to that part of it wherein he desired the Bishops to refer all these accusations to the great judge of all Christ our

Saviour himself on the final day, and to use no other means of punishing, constraining, or forcing one the other by their own authority, and at least in such things as properly concern'd the execution of their Episcopal office towards their respective flocks: in relation, I say, to this part of that saying, or the meaning of Constantine, I will add that Constantine might have heard of others, or perhaps of himself learned and read in St. Cypri∣an's works (for Cyprian was before his dayes) what even this great and holy Martyr Bishop himself said to this purpose openly in a great Council of his Affrican Bishops (of all whom, as being himself the Archbishop of Ca••thage, he was Primate.) Neque enim (sayes he, in Concil. Affric. de Her∣ret. Baptis.) quisquam nostrum Episcopum se esse Episcoporum constituit, aut ty∣rannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adegit: : quando habe∣at omnis Episcopus pro licentia libertatis & potestatis suae arbitrium proprium, tanquam judicari ab alio non possit, cum nec ipse possit alterum judicare; sed ex∣pectemus universi judicium Domini nostri Iesu Christi, qui unus & solus habet potestatem & praeponendi nos in Ecclesiae suae gubernatione, & de actu nostro ju∣dicandi. So this blessed Cyprian, intending and signifying (if I be not very much deceived) the parity of Bishops amongst themselves, or inpendence from the judicial authority, or authoritative judgment of one another (if we regard only the immediate law of God) and therefore exhorting them all not to judge one another by any such pretended authority; but to leave all their differences or dissenti∣ons whatsoever (about their several or distinct wayes of discipline, or of the government or spiritual direction of their respective flocks) to the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who (sayes he) is the only and sole he that hath power both to prepone us in the government of the Church, and to judge of our act. For (sayes he before) none amongst us takes upon himself to be the Bishop or a Bishop of Bishops, or by tyrannical terrour to force his collegues to a necessity of submitting; whereas every Bishop hath his own proper arbitrement, pro licentia libertatis & potestatis suae, according to the pleasure of his own liberty and his own power, so as he may not be judg'd by another, as neither can he judge another. Wherefore (sayes he, immediatly after, con∣cluding) let us all expect the judgment of our lord Iesus Christ, &c. Which final and peaceable advice of St. Cyprian to the Bishops of that above mentioned Affrican Synod Constantine the great may be thought to have alluded unto in his advice also (being it is so like) given to those other Bi∣shops of the Nicen Council. But whether certainly it be so or not, it mat∣ters not much here, or any more at all then to shew upon what ground Constantine might have advised the Bishops to peace amongst themselves; and for pure ecclesiastical differences in point of meer discipline, or refor∣mation of manners, or of the lives or conversation of the Bishops them∣selves, in peace and unity to expect (if they were not otherwise of one sentiment or equal edification) the judgment of God alone, and not pro∣ceed to the censure of one another, especially in the occasion then present of the grand controversie with Arrius of the chiefest fundamental of the Christian Faith it self, and in it self abstracting so much from all personal sailings in life and conversation of either Bishop, Priest, or Laick. Nor doth it matter at present how, or in what sense we must understand this saying of Cyprian, or every or any particular branch of it, further then that of Constantine, and in his right meaning (which I have before given) is parallel to it.

To proceed therefore from Constantine to more Instances of matter of Fact in other Emperours and Kings, who succeeded him; Constantins (one of the sayd Constantin's three Sonns, who were Emperours together) offers himself first. For this Constantins would have, and accordingly had the criminal cause of Stephanus the Patriarch or Bishop of Antioch, as being accused (de Vi publica, & Lege Cornelia de Sicarijs) of murther, to be tryed in a secular Iudicatory and before himself in the Palace; and not by any

means in the Church. Praetor, sayes Theodorecus l. 2. c. 9. 10. maximè omnium caepit clamare: orare Imperatorem, ut de iniquo indigno{que} ejus facinore, non Episcoporum Concilio sed pro tribunali judicium quaeratur: se{que} pollicetus primum Episcoporum Clericos, qui facinoris conscij erant, suppliciō coercendos tra∣diturum. Stephani quo{que} ministros ait, eodem medo puniendos esse. At cum Ste∣phanus petulanti ore illis contradiceret, affirmaret{que} plagas non infligendas esse Clericis, placuit Imperatori & Magistratibus, ut quaestio de facto in Regia habe∣retur.—Ad hunc modum ergo intellecta Stephani improbitate, primum Episco∣pis, qui tum aderant, mandatum dant Judices, ut hominem abdicent Episcopatu, deinde illi ipsi eum Ecclesia penitus expellant. Where you are to observe, that not onely not the judgment of the fact of Murder, but not even the judg∣ment of this question of right, whether the said Patriarch or Bishop Stephen of Antioch should be deposed, or no, is remitted to the Ecclesiastical court or to the Church, or Council of Bishops; but peremptory command sent by the lay Judges to the Bishops to depose him actually and by their spiri∣tual judgment whom they (the same lay Judges) had already and by a civil judgment sentenced to be so deposed; albeit these lay judges reser∣ved to themselves still or to the civil power the real execution of both sentences, that is the actual and corporal expulsion of Stephen from Anti∣och.

Nor is it material to object here, that Constantius was an Arrian: for the Arrian Bishops stood as much for the immunities of the Church and Churchmen, and so did the Arrian Princes advised by them, as any Catho∣lick Bishops or Princes did, when the crime objected was not diversity in religion. And this crime of Stephanus was a meer lay crime, and conse∣quently a crime that by the very laws of even Constantine the great him∣self, nay and of all other Catholick Princes after him (and after Constanti∣us his Arrian Son) for many hundreds of years, and even too by the very express laws of Justinian himself, so long after Constantine and Constantins, was, even when committed by any Ecclesiastick whosoever, to be tryed and judged by the civil Judg, that is, by the Praetor of the Province.

But however this matter be of Constantius, whether he was then a down right Arrian, or not (albeit this be not material, as I have now proved:) I am sure his brother Emperour Constans, who ruled in the west, was ever a zealous Consubstantialist and orthodox in all preciseness.

And yet our often mentioned Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria, and Pau∣lus Bishop of Constantinople, being deposed from their Sees by other Bi∣shops, and having their refuge to him, that is to this Emperour Constance in the West, he at their instance and earnest petition, and even in a cause meerly Ecclesiastical, but for the relief of innocency oppress'd wrongful∣ly, sends letters to his said brother Constantius, wherein (as Socrates writes l. 2. c. 12. and Sozom. l. 3. c. 9.) he signifies his pleasure, that three Bi∣shops be sent from the East to give him an account of the causes why Atha∣nasius and Paulus had been deposed; nay and threatens otherwise (or if the said Athanasius and Paulus upon account given were found to have been unjustly deposed, and should not be restored again) to make warr on Constantius. Which to avoid, Constantius sent him Narcissus the Cilician, Theodorus the Thracian, Maris the Chalcedonian, and Marcus the Syrian, four Bishops: as after also, when Constans was not satisfied with the causes which these four Bishops alleadged, he actually restored Paulus and Athanasius; though for a time onely, for he again banished them. In which procedure of Constance, I believe our very Antagonists will not have the confidence to say there was any vsurpation: being that such religious orthodox Bi∣shops, as this Paul and Athanasius, and so rigidly observant as they of Eccle∣siastical Discipline, were his Authors and Petitioners to reassume the judg∣ment of themselves, albeit in a cause purely Ecclesiastical, or which onely or at least chiefly concern'd a spiritual sentence of deposition of two Bi∣shops

from their Episcopal Sees, pronounced against them by a Council of other Bishops. But whether our said Antagonists will (or no) pretend therein any vsurpation: I am sure the matter of fact is true, as I am sure also that even natural reason it self will force them to confess there was a supream right in Constans to relieve, by all due means, oppressed inno∣cy; and that there was no other way so ready just and equitable as this which he took.

Valentinianus, a Catholick Emperour also, shall make up the fourth of those Instances of Princes, to our purpose. For he condemned by his own Imperial sentence Bishop Chronopius to the silver mines for having appealed from an Ecclesiastical sentence of 70 other Bishops, L. 2. Quorum Appel. C. The∣od••s. and forced him accordingly to suffer it by going to and labouring in the said mines. The very same Valentinian punished by diverse banish∣ments the Bishops Vrsicinus, Gaudentius, Vrsus, Ruffus, and several other Bishops too, because their Schysmes troubled the publick peace and tran∣quillity. Iure mansuetudinis nostrae sensibus (sayes he) vel divinitus damna∣rum est, vel tranquillitate naturae, ne cum delinquentium facinore legum severi∣tate certemus ac spe••emendationis futurae mitiorem esse vellemus correctionis inju∣riam, quam provocat meritum nostrum, Ampeli Pater charissime Augustorum. Dudum Vrsicini inquietudine provocati faventes concordiae populi Christiani, qu••eti etiam Vrbis sacratissimae providentes, uno interim loco intra Gallias dum∣taxat perturbatorem tranquillitatis publicae, statueramus jure cohiberi, scilicet ne applicatione morum latae dissensionis incommodum spargeretur. Verum naturae nostrae mansu••tudine levigati, ita memorato abscedendi copiam dedimus, ne ad Vrbem Romam, vel certè suburbicarias regiones, pedem inferat, ne{que} nequitiae suae cogitationem canetur infundere. Idetiam de caeteris ervoris consortibus, Gauden∣tio, videlicet, Vrso, Ruffo, Auxanone, Auxanio, Adiedo, & Ruffino sancimus &c. Apud Baronium, tom. 4. an. 371. n. 1. Therefore, also by this instance, and by this law too of Valentinian, as it ought to be the chief care of Princes, as incumbent on them by their publick office and duty, and by the very nature of Principality or Government, that the publick peace and tranquillity be preserved entire in and amongst their Citties, Cittizens, and other people subject to them: so it must be consequently their charge to coerce the very Ecclesiasticks themselves if they disturb that peace or tranquillity.

Gratianus the Emperour, likewise in all points Orthodox, as the dare∣ling of S. Ambrose, however onely a Catechumen, banish'd on the same ac∣count, the Bishops Instantius, Salvianus, and Priscillianus, and banish'd them not onely out of their episcopal Sees or Citties wherein and whereof they were Bishops, but out of all countries subject to him. Though after, being ill advised, he restored them back. Severus hystor. l. 2. in fine. Nor doth Baronius himself, tom. 4. an. 381. n. 110. reprehend him in this mat∣ter, or at all, upon account of usurping on Ecclesiastical persons, rights, or judgments; but onely upon account of having favoured hereticks, to wit, forasmuch as he restored those three Bishops, whom himself had before so lately banish'd. Ex quo quidem facinore (sayes Baronius) sibi necem compa∣ravit. But this is a most vain judgment of Baronius. For the said In∣stantius and Priscillianus soon after, appealing to Maximus, the tyrant Em∣perour (Vsurper, and murderer of Gratianus) were by him, as being or at least pretending to be an earnest Catholick, called to his own presence to be judged again by his Imperial authority, the Catholick Bishops who accused them desiring this of him most earnestly: and were at last con∣demned by him, the one to have his head cut off, and the other to be car∣ried to a place of perpetual banishment. Several other Bishops also the very same great Catholick Hypocritical Zelot Maximus punish'd in the self same manner, some by death, and some by banishment: (Prosper in Chron. & Severus. l. 2.) observing still the Catholick Praelats with much

respect, and above all St. Ambrose himself, notwithstanding he saw very well that Ambrose could not be drawn to approve of his treacherous usur∣pation, but stood still firm to young Valentinian the lawfull Emperour, though an Arrian profess'd, and consequently an Haeretick Emperour. Against whom, on that specious pretext of heresy, Maximus rebelled and usurped the Empire, as being himself a Catholick, and pretending onely or at least chiefly to maintain Catholick religion against Arrianisme, which infected the young Emperour Valentinian and his mother. And yet Ba∣ronius might know that this very Maximus, (who so put even those very heretick or Schismatick Bishops to exile and death, whom Gratian restored a little before, and was himself therefore and by Gods special ordinance or just permission most cruelly murthered by Maximus, if we may believe Baronius for what concern'd the cause of Gods permission of the untimely death of Gratian) I say Baronius might know that this very Maximus saw suddenly after as violent and fatal an end of his own Empire and life to∣gether by the victorious arms of Theodosius. Now, to observe that heer which is more to our purpose, I confess that Severus reproves the incon∣stancy of those Catholick Bishops who charg'd Priscillian, in that they sufferd him to provoke, that is, to appeal to the Emperour, or that they sufferd the causes of the Church to be judged or determined by a Secular Iudg. But to me it seems plainly that the cause of Priscillian and of the rest was not purely Ecclesiastical. For that Priscillian himself was charg'd also with meer lay crimes, and that, having confess'd his own obscenities, he was condemned, the same Severus tells. And that of such crimes, nay indeed of all crimes whatsoever, so they were found to be real crimes (much more when they disturbed the publick peace, or endanger'd it) the more sublime the meer Secular powers were the Judges and avengers by strict coercion and corporal punishment, or by the material sword and pure force, S. Paul teacheth, and the perpetual custome in all Christian King∣doms and States confirmeth.

Arcadius, an Emperour also very orthodox, received the accusations against John Chrysostome Bishop of Constantinople, and thereupon having first ordered a judicial procedure against this great and holy Bishop, at last condemned and sent him with a guard of Souldiers farr off to exile. Socra∣tes, l. 6. c. 16. & Palla••. in Dial••g. And certainly, Pope Innocent (the first of that name) who then govern'd the See of Rome, where he inveighs bit∣terly against Arcadius, and against Eudoxia his Empress, as against most grievous persecuters of so great and so holy a man, doth not at all object that Arcadius, being a meer lay man, usurped a judiciary power in Ecclesi∣astical matters, or so against his own proper Bishop; nor that he proceed∣ed so against him out of or by a tyrannical power, and not by any legal authority over him, in the case; but onely reprehends Arcadius in that he had not proceeded justly against Chrisostome; or in that he had not made right use of the power which he had in the case; and, in a word, in that he expelled Chrisostome from his Episcopal throne, before his cause had been legally and throughly sifted or judged, as it ought, and consequently without observing the due formalities, or even substantial or essential pro∣cedure in such case required by the law. Ejecisti (sayes he) ê throno suo, re¦rum judicata, magnum totius orbis Doctorem. Nicephor. l. 13. c. 34. Nor doth Chrisostome himself, any where complaine of the Emperour as having usurp∣ed a power of judging, condemning, or banishing him. And yet we know he writt to several, especially to Pope Innocent, many letters fraught with complaints of the Emperours unjust judgment and proceedings against him: acknowledging Arcadius, or at least supposing him still a legal Judg, though unjust as to the sentence, in the case.

Theodosius, the younger Emperour, known likewise to have been still a most zealous and pious Catholick Prince, clap'd in prison Cyril Patriarch of

Alexandria, Praesident of the General Council of Ephesus, and together with him Memnon an other Catholick Bishop; albeit this good Prince was in the merit of the cause abused by the false informations of John Patriarch of Antioch, and of those other Bishops of his faction, who met in a private Council amongst themselves at Ephesus too, and separated or ab∣sented themselves from the rest, or from the publick session house where the said Praesident and generality sate. And though after, by the great Coun∣cil of Ephesus, to wit when all the Bishops met there the second time, the cause of Cyril having been examined, he was, and all of his way, declared innocent, and John and his complices condemn'd by their Ecclesiastical sen∣tence; yet, or notwithstanding all this, could not the said great Catholick prisoners Cyril, Memnon &c, be set at liberty out of prison, not even I say by the authority of this very great and true Oecumenical Council. All this great Council did, and all they could do, as to this of the liberty of these prisoners, was to write and petition to the Emperour by their Legats sent of purpose and in this behalf to his Majesty, and petition him by this very tenour and forme of words: Nunc verò his scriptis, & per hos Legatos ••ientissimos Episcopos, vestra pia genua pretensia manibus attingimus, ut quae ••i lenter acta sunt cum sanctissimis & pientissimis Episcopis Cyrillo & Memnone, nullum{que} canonibus robur habentia, prorsus irrita sint, &c. Relat. Syn. Ephes. apud Cyril. in Apologetico: And then soon after, conclude thus: Oramus igi∣tur Vestram Majestatem soluite & nos & illos a vinculis, vinctis enim fratribus, ac Praesidibus sancte nostrae synodi, etiam nos quodammodo vincti sumus. Where you see a General Council, and a Council truely General, with their armes or hands wide spread, bowing down, humbling themselves & touching (as their phrase is) the knees of the Emperour, and beseeching him to set free to them out of prison the Patriarchal Praesident of their whole Council. And you may see them in some passages going before, complaine indeed, but with all modesty, to the Emperour, that his Majesty was deceaved by sinister information. But that he oppress'd or infring'd Ecclesiastical Im∣munity, they neither complaine of there, nor elsewhere: so farr were they from any thoughts of proceeding to excommunications, Interdicts, or monitories, or minatories of either, and consequently so farr from the practise of some later Ages.

The same Theodosius, and by the Ministers of his Pretorian Presect, exiled Nestorius Patriarch of Constantinople, who was by the said great Ephesme Council condemned of heresie: as may be read in the Acts of that Council. And truly Cyril of Alexandria, epist. 6. writing to Iuvenal Bishop of Ieru∣salem, advises, that the extermination of Nestorius should be desired and ex∣pected from this Emperour only, and from his subordinate civil Magi∣strates. Necessarium autem erit (sayes he) ut Christi amanti ac religiosissimo Regi & universis Magistratibus scribamus, consulamus{que} ne pietati in Christum, hominem praeponant; sed largiatur orbi rectae fidei firmitudinem, ac greges Do∣mini à malo pastore liberent, nisi universorum consiliis obtemperaverit. Pursu∣ant to which desire this very Theodosius afflicted most grievously several other Bishops for being only suspected of Nestorianism. Amongst whom let Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus, albeit in himself otherwise a very true and sure Catholick, tell how the Emperour punish'd him upon suspicion only: & let us observe, whether he complain, that a Laick should take cognizance of, & judge and sentence, and confine a Bishop: or whether only be complain of the injustice of the proceeding against him, as having no crime at all, where∣of he was convicted, or which he had confessed, or that was objected to him, at least upon any kind of even but a probable ground? Cum enim (sayes he himself, Theodoretus, epist. 81. apud Paron. tom. 6. an. 440. num. 11.) ad Nomum consulem semel & iterum scripserim, litteras nondum accepi, & Imperatoris decreto Cyrenssum regionis terminos praeterire prohibeor. Nulla vero alia causa hujus damnationis videtur, praeterquam quod Synodos Episcoporum

congrego: & licet ne{que} accusatio ostenderetur, neque actor appareret, neque reus convictus, decretum tamen editum fuit, &c. And then adducing the example of Festus with Paul, Act. 25. he adds: Et haec quidem dicebat homo, qui Christo non credebat, sed idolorum erroribus serviebat: Ego vero, ne{que} interroga∣tus An Synodes congregem, nec ne, & quorum causa congregem, & quid mali afferam vel rebus Ecclesiae, vel publicis, ac si in maximis deliquissem, ab aliis arceor civitatibus. Quin immo aliis quidem omnibus omnis aperta est civitas, non solum Arrii & Evn••mii sectateribus, sed & Marcionistis, & illis qui Valen∣tini & Montani morbo laborant, nec non & Ethnicis & Iudaeis: Ego vero qui pro dogmatibus Evangelicis pugno, ab omni excluder civitate. Moreover it was Theodosius commanded Irenaeus Bishop of Tyrus to be not only deposed from his Episcopal See, but also degraded of Sacerdotal Order; as was actually done in obedience to his command. Acta. Concil. Ephes. edit. Pelt. tom. 5. c. 29. And further yet, it was this Emperour Theodosius, that, not∣withstanding the foresaid great General Synod of Ephesus deposed the be∣fore mentioned Iohn from his Patriarchal See of Antioch (as appears in the Acts) by his own imperial authority interceded and hindered the execu∣tion of that sentence, nay commanded it should not be executed, and who also by his own self same and onely imperial authority, though for a very just end, or least otherwise great troubles should arise, licenced the said Iohn to return to his former See of Antioch. And finally it was this Em∣perour Theodosius that called both Iohn and Cyril to himself to Nicomedia, and forced them to agree among themselves; and Iohn also to agree with the Catholick Church wherever, by renouncing Nostorius.

Martianus, a no less Catholick Emperour, even he who together with Pulche∣ria the good Empress convoked the fourth General Council, or that great one indeed of Chal••d••n, this very Martianus I say was he that by his own Imperial authority removed from the Patriarch of Antioch the cause of ••••as, and brought it to his own cognizance, and this too at the Instance of the Priests of the Diocess of Edessa, Subjects to and accusers of the said Ibas their own Bishop: and because they alleadged that the Patriarch of Antioch, to whom the cognizance of their accusation against Ibas immedi∣atly belong'd in the Church, was suspected of partiality) and committed it to other Bishops to be judg'd by them, joyning also to these other Bi∣shops for an assistent, Damasium Tribunum, & N••tarium, a meer lay officer: Concil. Chalced. Act. 9. But that which herein, or in this cause of Ibas, and in this Imperial cognizance and commission of it, is more notable yet is that the complaint of the said Priests, his accusers, was purely Ecclesiastical, as wholly concerning an excommunication which he had pronounced against them. But I have elsewhere noted that the Prince hath an exter∣nal superintendence over, and power of the external regiment of even meer Church affairs, especially in two cases; viz. 1. when manifest injustice is committed, or innocency oppressed; or, whether it be so or no, in rei veri∣tate, when complaints are made to the Prince that matters are so carried in the Church, or by the spiritual or Ecclesiastical Governours of it. 2. when he sees that by the carriage (however this be) of Churchmen, or of the spiritual superiours of other Churchmen or laymen, the publick peace or tranquillity of either Church or State politick is any way disturbed or hazarded, or that any other publick spiritual, or even temporal good which implyes no sin, is hindered.

Pursuant to which it was also, that Leo Magnus & Primus, the first and great Pope of that name, writ to an other Leo, the Emperour, and writ in his 81. epist. to coerce the Clerks of the Constantinopolitan Church as favourers of hereticks. In quibus (sayes this holy Pope) deturbandis, si frater meus Anatolius cum nimis benigne parcit, segnior invenitur; dignamini pr••fide vestra, etiam istam Ecclesiae praestare medicinam, ut tales non solùm ab craine Clericatus, sed etiam ab urbis habitatione pellantur. Where this Pope

desires the Emperour to exercise his own Imperial power; not delegats any Ecclesiastical to him: though he desires the Emperour not onely to banish those Clerks from the City, but also to have them degraded from their order. And pursuant to the same opinion, or rather certain and true judgment of such a power in the Emperour, as properly and essentially be∣longing to his Imperial office, it was that the orthodox Bishops of Syria writ also to the same Emperour Leo for punishing, by his own Imperial power, according to the laws of the civil Commonwealth, Timotheus Elucus, Bishop or Patriarch of Alexandria, as, by the same laws and against both the same laws and Princes too, being guilty of various crimes, but in particular of adultery and murder. De delictis autem (say they, post C••ncil. Chalced.) & praesumptionibus, quas nefandê commisit, Reipublicae le∣gibus, & corum praesulibus, judicio competenti subdetur. Where you see a meer secular judgment called or said to be a competent judgment of criminal Bi∣shops. And indeed that the banishment of the said Timotheus, which soon after followed, by the decree of this Emperour, Liberat. Brevi. c. 13. pro∣ceeded onely from his own proper Imperial power, not from any Church power, or from any commission, or delegation from the Church, we may gather sufficiently out of the 100. epist. of the above S. Leo the Pope, wherein he writes thus to Gennadius: Dilectio tua eniti & elaborare debit, ne redeundi integram capiat libertatem, de quo jam Edictis suis Princeps Christi∣anissimus judicavit. Finally pursuant to the same knowledg of the Impe∣rial power and authority from God for judging, and sentencing the crimi∣nal causes, and inflicting corporal punishments in such criminal causes, and on such Clergymen as were found guilty, Pope Simplicius, epist. 9. 11. be∣seecheth the Emperour Zeno, Vt quod per nos (sayes he) Ecclesia seriò postu∣lat, imô quod ipsi specialiùs supplicamus, Petrum Alexandrinae Ecclesiae pervaso∣rem, ad exteriora transferri piissima praeceptione jubeatis. But to leave this judg∣ment of Popes or other Bishops of the power and authority Royal in the case (which Judgment as such of the power is not the proper and prima∣ry subject of this section, or at least of this part of it) and to return to matter of fact onely, and this of the Princes themselves acting by particu∣lar Instances:

The next Prince I offer to the Readers consideration, is Theodoricus, King of Italy. For this Prince albeit an Arrian, as to his beleef of the Trinity of persons or Divinity of Jesus Christ, yet in all other points of Christian religion, and in his veneration and observance of the Church and Churchmen, and of their priviledges and exemptions in general, and this without any distinction of Arrians or not Arrians, he was precise, wary, and strict enough: nor is there any reprehension or complaint of him in History, as not being so. And yet he is recorded to have admitted of and discussed the accusations drawn and presented to him by the very Catholicks themselves, both Layety and Clergye, against Pope Symmachus. Of which matter, Anastasius Bibliothecarius writes thus, in Symmacho. Post annos vero quattuor, aliqui ex clero, zelo ducti, & aliqui ex Senatu, maximè Festus & Pr••binus, insimulaverunt Symmachum, & subornarunt falsos testes, quos miserunt Ravennam ad Regem Theodoricum, accusantes beatum Symma∣chum, & occultè revocarunt Laurentium, post libellum Romae factum, & fece∣runt Schysma, & divisus est iterum Clerus; nam alij communicaverunt Symma∣cho, alij Laurentio. Tunc Festus, & Probinus Senatores miserunt relationem Regi, & caeperunt agere, ut visitatorem daret Rex Sedi Apostolieae; quod canones prohibent. And albeit, upon debate, this King at last remitted this cause of Symmachus to a Council of Bishops, and that by the same King's licence several Councils of Bishops convened at Rome to sift it throughly (which Councils I have amongst others and upon an other occasion quoted in the marginal note of my introduction to this first Treatise, pag. 1.) yet no man can deny that he admitted the accusations, and thereupon and as judg

of them and of the whole cause exercised several judiciary acts, as having a legal power or Christian authority to do so. Nor did Symmachus except or resist, nor did any for him or in his behalf or in behalf of the Church or of Ecclesiastical Immunity reprehend Theodorick for doing so. Nay we have seen before, in this Treatise Sec... this very Symmachus himself openly professing, that he himself would yield to God in the Emperour's person, to wit, by obeying him in humane things: as we saw him desiring on the other side, that the Emperour should likewise revere God in the person of the Pontiff; doubtless for what concern'd spiritual or divine matters.

The Catholick Emperour Justinus proceeded yet more imperially in the criminal cause of Dorotheus Bishop of Thessalonica. For this Bishop being accused of sedition, and of several murders too, and particularly of the murder of Iohn, who was one of the Legats of the See Apostolick; and the rest of the Apostolick Legats being his accusers before the Emperour, and being so also by express command from Hormisda the Pope, whose Le∣gats they were and he too that was murdered, and this Pope himself pressing hard that the said Bishop Dorotheus the supposed murderer of his Legat should either be deposed by the Emperour from his Bishoprick and sent to banishment farr from his place or See and Church, or certainly be sent to Rome with all fit prosecution of his cause: Iustin indeed proceeded to a judicial tryal and sentence of the criminal Bishop, but with so much regard of his own imperial power in the case, that he neither did the one nor the other which Hormisda so earnestly pressed for. Of all which the Suggestions amongst and after the epistles of Hormisda, and these epistles themselves, particularly the Suggestion which is after the 56. epist. and the second Suggestion after the 64. epist. and the 57. epistle in it self, may be read. Promittit (say the Legats writing to the Pope) Sancta Clementia (for so they stile the Emperour) vindicare, & citare Dorotheum, quia nos contestati su∣mus pietatem ejus, &c. And Hormisda himself the Pope epist. 57. writing to the said Legats: Nam eumdem Dorotheum (sayes he) Constantinopolim jussu Princi∣pis, didicimus evocatum, adversus quem Domino & filio nostro Clementissimo Principi debetis insistere, ne ad eamdem civitatem denuo revert••tur; sed Epis∣copatus, quem numquam bene gessit, honore deposito, ab eodem loco, ac Ecclesia longius relegetur: vel certè huc ad urbem, sub prosecutione congrua dirigatur. But wherefore doth not this Pope command his Legats to insist upon the delivering of such a criminal, a criminal Bishop, into their own proper custody, hands, and power, to proceed against him, to judg and punish him, as they shall find cause, being they alone, and not the Emperour, were his competent Judges in the case, if we believe our Bellarminians and Baro∣nius? wherefore do not these Legats, wherefore doth not this Pope him∣self, being denied what he desired, fulminat excommunications against Iustine? He desires and prays that Iustine would banish Dorotheus; and he cannot prevaile with Iustine forasmuch as to send Dorotheus to Rome. But let us here Iustine himself answering this last demand of the Legats. Inter haec (say the same Legats, suggestio. 2. post epist. Hormisd. 64. giving an account to the Pope) secundum ea quae praecepistis, authoritatem Apostola∣tus vestri, Principi insinuare curavimus, ut ad percipiendam doctrinam Catholi∣cae puritatis, Romam praefatus Dorotheus, una cum Aristide mitteraetar. Qui respondit, causam non esse; pro qua Romam delegarentur audiendi, ubi sine accu∣satorum controversia sese possent liberiùs excusare. Where that is to be observed which in the prosecution of this account (as it is Suggest. 2. post epist. Hormis. 64.) the same Legats further signifie, how Dorotheus was carried to the Citty of Heraclea, to stay there until his cause were adjudged; but that he was presently dismiss'd thence. And in the little Index, which follows there, they seem to signifie moreover that the judgment or Court Imperial was in this cause of Dorotheus corrupted with gold. But however this of corruption be, certain it is that neither did those Legats themselves, nor

Hormi••da himself at any time complain of any usurpation in or of this judgment by Iustine, to which themselves did so often consent; although peradventure they might have had some cause to complain of the injustice or corruption of it.

Iustinianus also the Emperour, albeit so great a Catholick and so well deserving of the Catholick Church universally, and of Catholick Church∣men singularly, as he was, and as appears too for this of Catholick Church∣men particularly out of the special priviledges he gave by his laws to the same Catholick Curchmen over and above what his Praedecessours did, this very Iustinianus I say reserved still (notwithstanding all his zeal for religion and all his said priviledges given) his own Imperial judiciary power, and would and did exercise it by proceeding and punishing in very many Instan∣ces, delinquent or criminal Clerks, Priests, Bishops, Patriarchs; nay and so reserved that power still, or a power of proceeding against criminal Clerks, that by an express law he reserved it also to his lay Praetors of Provinces, and to the lay Judges at Constantinople, as I have shewed already and at large in my LXIX. Section. But to give here some of the particular In∣stances of his punishing Clerks by that his own Imperial coercive power:

〈◊〉〈◊〉 know first, it was this very Iustinianus who by his own proper and role power and authority Imperial decreed the banishment, and who actu∣ally forc'd into banishment, Anthimus the Patriarch of Constantinople, Severus the Patriarch of Antioch, Peter Bishop of Apamea, and Zoaras the Praesbiter, albeit they had been first deposed by an Ecclesiastical sentence. Novell. 42. ponitur in Concil. general. 5. Act. 1. where Iustinian speaks thus: Interdicimus ei (videlicet, Anthimo) commorari in hac faelici Civitate, & ejus districtu, ac in quacum{que} alia insigni civitate. For this Anthimus was first condemned and deposed by the spiritual or Ecclesiastical sentence of Agapetus the Roman Pontiff, and after also by that of the general Synod, as an intruder or as intruded into the See of Constantinople, and as think∣ing amiss of some dogmats of Faith. Ibid. Act. 1. Severus having been con∣victed of the same or like crimes had the like sentence of banishment pro∣nounced against him by Iustinian: similiter autem (sayes this Emperour) & huic interdicimus omnio Regiam civitatem ingredi, aut districtum ejus, aut aliquam aliam de insignibus, &c. And enacted the same punishment against the other two, Peter, and Zoaras.

But least any should think or pretend him a meer executor of the sacerdo∣tal sentence against these criminal Clergiemen: it is to be considered first, that this cannot be alleadged with any kind of colour, or upon any kind of ground: being that neither Pope nor Council pronounced any thing of banishment against the said criminals: as indeed it was never, at least in those ancient times, the stile of Popes or Councils; nor was after of the very Popes themselves until they became temporal Princes. For since (I con∣fess) the Popes do banish, and may banish; but out onely of their own temporal Principality. The sentence therefore which Pope Agapetus, and that Council which condemned those Ecclesiasticks, gave or pronounced was purely and solely of Ecclesiastical Deposition, and excommunication. But that of Iustinian was of an other kind and much more grievous, even a corporal extermination or banishment not onely from the whole citties wherein before they exercised jurisdiction, but also out of all great citties of the Roman Empire. And therefore Iustinian was not a meer executor of the Decree of either Pope or Council or of both; but an inflicter of a new and much greater punishment, and such as was proper to his own power, and to which the power of the Church, as a Church, did neither in truth extend nor at all then as much as pretend.

Secondly it is to be considered, that the words, expression, and stile which Iustinian uses in the said Novel, are such, are so absolute and Impe∣rial as they cannot by any means become a meer executor. Ad praesentem

(sayes he) venimus legem: nostrum Imperium contra istum praesentem scribit legem: nec vti{que} extra Imperialem confirmationem relinquimus sententiam justè contra Severum (ab Episcopis) latam; falsa dogmata ut publicentur, nullo modo fieri in Christiano ovili Dei, & orthodoxo populo justum est, ne{que} ab Imperio nostro permissum est—Sacram sententiam, quam propriam & ipsam in seipsa existentem, ad huc magis firmiorem Imperium facit—interdicimus omnibus ••••tos suscipere; —abijci ergo ipsos sancimus de civitatibus: —Haec pro communi pace sanctissimarum Ecclesiarum statuimus: —Haec sententiavimus, sequentes sanctorum Patrum dogmata, ut omne sacerdotium imperturbatum de ••aetero nobis permaneat; quo in pace servato reliqua nobis exuherabit politia, de∣super pacem habens. What could be more efficaciously said to signifie that what he decrees here he decrees by his own proper Imperial authority? And yet he further and expresly and particularly declares in this very Novel. 42. that the judgment Ecclesiastical which proceeded, was concerned onely in the bare deposition of these Churchmen from their Sees and cures and in the excommunication of them; but that himself and by his own pro∣per Imperial authority does add this decree of banishment. For thus he speaks decreeing against Zoaras. Et hunc de hac regia vrbe, & ejus districtu abijoit Imperium, & habitationem in alijs civitatibus ipsi omnino interdicit. Ita∣{que} cum illis solis habitet & consulat, qui a nobis ante memorati sunt, qui similia quidem blasphemant, similia patiuntur, & similiter in exilio ponuntur. si quid verò aliud in sententia sanctissimorum Episcorum, quae praedictos deponit & ana∣thematizat, hoc firmius ponimus, & diutius, ac Imperialibus nostris legibus ipsum corroboramus, ac si ab Imperio ipso provenisset. If there be any other thing (sayes he) in the sentence of the Bishops, to witt, excommunication and deposition: for this of excommunication and deposition he sayes to be an other thing, aliud, besides or then that of exile. Therefore the sentence Episcopal contained aliud, an other thing which was not exile or exterminati∣on; but deposition onely and excommunication, a quite other thing then that was which he intended principally and decreed by his own proper Imperial sentence; what he so intended and decreed being corporal ex∣termination or exile. And he adds also to that aliud, other thing, in the sentence of the Bishops his own Imperial confirmation, and no less then if it or that other thing had proceeded meerly and onely from the very Em∣pire.

Secondly, we know also that Paul, Patriarch of Alexandria, as guilty of a murther which was committed by his command, was by Liberius Augustalis, and by the authority and special mandat of the Emperour Iustinian, sent to exile; and Zoilus placed in his room and Sees. Liber. Diacon. in Breu. c. 2.

Thirdly, we know moreover, that even the Patriarch or Pope himself, of Rome, Silverius, though called by our present Justinian from banish∣ment, was nevertheless proceeded against judicially and imperially by him, upon an accusation of treason, that is, of having written letters to betray Rome to the Goths: vt si approbaretur (sayes Liberatus, in Brev. c. 22.) ab ipso fuisse scriptas, in quacum{que} civitate Episcopus degeret: si autem falsae fu∣issent approbatae, restitueretur suae sedi. Where I cannot pass over the ridicu∣lous observation of Baronius. Ita quidem (sayes he, Tom. 7. an. 538. n. 13.) sentiens Iustinianus Imperator, non esse cujuslibet potestatis damnare Romanum Pontificem, quem etiam si errasse convinceretur, Romanum tamen Episcopum, licet non Romae voluit permanere: ne videlicet quod objectum ei fuerat, ipso mo∣liente daretur vrbs Gothis: sed ut alijs in locis camdem, qua fungebatur, reti∣neret Pontificiam dignitatem. Therefore, by a judicial sentence to cast the Pope out of Rome, and punish him with exile, and deprive him of his See, is not to condemn him; if we be such fools as to be led in a string by Baronius, and believe such nonsence. For my part, I not onely believe and see it to be a condemnation, but a most grievous condemnation. Cer∣tainly,

if the most Illustrious Cardinal Baronius himself had been deprived and thrown out of his Roman Cardinalship, albeit so deprived of it, that he might be incardinated in any other Archiepiscopal or Episcopal Church in the world, even in that of St. Diego or Compostella in Spain (which at this very day hath formal Cardinals, not onely as to the proper office but as to the name also or title of Cardinals, or Cardinal Priests) he would think himself most grievously condemn'd, and complain too that he had been so condemn'd. Now for that which Liberatus sayes, where he sayes, that if the letters were found to have been truly charg'd on Silverius the Pope, then the said Silverius should be suffered to live a Bishop in any Citty, ut si approbaretur ab ipso fuisse scriptas, in quacum{que} civitate Episcopus degeret, in my judgment the meaning or sense of these words is very plain and ob∣vious, viz, that he should be deprived of the Roman See, and nevertheless should have his choice of any other Bishoprick, or of the Bishoprick of any other Citty whatsoever besides Rome (understand you this of vacant Bishopricks.) For it could not be otherwise, being Vigilius the Pope, and as the true Pope was already possessed of the Roman See. And consequent∣ly if the Emperour Iustinian would have Silverius in that case to retayn the title and office of the Roman Bishop, though living as an exile, or banish'd man, farr from Rome, he should not have suffered Vigilius to enjoye at the same time the Roman See, and all the titles and office of the true Pope or of the true undoubted Roman Pontiff; nay doubtlessly, if Silverius had been found innocent, he (I mean Iustinian) had presently dispossessed Vigilius, and repossessed Silverius in his former See. And therefore what Liberatus sayes should be his sentence in case he had been found guilty, must amount to this, or must signifie, that, in such case, Vigilius should con∣tinue still (as he had been already for sometime) Bishop of Rome; and Silverius permitted to choose an other See, or the Bishoprick of any other Gitty, but ever to be deprived of the Roman Bishoprick. This much I thought fit to say here by occasion of that ridiculous observation of Baro∣nius. But whether what I have said so be well or ill said, it matters not to our main purpose (but onely if well said, to the reproof of Baronius) being the judiciary proceedings of Justinian, and those also by his own proper and sole imperial power against Silverius, must be out of all con∣troversy, if we do not gainsay or contradict all ancient history.

Fourthly, and lastly we know or at least we may rationally say it is not probable, that if Iustinianus had not (as resident in himself) the full, pro∣per, legal and supream power of coercion of Clerks by adjudging and in∣flicting on them corporal punishments, especially that of exile or banish∣ment (not to speake at all here of death) Iohn the second Pope of that name, had not as a suppliant petition'd him for a revocation of the Bishops in exile, and petition'd him in this stile. Aequum quippe est (sayes this Pope, epist. 2.) ut qui nostris minim•• obedientiam accommodant statutis, ab Ecclestis habeantur extorres. Sed quia gremium suum nunquam redeuntibus claudit Ec∣clesia, obsecro Clementiam Vestram, nisi proprio deposito errore, & prava intentio∣ne depulsa, ad vnitatem Ecclesia reverti voluerint, in vestra communione recepietis, indignationis vestrae remove••is ••euleos (observe that he sayes, your indigna∣tion; not, our condemnation) & nobis intercedentibus, benigni animi gra∣tiam condon••ti••. The very self same was in suppliant wise petition'd for to Iustinian by the Synod of Constantinople; amongst the Decrees of which Synod, in the relation of Patriarch Iohn, Actor. 1. it is written thus. Se∣cundum capitulam in libellis continebatur, ut qui (ex Episcopis & sacerdoti∣bus) banniti fuerant & fugati, conversi restituantur propriis gradibus. Quoniam igitur justa pe••i••io est, deliberatimus ut praedicti adjuventur, & adducantur ad piissimum & serenissimum? Impera••orem nostrum.

To all which I might yee add concerning this Iustinian, that in his time and Empire a civil cause betwixt a Bishop and his Deacon was discuss'd

before the Praesident of the ••rovince, and an appeal therein devolved to lay judges. Concerning which appeal Iustinian himself gave that answer which is read in his Novels, Novel. 115. init.

Iustine, the younger of that name, likewise a Catholick Emperour, depo∣sed Anastasius Synaita, Patriarch of Antioch, from his said See, and cast him to exile (whether upon forged crimes, or not, who knows?) Evagrius l. 5. c. 6. and substituted in his place and see one Gregory, a most excellent, and wonderfull man, and most conspicuous for sanctity of life. Baronius Tom. 7. an. 572. n. 19. Where I cannot but admire that what Iustinus did by his own proper Imperial authority in expelling the said Athanasius, our great Annalist, ibid. n. 17. should attribute to the Decree or authority of I know not what Synod. Verum (sayes he) cum a Iustino depositus dicatur Anastasius, non tamen sine coacto ad hoc Episcoporum Conventu id esse factum scias. These things were done before a thousand years, and of this Con∣gregation or Assembly of Bishops there is not a word in auncient Histories. How therefore doth Baronius tel us of such a one? Docet id (sayes he, t••m. 7. an. 564. n. 13.) Eutychii Constantinopolitani Episcopi superius enarra∣tum exemplum. Excellent. Therefore, in Baronius's Divinity, History, and Logick, the consecution holds from one singular fact to an other singular fact: and accordingly it must be said of necessity, that two singular or particular facts could not have two different causes, or causes of a different nature. Nor did Baronius consider, or at least would not seem to consider, that the prosecution of or persecution against Entychius was onely for his dissent from some others in dogmats of divine beleef, of which dogmats the autho∣ritative judgment belongs not to Laicks, but to Ecclesiasticks: and that on the other side, to this Athanasius were objected the dilapidation of the treasures of his Church, and reproachfull words spoke against the Empe∣rour, Evagrius, l. 5. c. 6. which are not Ecclesiastical crimes, but lay crimes and such as are to be examined on may be or might have been lawfully ex∣amined by a lay Tribunal.

An other, or a second and younger Iustinian, Sur-named Rhinotmitus, likewise a Catholick Emperour, seized on Callinicus the Patriarch of Con∣stantinople, bound him in fetters, put out his eyes, and banish'd him so fetter'd, and so blinded for ever, to Rome. Theophanes, & Cedremus apud Baren. tom. 8. an. 703. n. 2. But wherefore I beseech you doth not Baronius moved at so great indignity, cruelty, and usurpation of Ecclesiastical au∣thority (if there had been any such usurpation in the case) inveigh here against this Emperour? Nay he well nigh praises and approves the fact, discoursing thus: Vt qui adeo superbe in Romanum Pontificem caput extulerat, ab eodem vitae stipem humiliatus acciperet: haec digne perpessus, qui primus ausus est, abs{que} consensu Romani Pontificis, universale congregare Concilium, centurias edere canonum, &c. But certainly this younger Iustinian who ba∣nish'd his Patriarch, and used him with so much rigour, did neither use nor banish him so for that Council he held (to wit the Quini Sexta Synodus, as some both Greek and Latin writers call it) or that century of canons made therein &c, (for himself was still for both) but onely for having sub∣mitted to and joyned consequently with two several Vsurpers of his Im∣perial crown, one after an other, Leontius and Tiberius Absimarus, while him∣self lived in banishment. And therefore having again recovered his Em∣pire, whereof he was indeed the lawfull Prince, he blinded and banish'd for ever Callinicus. Nor was this Emperour in any wise reprehended for this fact, or at all in point of usurpation of or on Ecclesiastical judgments in criminal causes of Churchmen, not even I say reprehended either by Iohn the VI. who was then Pope, or by Iohn the VII. who immediately succeeded him in the Papacy, or even by Constantinus who likewise immediately fol∣lowed this VII. Iohn in St. Peters chayre at Rome, and who was he that went in person to Constantinople and Nicomedia to and at the command of

this Emperour, and within the third year after he had so us'd and punish'd Callinicus. Much less (you may think) was he reprehended by this very Constantine, for having banish'd to Pontus the Archbishop of Ravennas, Felix, nor even for having pulled out his eyes: being the chief cause that moved this Justinian Rhinotmitus to proceed thus against this Felix was, that Felix living in Italy, and being of the Roman Patriarchat, and having received consecration thereof Constantine Bishop of Rome, made his pro∣fession of faith, and promised canonical obedience to him; yet he no sooner return'd to Ravennas then he withdrew himself, his Clergy and People schis∣matically from the same Constantine and Roman See. However as it is not my purpose by any means to justifie the too too revengeful spirit of this Justi∣nian, or too too cruel use of his imperial power in putting to death un∣mercifully and indistinctly upon several occasions, and out of pure revenge, so many thousand poor Laicks of all sorts & sexes: so is it not my meaning, that he might not have perhaps exceeded also in the punishment of some Churchmen, or particularly of this Felix or that Callinicus, by putting out their eyes. Therefore my only purpose in producing this Justinian, and these proceedings of his against the greatest Patriarch of the East, and greatest Archbishop (next to Rome) of the West, is that which hath been hitherto all along in other Instances of matter of fact, to shew (forasmuch as can depend of such matter of fact) the legallity of the power in Princes to punish, and rightful use of that power in punishing Clergiemen, if, or when commonly delinquent; and if the punishment be according to the rules of justice; but not to justifie at all the abuse of that power, or any cruelty or excess in the use of it.

And so I have given thee good Reader, a sufficient number of the more select and notable instances of Christian Princes continuing in themselves, vi•• facti, or in and by fact, the possession of that supream civil coercive power of Clerks for at least full 500 years of the Christian Empire of Rome, after Constantine the Great's dayes, that is, almost for a thousand years since Christ our Saviour when being on earth gave us all both Clerks and Laicks, Princes and Priests, the law we ought to walk by. Instances clear enough, and particular enough to shew that without any check for so long a tract of time, and so many centuries of years, the very most Catholick Emperours themselves of both new and old Rome sentenced in their own meer lay Ci∣vil and imperial tribunals, and punished at their pleasure, and by their own supream and proper power all Clergiemen of what degree soever, when guilty of lay-crimes, especially of such as were against the publick peace or tranquillity: and instances likewise clear and particular enough to shew, that when for such crimes as were properly Ecclesiastical crimes any corporal or civil punishment was to be inflicted, they were the sole civil Princes, who by their own civil power both executed and decreed such cor∣poral or civil punishment, and consequently who were the sole authoritative Judges of both Priests, Bishops and Popes, I mean as to inflict or not in∣flict such corporal or civil punishments on them, be the crime whatsoever you please, Lay, or Ecclesiastical.

But if you would see yet some instance or some example (in particular fact) of the continued possession of that authority in Princes, even after (I mean) the tenth century of Christian Religion was compleat:

You may reflect on Conradus the Emperour, who in presence of Bene∣dict, the ninth Roman Pontiff of that name, sharply arose against, and roughly laid hands (that is, with his own hands seized) on Heribertus Archbishop of Millan, as guilty of treasonable practices against the Empire (albeit this Heribe••t saved himself after by flight) and in the presence too of the same Pope Benedict, in his hearing and seeing all was done, decreed banishment from their Sees against three other Bishops, and effectually cast them to exile, the Bishop of Cremona, Vercellis, and Placentia. Herman∣nus

in Chron. an. 1037. and Baronius, eod. an. tom. 11. Where this great Annalist, Baronius, divines after his own manner, that surely Conradus did not this or that without consulting first, and obtaining the good leave of the Roman Pontiff; dreaming so what the Historians of that age were igno∣rant of, did wholy pass over in silence; without question, because there was no such consultation held with the Pope, no such leave asked from him: for it is not likely, that if any such had been, they had given us no kind of hint of it. And so too this prophetical or conjectural Annalist gives us his own very vain imagination for a record, where he sayes, that a suddain pestilence followed to revenge this fact, or this usurpation of Con∣radus. But if Conradus, with licence of the Pope, proceeded so against these criminal Bishops, wherefore doth Baronius invent this revenge of an usurpation that was not in the case, if his dream be true? So little is our great interpreter of God's judgments and scourges consistent or constant to himself. And if any should say for him, that he meaned not that God reveng'd by such a plague any usurpation of Conrade, being the Pope gave his consent also, but only mean'd that God thereby reveng'd some other injustice in the proceedings, albeit authorized by the Imperial and Papal powers joyntly or both together; then I say, that such meaning, or inter∣pretation of Baronius, were it infallibly true in such meaning, is nothing to his purpose here, or against mine at all; as the judicious Reader may himself easily see without any further illustration or observation by me.

And you may also reflect on Henry King of the Romans, afterwards Emperour, and the second of this name, who continuing and persevering in the possession of the right or authority of coercing and punishing Cler∣giemen, in imitation of his Predecessors, wel-nigh a thousand years, depri∣ved of his dignity Widgerus, Archbishop of Ravenna; nay and the Pope himself of his Papacy, Gregory the Fifth of that name. Hermannus in Chron.

Of other Henry's Emperours of Rome, I say nothing. Because in their time, and by the occasion of the too great abuse by Clergiemen of the reverence to, and patience of Princes with the Roman See in particular; and Ecclesiastical Order in general, nay and peradventure also by the oc∣casion of the neglect and sluggishness of the Princes themselves (that I may not here enlarge on, or give other most certainly true causes) as like∣wise by occasion of the many great priviledges formerly granted by Em∣perours and other Kings to all Priests and Bishops (albeit amongst all such priviledges there was never any such to them in general as an exemption in temporal matters from the supream civil power) and moreover by occasi∣on of some special priviledges granted to the Roman See alone, and to the Bishops thereof, and finally by occasion of the vast both spiritual and temporal Revenues which these Roman Pontiffs were (in the dayes of the other Henries) possessors of, they, I mean the Roman Pontiffs, were then arrived to such a height of worldly greatness and strength, that seeing the former and indeed formidable power of the Roman Empire divided and subdivided in to so many different unsubordinate Kingdoms; and seeing themselves could hardly ever want some one or other Prince amongst all to embrace their Papal quarrel against any other, either Prince, King or Emperour; and considering also the great ignorance or blind zeal of many then, who, as their affections lead them, or as their Preachers told them in some or many Provinces of Europe, took all the Dictates of Roman Pon∣tiffs for so many infallible or divine oracles, pursuant to the doctrine (hereof also) first invented, & soon after vented by Gregory the VII: I say that by these occasions, and by their own improvements of them, the Popes were in the times of the other succeeding Henries come to such a height of glory and greatness that they dared resist, as they did Kings and Emperours in what quarrels soever, and particularly in this of the pretended exemption not

of themselves only, but of all Bishops of the world, nay and of all Priests too, nay and also of all other Clerks of whatsoever lower degree, from all earthly power, add in all criminal causes of what nature soever: pretending that such persons, as being dedicated to God, had no other truly proper and supream Governour or Prince on earth but themselves alone, the Popes of Rome. And therefore being it was then, or much about that time, this controversie begun, which I have disputed on hither∣to, I have resolved to bring no instances of other Princes or Bishops since that time, or of that time; but content my self with these of more anti∣quity, as best sorting with my purpose, which only is, and was along in this Section, to shew the former doctrine of the holy Fathers, and their Exposition of St. Paul, 13. Rom. confirmed by the practice, and in so many particular instances of both Ecclesiastical Prelats, and Christian Princes in the more ancient Ages of the Church, and for so many ages together all along, quite contrary to both the doctrine and practice of some few (or many, if you please) Ecclesiasticks, in the later and worser (and in this, by little and little) degenerated ages of Christianity.

And yet I would have my Readers take notice, that I could furnish them (were it necessary) with a cloud of witnesses, and a cloud of such particular instances, both in the very said time, and after the very said time of even the self same other Henries also, and even also all along in eve∣ry age of these very latter and worser, until this present wherein we live, and in this present year (of it) 1667. and could furnish them with these wit∣nesses, and produce to them these other such particular instances in mat∣ter of fact of Bishops and of Princes, and of Roman Catholick Princes too (for such only I mean here) partly out of the general Cronicles of Italy, Germany, Hungary, Venice, Spain, France, England (before the suppresion or change by Henry the Eight) &c. and partly also out of the Ecclesiastical Annals of the Church, and of these very later ages of it, but in particular out of these very Annals compiled by the often quoted Henricus Spondanus a Catholick Bishop of France, and the Continuer of the Annals of Baronius, from the year 1198. (wherein Baronius ended) until the year, 1640. which puts an end also to these Annals of Spondanus. But for that reason I now gave, I forbear insisting upon, or enlarging my self upon, or indeed producing at all here any of all these latter In∣stances.

LXXIV.

Therefore to proceed from those other particular instances which I have produced of Bishops, Popes and Princes in, and after the dayes of Con∣stantinus Magnus, conformable to the general practise of all Christians universally before his dayes all along up even to those inclusively of the Apostles and Christ our Lord: now in order, and pursuing the method I have in my LXXI. Section prescribed to my self, I come to the Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Canons of the Church, for me against my Adversaries, in this point of a supream civil coercive power in lay and earthly Princes, over all criminal Clerks whosoever, within their Dominions, and of all crimes too whatsoever of Clerks, whether they be lay crimes, or such only as are called Ecclesiastical crimes.

The first of these canons which I alledge for my self, or to my purpose, is that of Pope Pelagius, ep. 5. and as it is in Gratianus, dist. 17. cap. Hac licuit. Wherein, after command given, that whoever have any doubt in matters of Faith, shall be taught or resolved by the Sees Apostolick, it is further said thus: Quod si ita obstinati & contumaces extiterint (sayes Pelagi∣us) ut doceri non velint, eos ab iisdem Apostolicis sedibus aut attrahi ad salutem quoquo modo necesse est, aut ne aliorum perditio esse possint, secundum canones

(Conc Antioch. c. 3. & Chalced. Act. 4.) per seculares comprimi potestates. Out of which it is most clear and evident, that if Clerks are to be coer∣ced (properly or strictly speaking of coercion) that is, if they are to be corporally or forcibly restrain'd or punished, they must according to the very Canons, be coerced, or restrain'd or punish'd so by the secular Po∣wers (for Pelagius writ his letter, of which, or out of which Gratian form'd the above canon, and writ it, I say, to Narsetes Patricius, and of the Bishops of Aquileia and Millan; both Clerks without any peradventure.) And consequently it is also most clear or evident, that by the very canons the supream civil coercive power and authority of coercing criminal Clerks, or punishing them so, and even too for Ecclesiastical crimes (for the crime here was such) must be confessed to be in the secular Princes.

The second Canon is in Gratian. 23. q. 5. c. Relegentes, and is extract∣ed out of another epistle of the same Pope Pelagius (epist. 4. ad N••rsetem Patricium) where he doth yet more clearly express this power and autho∣rity of secular Princes; calling it also in express tearms their due authority, and exhorting them to make use of it against these delinquent Clerks he complains of. Quamvis igitur (sayes he) vestra per illorum scelus utilitas facta sit, nolite tamen impunitam praesumptionem iniquorum hominum grassari permittere. Si enim hoc quod in vestram gloriam praesumpserunt, non fuerit vindicta compressum quod in minoribus non valeant puniri, ambigi ultra non debet. Exer∣cete igitur in talibus debitam authoritatem, & ne cis amplius talia committendi spiritus crescat, vestris coercitionibus reprimantur. Ad hoc sequidem Dei nutu etiam contra vos talia praesumpserunt, ut alia vobis corrigentibus, ab eodem sec∣lere alios possitis Deo propitiante munire. And then, or about or near the end of this 4. epistle. Auferte tales ab ista Provincia: utimini oblata vobis à Deo opprimendi perfidos oceasione. Quod tunc plenius fieri poterit, si authores scelerum ad Clementissimum Principem dirigantur: & maxime Ecclesiae Aqui∣legiensis invasor, qui & in schysmate, & in eo maledictus, nec honorem Episco∣pi poterit retinere nec meritum. Consonant to which is that which he also writ before, Epist. 3. thus: Nolite ergo dubitare hujusmodi homines princi∣pali vel judiciali anthoritate comprimere, quia Regulae Patrum hoc specialiter constituerunt; ut, si qua, Ecclesiastici Officii persona, cui subjectus est restiterit, vel seorsim collegerit, aut aliud altare erexerit, seu schisma fecerit, iste excom∣municetur at{que} damnetur. (Behold all the punishment inflicted by the Church, to wit, excommunication and deposition, and ejection from the number of faithful.) Quod si forte & hoc contempserit, & permanserit divisic∣nes & schisma faciendo, per potestates publicas opprimatur. And this he sayes to be a law Ecclesiastical, and sayes truly so. For in the Fifth Canon of the Council of Antioch it is ordained so, and almost in the very self same words. And in the rule approved in the Council of Chalcedon (in episto∣la Archimandritarum ad ipsum Concilium, actione 4. & in Collectione Martini Cracarensis, c. 37.) it is ordained even so too.

Third Canon is of Leo, the IV. Pope of that name, and is that which you read in Gratianus, dist. 10. c. De Capitulis, where this Pope speaks to Lotharius Augustus the Emperour, in these words: De capitulis vel praecep∣tis Imperialibus vestris, vestrorum{que} Pontificum & praedecessorum, irrefragabiliter custodiendis, & conservandis, quantum valuimus & valemus, Christo propitio, & nunc, & in aeuum nos conservaturos, modis omnibus profitemur.

Fourth is also of the same Leo, or that which you find in Gratian. 2. q. 7. c. nos s••. where again this very Leo speaks in the like manner to Ludouick the Emperour, and in these other words. Si incompetenter aliquid egimus, & in subditis justae legis tramitem non conservavimus, vestro ac Missorum vestro∣rum curata volumus emendare judicio &c. For sayes Gratian himself, 2. q. 7. Paragrap. Item. Regum est corporalem irrogare paenam; sacerdotum spiritualem inferre vindictam.

Fift canon is very particular, express, and home enough, even also as to the very inferiour lay judges, but onely as to the lay crimes of Clerks, with∣out leaving any place for vain distinctions, even it which you find also in Gratian XI. q. 1. cap. Si quis cum, (yet not extracted out of the third Council of Carthage, as a certain great writer would have it, but out of the 74. Imperial constitution of Iustinianus, c. 1.) where in effect suffici∣ently and clearly distinguishing betwixt the lay crimes of a Clerk and his Ecclesiastical crimes, though calling that, onely and imply causam criminalem, 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 judi∣ces in hac civitate (scilicet Constantinopolitana) vel in Provinciis interpellati, consentaneum legibus terminum imponant, &c—Sin autem crimen Ecclesiasti∣cum 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 one∣ly, 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 Ecclesi∣astical 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 quicum{que} Iudex cujuscum{que} Clericum abs{que} 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 dis∣ciplinam

Eccles••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 terr••rem. Saepe per regnum terrenum caeleste regnum proficit: ut qui intra Ecclesiam positi contra fidem & disciplinam Ecclesiae agunt, rigore Principum conterantur; ipsam{que} 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 credi∣dit.

Here you see, that not out of or by vertue of any commission or dele∣gation 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 per∣sons, 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 de∣termine 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 pra∣ctise 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 like∣wise that they received from God himself such their own proper univer∣sal 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 coa∣ction and force is absolutely denyed to the Church, as a Church. Which being so; who will be so unreasonable, as to attribute a power to Her of deputing commissioning or delegating Ministers or executors to inflict them so?

But what this canon (or Gratian, or rather Isidore who was the original Author) sayes here, is very observable, I mean where it sayes, that Princes have the height of their power within the Church: and, that God himself hath committed his Church to their power: even as Leo Magnus the Pope writing to Leo the Emperour, ep. 81. sayes: Debes incunctanter advertere, Regiam potestatem tibi, non solum ad mundi regimen, sed maxime ad Ecclesiae praesidiu•• esse collatum.

At most therefore, what is in this matter granted to the Church is, that Ecclesiasticks be not by Princes proceeded against coercively to punishment, if their transgression be onely or meerly Ecclesiastical, and the punishment be corporal, I say be not so and in such case punished corporally, unless or until the Church do her own duty first by depositions, or censures, or both (Except you always still such extraordinary cases wherein the Superiours of the Church should or would themselves also peradventure be too re∣fractory or too contumacious against reason, as guilty of the same crimes, or for any causes whatsoever countenancing or favouring the criminal

Clerks, and therefore refusing to proceed at all or at least onely against them.) For when a degraded Clerk is given over to the secular Court, he is not delivered so by the Church to the secular Magistrats, as if the Church did mean or intend these Magistrats should proceed by vertue of a power derived from her, or be the Ministers or executioners of her own sentence; which, if capital, she hath no power no authority at all from God or man to pronounce or decree; as if any other way it be purely civil, or forcible at all corporally, for example, to corporal restraint or imprisonment, she hath for so much all her power from man and from the civil laws onely: but he is given over so by the Church, as meaning and intending onely that such a criminal Clerk be thenceforward under the ordinary power of even the inferiour lay Magistrats and Judges: and by such delivery or giving over signifying unto them, that they may now pro∣ceed, if they please, and think fit, either to absolve or condemn him.

For even Caelestinus III. himself, a Pope of the later times, confesses c. Non ab homine. de judic. that Ecclesiastical punishment is of a quite other nature then that which is lay: and that the Church hath no kind of power or authority to inflict such punishments as are in their own nature lay punish∣ments; or, which is the same thing, that she hath no power no authority at all of her self as a Church, to inflict any punishment but purely Ecclesi∣astical, but suspension, deposition, excommunication, the lesser and greater, and finally degradation, when the criminal Clerk is delivered over or left under the secular power, let the crimes of such a Clerk be ever so great, and ever too such pure lay crimes, even perjury, theft, and murder, &c, and even heightned also by incorrigibleness. A nobis fuit ex parte tua quaesi∣tum (sayes the above Caelestine) utrum liceat Regi, vel alicut seculari per∣sonae judicare Clericos cujuscum{que} ordinis, sive in furto, sive homicidio, vel periu∣rio, seu quibus cum{que} fuerint criminibus deprehensi. Consultationi tuae taliter respondentus, quod si Clericus in quocum{que} ordine constitutus, in furto, vel homi∣cidio, vel periurio, seu alio crimine fuerit deprehensus legittime, at{que} convictus, ab Ecclesiastico Iudice deponendus est. Qui si depositus incorrigibilis fuerit, excom∣municari debet, deinde contumacia crescente anathematis mucrone feriri: post∣medum verò si in profundum malorum veniens contempserit, cum Ecclesia non habeat ultra quid faciat, ne possit esse ultra perditio plurimor••m, per secularem comprimendus est potestatem, ita quod ei deputetur exilium vel alia legittima pae∣na.

Where you are to observe singularly (as to our present purpose of distinction betwixt Ecclesiastical and secular punishment, and of no power at all in the Church to inflict corporal, secular, civil, or lay punishments) what Caelestinus sayes in these words, Cum Ecclesia non habeat ultra quid faciat. As you are also to note that he answers not directly, or, rather in∣deed, not at all, to the main question, whether the King or other secular pow∣ers could punish Clerks guilty of or manifestly deprehended in perjury, theft, or murder? but declines that of the authority of Kings or of other secular powers acting of themselve•• in such cases, without relation to the desires of the Church that they should act so, and onely prescribes to the Eccle∣siastical superiours how they themselves are to proceed by degrees, a•• be∣comes them, against such criminal Clerks. For otherwise it hath been seen before and in the very laws of Iustinian, submitted unto by the Church, that in such criminal causes the civil Praetors proceeded immedi∣ately against Churchmen, though execution of the sentence was suspended until degradation was by the Bishop. And it hath been seen that in a very auncient Council of Bishops, long before this Calestine, the first of Matis∣conum I mean, the cases of theft, murder, and malefice were still expresly and particularly supposed or rather declared to have no Ecclesiastical ex∣emption, but to be still under the cognizance of even the inferiour lay judges. And reason it self and the necessary preservation of both State

and Church tell us that Caelestine's answer here, cannot be otherwise un∣derstood in all the formalities of it, and as relateing to the power supream of Kings who acknowledg none but God above them in temporals, and who recieve not or incorporat not by their own proper power, and into their own civil law this canon of Caelestine in any other sense, or any other Church canon at all (either like or unlike to it) exempting Clerks in such crimes and in the first Instance from their supream legal cognizance, or even from that of their subordinat ordinary secular and lay judges. For I confess, that in such Kingdoms or temporal States, if any such be, wherein the Princes or people or civil Governours and civil laws or customs have recieved such Ecclesiastical canons, for the exemption of Clerks in such crimes, until such Ecclesiastical formalities had preceeded, it is fitting they be obserued, and ought to be observed, while the civil laws, which onely gave them force or a binding virtue, remain unrepealed, and if the litte∣ral observation of them strike not at the very being or at least peaceable and well being of the Commonwealth. But observed so, that is, by virtue of the civil reception and incorporation of them into the civil laws and by the civil power, they make nothing at all against my main purpose, or against that of those other canons I alledg for the power of Kings from God to punish delinquent Clergiemen with civil and corporal punish∣ments, where and when they shall upon rational grounds judg it necessary and expedient for the publick good of either Church or State: and where and when it is not against the laws of the land that they punish them so either by themselves immediately, or by their subordinat lay judges either extraordinary or ordinary.

The Bishops of Affrick, acknowledging this power in temporal Princes, write in this manner and stile to the Emperour: Vt novellae praesumptionis scandalum, quod adversus fidem nostram attentatum est, auferatur, fratrem{que} nostrum Paulum Constantinopolitanae Ecclesiae Episcopum Regali authoritate vt nobiscum, id est, cum omni generalitate, orthodoxé sapere debeat, coarctare degne∣mini. Concil. Lateran. consult. 2. sub Martino 1. they desire the Emperour, that by his legal authority, and by corporal coercion he force him, who not onely was a Priest, not onely a Bishop, but in the highest degree of the Hierarchy ordained by humane constitution, or by the canons of the Church, even the very Patriarch of Constantinople.

For a ninth canon, that which is in the Ninth Council of Toledo, cap. 1. may very well and properly serve: where the Fathers, acknowledging this supream coercive power of Clerks in Princes, ordain thus (against Clerks that defraud the community or the Church of the oblations intended in common for the Church) Vt si sacerdotem, seu ministrum aliquid ex collatis rebus praeviderint defraudare: aut commonitionis honestae conventione compescant: aut Episcopo vel Iudici corrigenda denuntient. Quod si talia Episcopus agere tentet, Metropolitano ejus haec insinuare procurent: Si autem Metropolitanus talia gerat, Regis haec auribus intimare non differant. Where you see this ancient Coun∣cil of Spanish and very orthodox Bishops ordaining, that the excesses of Ecclesiastical persons, of Priests, Bishops and Metrapolitanes, be in the last place (or when no remedy is applyed by the Bishops or Metropolitanes themselves) complained of to the King, to be questionless by him and by his regal authority corrected and coerced.

Tenth and last of those canons I pitch upon, and restraine my self unto here, is a canon of the Synod of Ravenna convoked by Iohn the ninth Pope of that name, about the nine hundredth year of Christ. For in this Coun∣cil, Lambertus the Emperour (being himself there in person, and at some variance with that Pope, who who was likewise present in his own person) amongst his Capitula, or heads which he proposed to the Council, and as to be admitted by the Pope and Council, proposed in the first place of all, this: Si quis Romanus, cujuscum{que} sit ordinis, sive de clero, sive de Senatu, seu

de quocum{que} ordine, gratis ad nostram Imperialem Majestatem venire voluerit, aut necessitate compulsus ad nos voluerit proclamare, nullus ei contradicere praesu∣mat.—Donec liceat Imperatoriae Potestati eorum causas aut personas, aut per Missos nostros deliberare. Which capitulum was assented unto, and ratified by the Fathers, and made a conciliary Act, and therefore too a Canon of that Council; and all this done so solemnly, and even in the sight, and with the approbation also and consent of the very Roman Pontiff himself, there in person present: to the end it might appear to the world, that, after the more directly spiritual or purely Ecclesiastical Canons had been ended by the Fathers, the Emperour would by this particular Canon of another nature have it declared, that he preserved still entire his own right of judging the very Clergy of Rome it self as an Emperour, and in all matters whatsoever belonging to his imperial cognizance, and con∣sequently still preserved intire his own imperial coercive power of crimi∣nal Clerks, or that of punishing them civilly, & corporally, if, or when their delinquencies or crimes, or the preventing of such crimes for the future in others, required such punishments.

To conclude this Section of Canons, I must give some few and brief advertisements to the Reader concerning them, and my purpose in alledg∣ing them. 1. That I alledge them not as causes, or as grounds, or springs of such authority in secular Princes; but only as testimonies of the sense of the Fathers (who made them, and for those ages wherein they were made) that there was (by, and from a superiour power) such a previous original, proper, essential, independent right in supream secular Princes: and that for the more certain & more demonstrative proofs of such a right in Princes, I relye not somuch on any express Canons of either Popes or Councils, as upon those plain texts of holy Scripture, and those other so plain and so express of all the holy Fathers generally, who in their other writings (that are not Papal or conciliary Canons) commented upon the same Scriptures; and besides these two arguments of Scripture and Tra∣dition (which I have before given at length in three Sections; for I make that of my Instances of practise part of the argument of Tradition) that I do also very much relye upon those other evidences of natural reason, which you may turn to Sect. LXXII. 2. That although for these Ca∣nons which are only Papal, that is, those which are made or issued by the sole authority of one or more Popes without a Council, I pretend them not to be of equal authority with such as had the consent of a Council: nor hold those meer Papal Canons, or any other in Gratian, to be proper∣ly and strictly the Canons of the Church; being these are such as were made at first, or approved at last by a general Council, or otherwise intro∣duced by universal consent or custome; albeit others too may be Canons for the occidental Church apart, or apart for the oriental, &c; yet, as to my present purpose, meer Papal Canons may be justly presumed to be most sufficient testimonies: because against the Popes themselves, or against the present exemption of Popes by divine right, and their pretended power also by any right whatsoever to exempt others; I mean still, out of their own dominions, or those wherein they are themselves at present su∣pream temporal Princes. 3. That in my interpretations of those Canons, or in my conclusions derived or intended from them, I do not tye my self either to Gratian (whom I confess to have seen many or most, or perhaps all of them) or to any of his Glossatours; if indeed Gratian himself (how otherwise great and earnest soever a Hiero Monarchist, or Zealot for, and assertor of the Roman and Papal Hieromonarchy) interpret, conclude, or say any thing at all point blanck, either directly or indirectly, or conse∣quentially or virtually against my interpretations, or conclusions here out of these Canons, or against my assertions all along of the supream royal coercive power of criminal Clerks. For truly he may be very well under∣stood

without any such meaning, xi. q. 1. where he had most occasion to deliver himself, as of purpose treating there of the proper Judicatory of Clerks. Because that, forasmuch as of this matter, he treats only according to the Canons of the Church, and priviledges given by Emperours; and that I have shewed and proved already elsewhere (in my LXIX. Section) ••e brings neither an Imperial constitution, nor allowed Church canon, nor as much as any true or certain though meer Papal Canon, which ma••y be home enough against my assertion of such an absolute independent supream coer∣cive power in Kings; and that also in his last Paragraph, which begins thus (as even his former doth) Ex his omnibus datur intelligi, his own con∣clusion is in general tearms only, importing, that a Clerk is not either in a civil or criminal cause to be convented in publick (that is, in lay or secu∣lar) Judicatories. Quod Clericus (sayes he) ad publica judicia nec in civili nec in criminali causa est producendus; not descending to the particular or specifical case of the regal power and regal cognizance intervening by spe∣cial commission or special warrant, or in a special emergency; nor descen∣ding also to, or considering the special case of times or Countryes, when or where no such canon of the Church or Pope, no such priviledge impe∣rial, at least in that latitude, is in use, or perhaps hath ever yet been recei∣ved, or, if once received, hath been again repealed. Therefore Gratian may be rationally expounded to mean by his judicia publica (in this Para∣graph) those ordinary Judicatories only which are of inferiour lay Judges; and those too but only where such Canons are received, or such priviledges allowed by the supream civil powers and laws.

But if any must needs press further yet, or in any other sense, the conclu∣sion of Gratianus: then I must say three things. The first is that (as I have proved already elsewhere in this work)) if a Clerk sue a Layman for any temporal matter, or in a meer civil cause that is not criminal, he must sue him in a lay Court, and before a lay Judge, and this lay Judge (albeit only a subordinate inferiour and ordinary Judge) shall give a binding sentence against this Clerk, if the law be in the case for the Layman. So that neither is it generally true, not even by the very Canons (I mean) that Clerks in all civil causes are totally exempt from the jurisdiction of as much as the very inferiour lay Judges. For the very Canons (not to speak of the civil laws) now in force throughout the world have ordered so, Quod Actor sequatur forum Rei, let the Actor be ever so much a Clerk or Ecclesiastick. The second is, that generally for criminal causes of Clerks, Gratianus hath not produced as much as any one either imperial constitution, or even any one Church Canon, sufficiently either in particular or in general, revoking or anulling, or sufficiently declaring that revocation of the 74. Consti∣tution of Iustinianus whereby this Emperour appoints and impowers the lay Judges for those within Constantinople; and for those abroad in the Pro∣vinces the lay Pretors in the same Provinces, to iudge the criminal causes of Clerks: nay, nor hath at all as much as attempted to answer or gain-say it, albeit this very 74. Constitution was the very last chapter saving one, which himself produced immediatly (as a canon) before the foresaid last paragraph, Ex ••is omnibus. Thirdly, that for those Church Canons, or those more likely authorities or passages, true or false, of some Popes or some Councils, alledged by Gratianus (in that his eleventh cause and first question) or those in him which may seem most of any he hath to ground another sense then that I have said to be his sense: I have before suffici∣ently, nay and abundantly too cleared and answered them at large in my LXIX. Section, of in my answer to Bellarmine's a••legations of the Canons for himself, and for the exemption of criminal Clerks from the supream royal coercive power of Kings: where I have also noted some of Gratian's either voluntary or unvoluntary corruptions of the Canons. Fourthly, and consequently, that whether Gratian was or was not of a contrary opi∣nion,

it matters not a pin. It is not his opinion (and let us suppose he had truly and sincerely declared his own inward opinion: for I am sure many as good and as great, and far greater then he dared not declare their own when he writ his Decretum, or declare any at all but in the language of the Papal Court) It it is not, I say, his opinion but his reason we must value: for sin he did not himself, nor any for him does pretend to infallibility. And I am sure he neither brings, nor as much as pretends to bring any Scripture at all, or any Tradition of the Fathers, or even as much as any argument of natural reason for the warranty of any other sense. And I am certain also that my judicious and impartial Readers will themselves clearly see and confess that he brings not for himself, or for such a sense, as much as any one Canon, true or false, to confront these I have alledg'd for my self, and for that sense I intend all along; or any one Canon, true or false, that denyes that which I have given for the coercive power of secular Princes to have been, and to be the sense of Paul the Apostle, Rom 13. or to have been, and be the general and unanimous sense of the holy Fa∣thers in their commentaries and expositions of it; or finally any one Ca∣non, true or false, that particularly, and either formally or virtually de∣scends to the specifical debate 'twixt the most eminent Cardinals Bellarmine and Baronius, or their followers the present Divines of Lovaine, and me, concerning the supream royal and external Jurisdiction of Kings to pu∣nish criminal Clerks by their own immediate authority royal, and by vir∣tue of their own royal commissions and delegations extraordinary, in all cases and contingencies wherein the preservation of the publick peace, and safety of either Church or State require it; and by their mediat autho∣rity also in their inferiour Judges, and by vertue of their ordinary commis∣sions or delegations to such Judges, or of the ordinary power which the civil laws of the land give to these Judges, in all cases, I mean, wherein the same civil laws, or the makers of such laws, have not received or admit∣ted of the more or less ancient constitutions of Roman Emperours, or of the more or less ancient Canons of the great Pontiffs, or of other Bishops in their Ecclesiastical Councils, for what concerns the exemption of Clergie∣men in criminal causes from the meer civil and ordinary Courts, and lay inferiour or subordinate Judges, and their subjection to Ecclesiastical Judges only, and the Prince himself, who must be without any peradven∣ture, and even in such causes too of Clerks, above all Iudges in his own Kingdom, whether lay or Ecclesiastical Judges. For I have before sufficiently demonstrated that all Ecclesiastical Exemption in temporal mat∣ters, or in all both civil and criminal causes is only from the supream civil Power, as from the only proper and total efficient cause: and I have also before demonstrated, that no exemption to any persons or person whatso∣ever could be given by that Power from it self, or at least for the matter of coercion, and when the publick good required it, unless at the same time it freed such persons or person from all kind of subjection to it self: and I have likewise demonstrated before, that such exemption from it self, in any case at all whatsoever, cannot be rationally supposed as given by the said supream power, or understood in or by any priviledge of ex∣emption, unless it be so expresly, specifically, or determinatly said by clear words in such priviledge; and lastly I have before demonstrated, that no such priviledge, or any with such words, nor any canon, or even any other testimony for such a priviledge or such words, hath ever yet been alledg'd by any of all our Adversaries.

LXXVI.

The few remaining Objections, are now to be considered and solved, according to my promise and method prescribed to my self in my LXXI. Section. I call them remaining, not that I left any of Bellarmine's arguments unanswered or unresolved, where I treated against them of pur∣pose in eight long Sections, viz. from my LXIII. to my LXX. Section, both inclusively taken; but that I met elsewhere with these objections I am to examine here now, or that they occurred to my self, and that I have not yet of purpose cleared or sifted them in particular, and that they are indeed the only which I conceive to remain as yet so (of purpose) particularly un∣resolved; albeit I doubt not they are in general (or by the general grounds I have laid and proved already in so many former passages, and by the general solutions and reasons I have given against Bellarmines argu∣ments) sufficiently resolved. However, that I may leave no place at all for cavil, I descend to these also in particular. Whereof there are four in all.

The first is composed of three several Scripture Texts of St. Paul him∣self. For this great Apostle sayes expresly, 1 Cor. 10.6. that he himself had a present power to take revenge of, or to punish all disobedience. In promptu habentes (sayes he) ulcisci inobedientiam. And, 1. Cor. 4.21. he puts the question thus to the Corinthians, Quid vultis in vïrga veniam ad vos? what will you have me come in, or with a rod to you? And 1. Ti∣moth. 5.19. he commands Timothy, that against a Presbyter he shall not receive any accusation that hath less then two or three witnesses to make it good; Accusationem adversus presbyterum nolï recipere, nisi sub duobus aut tribus testibus. And several more such peradventure may be added. Out of all which the inference must be, if any at all be made against me to pur∣pose (how unjustly or ungroundedly soever) that herein St. Paul contra∣dicts himself and his own command to all souls, Rom. 13. or certainly that I have all along hitherto affixed that sense to this command of Paul, om∣nis anima, &c. Rom. 13. which Paul never had.

But the answer is very facile, and solution obvious; viz. that all these three texts, and other such in Paul, or other Apostle, Evangelist or Prophet (if any such other places be of him, or of any of them) are certainly and one∣ly understood of the Ecclesiastical or Spiritual power of Paul, and of other Church Superiours, and only of meer Ecclesiastical (purely such) both judgments and punishments denounced or pronounced by vertue of that spiritual power. In which manner, and by which power it was that Paul (without any doubt) could deliver, and did deliver some disobedient, scandalous and exorbitant sinners to Sathan, 1. Corinth. 5.5.

Now that this answer is unquestionably well grounded, nor ought to be at all contradicted, I need not repeat again what I have so at large produced before out of the holy Fathers generally, acknowledging no other power in the Church but purely spiritual, not even in the very Apostles themselves who founded the Church. And as little do I need repeat those other texts of Paul, Rom. 13. or what I said before upon them; which is, that they can have no kind of sense at all, but meer contradictory nonsense, if Paul did not mean by them certainly that the very Church and Church Superi∣ours were not exempt in temporal matters from the secular Princes, but subject to them in all such, even as to civil coercion by the material sword: and consequently if he did not mean, that the Church as such had no civil, corporal, or temporal coercive power, properly such, but only and meerly spiritual; or that of Ecclesiastical Censures only, & properly and strictly such.

Yet I will not upon this new occasion forbear to mind thee, good

Reader once more of that canon of Caelestinus III. cap. cum non ab homine. de judiciis. Which I have given also at large in my last Section immediatly before this present, and which onely is enough to justifie in all points my solution here of this first remaining objection. Caelestine there expresly declares that the ••hurch hath no power at all not even over the meerest Clerk but that which is purely spiritual by meer Church censures of sus∣pension, deposition, excommunication, degradation, and that after pro∣nounceing such censures she hath no more to do, but to implore the secular civil power. Cum Ecclesia non habeat ultra quid faciat, sayes the said Caele∣stine. Which being so, who sees not the vanity of this first remaining objection? Or who sees not that such a spiritual power in Paul,—Timo∣thy, and other Church Superiours can very well stand with their own sub∣jection, and with the subjection also of all their flock (whether disobedi∣ent or obedient) to the civil power of the civil Magistrat in all things and in such manner as is proper to the same civil Magistrat? or finally who sees not but that one may have a power to punish with one certain kind of punishment, and not with an other?

The second remaining objection is of S. Ambrose, or of his having pro∣ceeded judicially and authoritatively to condemn or free a certain Virgin votress, accused of whoredom, and of his having renewed the judgment of this fact upon an appeal to him, and even renewed it against a former judgment pronounced by Syagrius Bishop of Verona. Ambrosius l. 1. ep. 64. But the answer is as easy and obvious to this also: and is, that Ambrose sate in judgment on this crime, not as intending or pretending to punish it with any civil & corporal punishment, nor as pretending any Church power properly such to pronounce any sentence obliging to such punishments; but as intending onely a meer Ecclesiastical Episcopal and spiritual cogni∣zance, and in order onely to a meer spiritual punishment, correction and amendment of the accused, if she had been found guilty of the crime, that is, in order onely to a spiritual ejection and spiritual excommunication of her out of the Church, until she had by fruitfull and exemplar repentance merited to be readmitted again into the Church. Which appears hence also, that Ambrose, when he had heard all throughly, absolved this Virgin as unjustly accused, and excommunicated her accusers.

The third remaining objection is, that this doctrine of a supream coer∣cive power in supream temporal Princes to punish criminal Bishops, Priests, and other Clergiemen, is and was the doctrine of Marsilius de Padua and Ioannes de Ianduno, both of them condemned as hereticks, and this doctrine of theirs condemn'd likewise as an heresy, and condemn'd so expresly by Iohn the XXII. Pope of that name. A material objection truly, at least (or especially) amongst Roman Catholicks, were it as true as it is objected. For albeit the doctrine of the Pope's infallibility in his definitions made without the consent of the universal Church either by a general Council or otherwise, be very fallible; yet all Roman Catholicks have and ought to have that veneration and reverence to his decrees, or at least to such of his decrees as are intended or pretended to be decrees of Faith or definiti∣ons against heresies, as not to slight them easily; or even at all without very sufficient and very manifest cause, that is, without finding them evidently (after due examination) to contain manifest errours against the Faith de∣livered once and at first by the blessed Apostles, and since their time con∣tinued in the Church from age to age all along by and in the writings and preachings of the holy Fathers their undoubted Successors in the same Faith and delivery of it. And therefore (and albeit this objection hath not yet been made by any against me: and that not even Bellarmine him∣self urgeth any thing of or relating to it, more then that he barely tels in the beginning of his 28. chapter. l. 1. de Cleric. that over and above what many Hereticks teach of the subjection of all Clerks whatsoever both grea∣ter

and lesser to the temporal Magistrat, and of their subjection also de jure to such Magistrats, both in payment of tributes, and judgment of their causes, Marsilius de Padua and Ioannes de Ianduno (sayes he out of ••a••nes de Turrecremata l. 4. sum. de Ecclesias part, 2. c. 37.) particularly and singu∣larly taught, that not even Christ himself was free from the payment of tributes, and that what he did Mat. 17. when he payed the tribute money, id fe••iffe non voluntate sect necessitate, he did not because he would do so, but because he was bound to do so: albeit I say that not even Bellarmine him∣self sayes ought else of the doctrine of this Marsilius and Iandunus, not mentions the condemnation of them or it, nor frames such condemnation to an objection, nor any one els hath as yet against me or my doctrine he∣thertoo all along (in this Tract) of a coercive power supream in all cri∣minal causes of all Clerks whatsoever; yet forasmuch as it may be never∣theless reflected upon hereafter by some of the more learned, and by rea∣son that Turrecremata (and in the place above quoted out of him) sayes that Iohn the XXII. condemned this doctrine also in the said Marsilius and Iandunus as heresie, and them as hereticks for maintaining it (although he brings no further proof of such condemnation but his own bare assertion or simple relation, without produceing any Bull authentick or not authen∣tick:) therefore as I thought it worthy of my pains to search with some diligence after the ground of this saying of Turrecremata, so I have done, and so at last after much reading and tossing of books I have found what I desired, even a copy of the very original Bull, or of that very authentick original transsumpt of it sub plumbo which that very Pope himself Iohn the XXII. sent from Avenion (where it was dated, VII. Calend. Nou. Pontifi∣catus ejus an. 12. and where the Papal seat was the••) to England and to be publish'd in England, and which also remained some years since in Bi••li••∣theca Cottoniana the famous liberary of Sir Robert Cotton. Out of which copy, because it self at leingth would make at least four or five sheets of this print, I give here what is necessary, a brief extract (but a true and most exact one, and in the very words of that Bull it self, or of Iohn the XXII. himself speaking in it) of all the several and particular doctrines or assertions of the said Marsilius and Iandunus, so much decryed, and so much condemned by that Pope.

For after the ordinary beginning, Ioannes Episcopus servus servorum Dei &c, and the preamble immediatly following against heretical doctrines in general, and after an account given also in general, how it came to his hearing that duo viri nequam, perditionis filii, & maledictionis alumni, quorum unus Marsilium de Padua, & alter Ioannem de Ianduno se faciunt nom••••••i, quemdam librum composuerunt, multa falsa erronea & haeretica contino••••••, quod{que} ipsos errores & haereses in Ducatu & territorio Bavariae, Ludovico de Ba∣varia, excommunicato, Dei & Ecclesia fidei{que} Catholicae persecutore manifes•••• & hoste crudeli, suis{que} horrendis excessibus, & gravibus culpis exigentibus, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 si quod ei ex electione discordi, quae de ipso celebrata dicebatur, ad Regnum R••∣manum, vel Imperium competebat, justo privato judicio, eisdem Marsilio & I••••∣ni favente super ijs, ac etiam adhaerente, dogmatizare publicè praesumebont, &c, he presently descends to a particular enumeration of those errors and he∣resies (as he calls them) in that book of Marsilius and Iandunus, and to the declaration and condemnation of each in particular, disputing ••••••∣ever first and giving his own reasons at leingth against each apart, and in five distinct parragraphs, for so many are the propositions, before he con∣demns them in the end of the Bull.

And thus he begins and proceeds to enumerat and particularize them. In primis ita{que} isti viri reprobi dogmatizare praesumunt, quod illud quod 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Christo legitur in Evangelio B. Matthei, quod ipse soluit tributum Caesari, qu••••∣do staterem sumptum ex ore piscis, illis, qui petebant didrach ma, jussit da•••••••• fecit non condescensivé, & liberalitate suae pietatis, sed necessitate coactus.—

Secund•• isti filii Belial dogmatizare praesumunt quod B. Petrus Apostolus non plus authoritatis habuit, quam alii Apostoli habuerint, nec aliorum Apostolorum fuit caput. Item quod Christus nullum caput dimisit Ecclesiae, nec aliquem Vica∣rium suum fecit.—Tertio isti filii Belial asserere non verentur, quod ad Impe∣ratorem spectat Papam instituere & destituere ac punire.—Quarto dicunt isti vaniloqui imò falsiloqui, quod omnes sacerdotes, sive sit Papa, sive Archiepiscopus, vel sacerdos simplex, sunt ex institutione Christi auctoritatis & jurisdictionis aequalis; quod autem vnus plus habeat, hoc est secundum quod Imperator concedit vni, vel alii plus, & minus; & sicut concessit alicui, sic potest etiam illud revoca∣re. Quinto & ultimo, adhuc isti blasphemi dicunt, quod tota Ecclesia simul juncta nullum hominem punire possit punitione coactiva, nisi concedat hoc Imperator.

These onely being the assertions which, as extracted out of the writings of the said Marsilius and Jandunus, this Pope John the XXII. repeats again in the end of this Bull, and there very formally and sententially condemns, declaring them to be erroneous and heretical against the Catholick Faith and holy Scripture, and the said Authors also to be therefore not onely hereticks but Arch-hereticks, and (which was consequent) condemning likewise not onely the book it self (of Marsilius and Iandunus) out of which those articles were extracted, but all other writings whatsoever con∣taining the same articles; adding moreover yet and commanding for a perclose of all, that whoever and of what dignity, order, condition or state soever should thenceforth presume to defend or approve the said doctrine, he should by all others be accounted of as a heretick: I say that these onely five assertions which you have now read in the latin text and in their own proper tearms being those articles against which (and no other assertions at all) this thundering sentence of Iohn the XXII. was pronounced at Auenion an. 1327. (as Spondanus tels of the year, though he gives us no part of the Bull) X. Calend. Nou. (and on the VII. of the same Ca∣lends and year sent in an other Bull, bearing this last date, to the Bishop of Woster to be published in England) therefore we may conclude it will be an easy matter to ruine the above third remaining objection.

For passing by at present all the general advantages I might take of the doctrine and firm grounds of the doctrine which teacheth the fallibility of all sorts of Papal definitions, as such, or as meer Papal definitions, with∣out the joynt approbation of a general Council, or of the Church it self in general, be the Pope that defines whoever you please, so he be not or was not any of the immediat Apostolical or Evangelical Colledg of Christ our Lord: and passing by too all the specifical and particular advantages I might otherwise justly take against all the definitions of this very indivi∣dual Pope Iohn the XXII. as such, more then against any definitions of most other Popes; as being he that was himself so notoriously tainted with the heresy which holds none of the Blessed see God nor shall see him before the day of general judgment, that he had immediatly before his death pre∣pared a Bull to declare so much and define it as an Article of Faith, and in his death bed retracted his opinion in this particular no further then onely to submit it to the Church; and as being he that so contrary to both former and later definitions of former and later Popes, especially of Nicholaus Quartus in cap. exiit. de verb. signif. in 6. and Clemens V. in Cle∣mentina, Exiti de Paradiso, set out his three Extravagants, 1. Ad conditorem canonum. 2. Cum inter. and 3. Quia Quorumdam. whereof the first and last cannot be reconciled at all, (not even in Bellarmine's judgment, l. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 14.) to the said former definition of Nicholas the Fourth, or sayd later of Clement the Fift, however the said Iohn himself and in his said first and last Extravagant, and Ioannes de Turrecremata, l. 2. Sum. c. 112. labour mightily to reconcile them, but all in vain: and as being he moreover against whom Gulielmus Occ••mus that great Franciscan Doctor and Prince of the No••••inals writ his special book or Tract entituled, Contra

triginta duos errores Ioannis Papae XXII; and finally as being he or the Pope against whom, and from whom that famous general Representative of the whole Franciscan Order throughout the world, or their General Chapter at Perusium in Italy, held under their Minister General Michael de Cesenas, appealed (in their own name and in the name of their said whole Order) to a future General Council of the universal Church, charging him with strang errors and other miscarriages, if not crimes of the highest nature against all the State of Christendom: passing by also the special exceptions which may be offered against this very Bull in particular (whereof we treat now) above other Bulls, or more then against any other Bull, De∣cree, Declaration or Extravagant of this very Pope, viz, that being (as Spon∣danus writes) Marsilius de Padua, alias Marsilius Menandrinus, born in the City of Padua, and Ioannes Iandunus of Perusia, condemned in this Bull, were the first learned Councils in point of law or divinity or both whereof the Emperour Ludovicus de Bavaria made use, and the first learned Do∣ctors who appeared for him in writing to justifie his quarrel and his impe∣rial rights against so many thundering sentences of excommunication, de∣position, &c. pronounced by the same Pope Iohn XXII. and prosecuted by him even all his life after inexorably against this Emperour, and not onely by him but by his two next Successors Benedict the XII. and Clement the VI. even for 33. years continually, the whole extent of time wherein the said Lewis maugre all the opposition of the said three Popes one after an other vigorously defended the legality of his own election to and pos∣session ever after of the Empire until his death; and being it was in defence of such election and possession, and consequently of both the Electoral and Imperial powers independence from the Pope, as also in reproof of the usurpation of Popes upon the Empire, and particularly of the said Iohn the XXII. that Marsilius writ and publish'd his own book (an. 1324.) di∣rected to the said Lewis of Bavier, the subject of which book was, the Imperial and Papal jurisdiction, as the title was Defensor Pacis, and that Ian∣dunus also writ and publish'd an other of his own, de Potestate Ecclesiastica; therefore the above given Bull of Iohn XXII. and it in particular above any other Bull of his, (at least next to that other one or those moe, whereby he both excommunicated and deposed the said Emperour Lewis, and yet further declared his own plenitude of even supream temporal power to dispose of the Empire as he thought fit) is at least for some parts of it most rationally subject to a well grounded censure of its being though indirectly a new devise and an other product of that vehement and obstinat passion of his against the same Lewis's person, and even against all the Imperial power it self whatever person challeng'd or had it, and of its being the most truly effectual and most speciously Papal means he could fix upon to take away all support from Lewis and to justifie his own procedure against Lewis: passing by moreover that which concerns the legal or canonical both publication and reception of this Bull gene∣rally in Christendom or in any considerable parts of Christendom, or whe∣ther indeed either was (as he desired both should be) as much as through∣out France it self where he resided, albeit the King of France then was sometimes an enemy to Lewis, as at some other times he professed to be his friend, or as much as in England (notwithstanding his direction of it to the Bishop of Worster) being we know that Edward the 3d then of England was mostly in league with Lewis of Bavier against the French King and was moreover by the same Lewis created Vicar of the Empire in the tract of Low countries and Burgundy, and exercised also that self same Vicariat office, without any regard of the former Bulls of this Pope ex∣communicating deposing and depriving this Lewis; for we know very well, that in the Countries obeying that Emperour himself, there was not, nor could be any such material publication much less reception of any thing

or Bull, for such a part at least as struck, though indirectly, at the prero∣gatives and rights Imperial, I mean such as were truly such; as we know it is a maxime amongst Civilians and Canonists, that laws are then laws in∣deed quando moribus utentium comprobantur, when they are approved by reception and submission to them; and yet we know withal, that for such approbation or reception of, and submission to all and singular the definitions of this Bull so little can be said (albeit enough may be for some of them; and yet not for any of them as in this Bull) as it is apparant the Bull it self, or the tenor of it, hath been for some ages unknown, and even unknown to, and unseen by the very most learned and most curious, at least until about some fifty or threescore years since it was by meer chance lighted on in (Bib∣lotheca Cott••niana.) Sr. Robert Cottons Library: finally passing by altoge∣ther in silence, as not material, what Villanius, an Italian Author of this Popes time, and St. Antoninus too (the holy Archbishop of Florence) after him, and others after both, report of the election of this very Iohn to the Papacy, or how it was himself alone (being called, before his Papacy, Ia∣cobus de Ossa Episcopus Cardinalis Portuensis) that chose himself to be Pope, viz. the Colledge of Cardinals being at variance long, and compromising at last, and fixing on and electing him blindly whoever he should be that were or would be elected by him alone; whereupon he chose himself: as like∣wise, and as not very material, passing over wholly in silence, what Ciacconi∣us relates of his breach of oath, made to Neopoleon Ursinus the Archdea∣con, who was one of the Conclave, and was author to the rest of the Car∣dinals to leave the whole election to him, Iacobus de Ossa then, but after Iohn the XXII. for this oath was, that he would never mount either horse or mule but to go to Rome (whence his Predecessors Clement the V. had in a manner removed the Papal See by living all his life-time in France, where al••o this Iohn, or this Iames de Ossa, was chosen to be Pope) and yet he ne∣ver once attempted to go to Rome, though he lived a long and healthy life after in his Papacy; and therefore the said Neapoleon would never come at him as much as once more in his life, nor even after his death as much as go to his funeral ceremonies, not even notwithstanding that to appease or to win him from his rigid resolution this Pope had promoted two of his Fa∣mily and created them Cardinals, at two several promotions, Iohn Cajeta∣nus Vrsinus, and Matthew Vrsinus:

I say, that passing by at present all the both general and specifical and particular advantages I might any way take either of the doctrine of the fallibility of Popes in general, or of the fallibility of Iohn the XXII. Bulls in particular, or of this singular Bull of his, as to some part of it (at least in the sense of some Divines) against Marsilius and Iandunus, or of any thing else hitherto alledg'd in this last Paragraph; nay supposing or granting all, and each animadversion had been not only immaterial but false, and (which is consequent) admitting the certainty of the legal•• both emanation and publication, and general reception too of this Bul•• throughout all Christendome, and of every branch of it, and that even Iohn the XXII. himself had either been himself alone infallible in all his Definitions of any matter to be of Catholick Faith, and consequently of the matter of this Bull, or at least had been so fortunate as to have de∣fined nothing so by himself for such but what was formerly or concomitant∣ly acknowledged to be such, and even acknowledged so by the universal Church; (of the infallibility of which Church in matters of Faith no Ca∣tholick doubts) yet (I say again, that granting) all this,

My direct and positive answer to the above fourth remaining objection is very clear, and very full and satisfactory, viz. That although (without any peradventure) my doctrine (hitherto all along in this Tract) of a su∣pream civil coercive power in supream temporal Princes to punish crimi∣nal Bishops, Priests, and other Clergiemen whatsoever, dwelling and

offending within their dominions, is, or was part of the doctrine taught as well by Marsilius de Padua and Ioannes de Ianduno, as by thousands of the very best Roman Catholicks both in their time, and before and after their time: yet it is no part of that doctrine, or of those articles of Mar∣silius or Jandunus which is properly called theirs, or which as theirs John the XXII. condemned, or as much as touch'd at all: and there∣fore, that the objection, for so much of it as is to purpose, is absolutely false. Which to evict no less manifestly, we need no other proof then what is obvious to every judicious man by comparing together my doctrine hitherto, and the above five articles which Iohn the XXII. himself relates as the only proper doctrine of Marsilius and Iandunus, against which he takes exception, and pronounces condemnation.

For the first of those articles is, that that which is read of Christ in the Gospel of St. Matthew, that he paid tribute to Cesar, when he commanded the stater taken out of the fishes mouth to be given to the Collectors, he commanded and did so, non condescensivè & liberalitate suae pietatis, sed necessitate co∣actus, not out of his condescension, liberality and piety, but as constrained by necessity. But it is evident enough, the doctrine of a supream coercive po∣wer of all Clerks in temporal Princes, needs not, involves not the support of any such article as this first concerning Christ, whatever the sense of Mar∣silius or Iandunus therein was, good or bad, false or true: for the doctrine of such power in Princes speaks only of it in relation to Clerks, who are only men by nature; not of Christ, who was both God and man by nature, even as to all the perfections and power of as well the divine as hu∣mane nature. Be it therefore so that Marsilius and Iandunus mean'd here∣tically in this first article of theirs, that is, mean'd to say that Christ paid tribute not only or solely to avoid scandal, but also as bound by his own condition, and by the sole virtue of that tribute law in it self, and as ab∣stracting wholy from all cases of scandal; and be it so, as it was so, that Iohn the XXII. rightly condemn'd this heretical sense, or even be it so, that he justly condemned that first article as bearing this sense, and rightly judg'd it to beare this very sense and no other good sense at all: what hath this to do, or wherein doth this condemnation or judgment reflect on the doctrine which teacheth (not of Christ, but of the Disciples of Christ) and only teacheth that all men, who are only men and not Gods, or that all mortal and sinful men, whether Laymen or Clergiemen, who are members of any commonwealth, and not the heads thereof, do lye under a proper and strict obligation, not only of charity for the avoid∣ing of scandal, but of justice also, to be humbly subject in criminal causes to the supream coercive power of the supream politick head? Nay, and under an obligation of justice also even to pay him tri∣bute, if he himself exempt them not from tribute? (I mean, were it necessary for me to urge that of tribute; as it is not.) And only teach∣eth moreover, that such obligation of Justice ariseth from the very law divine it self both natural and positive, or, which is the same thing, is evidently commanded by reason and by revelation, by plain Scripture and Catholick Tradition, by the doctrine and practice of the Christian Bi∣shops themselves, and of even their very best Christian Princes and people all along from the beginning of Christianity until this present day? Cer∣tainly there is no man so blind as not to see, that that first article of Marsilius and Iandunus, or condemnation of it, hath nothing to do with this doctrine. Nor yet so blind as not to see; that my elucidation of this doctrine, all along, or any where in this Tract, hath nothing to do with that first Article, taken I mean in that sense wherein (as I have declared already) and in no other, the said Iohn the XXII. condemn'd it.

I confess I have before (that is, in the 239. page of this first Part) by oc∣casion too of speaking somewhat against Bellarmine, concerning the do∣ctrine of Marsilius and Iandunus, or that part of their doctrine which is in this first article) said,

That our Saviour himself by his non scandalize∣mus eos, in Mat. 17. sufficiently proves, that not even himself was alto∣gether to free, but that as the fulfiller of the old Law and Prophets, and as the giver of yet a more perfect law for the salvation of mortals, and as a pure man he was bound (videlicet, by the rules of not giving just cause of scandal and ruine to others) in that circumstance to pay the didrachma. And that Marsilius de Padua, or Ioannes de Ianduno, were not condem'd, nor censur'd at all for saying, that any pure man, who was not together both God and man (as our Saviour Christ was by the wonderful union of both natures) or that any other, besides our Lord, or even for saying that Peter himself was not exempt from the supream temporal power in temporal matters.

I have said so there, I confess. But what then? or doth it follow that by such answer to Bellarmine I maintain this first article of Marsilius and Iandunus, or that I fall under the condemnation of this first article? no∣thing less. This first article, is (as the Pope himself relates it) in these words, and only in these words: Illud quod de Christo legitur in Evangelio B. Matthei, quod ipse soluit tributum Caesari, quando staterem sumptum ex ore piscis, illis, qui petebant didrachma, jussit dari, hoc fecit non condescensive, & liberalitate suae pietatis, sed necessitate coactus. And the condemnation of this article, or the sense wherein this article was condemned, is that which imposes a constraint of necessity on our Saviour for paying the didrachma, and which denyes that he paid it not condescensively (that is, not out of his meer condescension) and out of the liberality of his piety. Now who sees not first, that I do not by any means deny it was out of his meer con∣descension to the infirmities of weak men, and of his liberality and piety that our Saviour commanded the didrachma to be paid? nay who sees not, that I do rather expresly enough say, it was meerly out of his liberality, piety and condescension he commanded it to be paid so for himself? Do not I say most expresly, or at least insinuat most sufficiently, that he paid it only to avoid scandal, and that he was bound by no other law to pay it, but by the law of love and charity, or which is the same thing (and to re∣peat here again my own former determinate words) that as the fulfiller of the old law and Prophets, and as the giver of a more perfect law for the salvation of mortals, and as a pure man he was bound (videlicet, by the rules of not giving just cause of scandal and ruine to others) in that circumstance to pay the di∣drachma? And secondly, and indeed consequently; who sees not, that in that discourse of mine (or whole passage quoted above out of my 239. page) I have not a word importing any constraint of necessity, or any either constraint, or necessity (for in effect they are both the same, or import the same thing) taking these words properly, or absolutely and simply, that is, without any dimunitive adjection, addition, restriction, or taking them not any way at all for that which is secundum quid tale, as they ought not to be taken; but for that which is simpliciter tale, as they ought to be taken, where other words or the subject restrains them not. For to aver such constraint or such necessity incumbent on our Saviour in paying the di∣drachma, were as much as to aver that either he had an inward constraint or necessity on his will or soul for want of that inward essential indifferen∣cy which makes the will and soul free in it self inwardly to volitions and nollitions; or had an outward compulsion or coaction of his executive faculty for want of outward means (as for example, twelve legions of An∣gels at his command) to free him from the power of those that would force him to payment whether he would or no, if he had denyed it; or certainly had the constraint or necessity of an obligation or tye of justice and obedience on him, arising from the tribute law it self, obliging

him as other men under the guilt of sin and other penalties of such law to pay tribute. Which last kind of necessity is that which the arguments of Iohn the XXII. against the first article of Marsilius do seem to fasten upon it, and condemns in it, and the whole article for seeming to say, that out of such necessity our Saviour paid the didrachma. But whether so or no, I am not concern'd: because I remove all three kinds of necessity from our Saviour, and all other kinds too of necessity (if there be any other) simply such. For though I say in the beginning of the said passage, page 239. that our Saviour himself by his own non scandalizemus eos, Mat 17. sufficiently proves, that not even himself was altogether so free, &c, but that he was bound &c, and consequently say that our Saviour wanted some kind of freedom, and therefore say also by consequence, that he lay under some constraint and some necessity, and some bond, tye, or obligation to pay that di∣drachma; yet is it not consequent, that, I say, he wanted that freedom, or any such freedom, which is simply such, or lay under any constrrint or ne∣cessity, which are simply such, or even under any bond, tye, or obligation, at least of justice simply such, or which might oblige him under sin, or the penalty of sin, or by vertue of the tribute law it self to pay any tribute; for the rest of my discourse most evidently shews I mean thereby no other constraint, necessity or obligation but such as are secundum quid, or dimi∣nutively such, even such as Iohn the XXII. himself allows, even such as our Saviour himself means by saying ut non scandalizemus eos, da &c. and even such finally as arise only from the law of love, and of that divine love which told him it was not fitting for him to give cause of scandal to the weak ones by his own refusal or denial or failer, and which made him at last to give his life for them that took it from him. And therefore also 'tis not consequent, that by any thing or word said in that passage of mine page 239, I joyn or concur with Marsilius or Jandunus in this first article of theirs, not even as much as in the words, much less in the sense of that article condemn'd by Pope Iohn the XXII. Besides it is clear enough, that for the defence of my thesis, against Bellarmine's argument grounded by him on the texts of Matthew Mat. 17. Ergo liberi sunt filii, and, ut n•••• scandalizemus eos, &c. I needed not give, as I did not give (in my LXIII. Section, page 150, 151, 153. where I handled these words of our Saviour at large and of purpose) any such answer; but solved the argument fairly and clearly (there) without any such, or as much as reflecting on any such answer, that is on any such necessity, or any such obligation of justice, or obedience due, arising from the tribute law or other command of presumed superiour Powers. And it is no less clear, that I was not in my 239. page, nor am here now at present, nor will be elsewhere any fur∣ther concern'd for Marsilius or Jandunus then they held close to the general thesis only, that is, to the general doctrine only of the Catholick Church: and that whereever they swerve from that, I do from them, and where that Church condemns them, I also condemn them, nay, and that I am content likewise to condemn them where ever Iohn the XXII. himself alone, or in this Bull of his, condemns them; and yet hold still constantly to my thesis.

For, and forasmuch as concerns their second complex article, viz. Quod B. Petrus Apostolus non plus authoritatis habuit quam alii Apostoli ha∣buerint, nec aliorum Apostolorum fuit caput. Item quod Christus nullum ca∣put dimisit Ecclesiae, nec aliquem Vicarium suum fecit, 'tis plain it concerns not our present controversie of the exemption of Clergiemen, or that even of the very Apostles themselves, or that even sayl also of S. Peter him∣sel•• from the temporal powers, and in temporal matters. For that Peter should have had, that is, actually and immediatly from Christ himself had more authority then the other Apostles had, and that he should have been made or was actually made the head of them all, and that Christ should have or had left some one Head to the Church, and made & left some one

his own Vicar (which is the contradictory of this second Article of Marsilius and Iandunus) argues nothing at all for the exemption from temporal Princes in temporal matters of as much as Peter himself, or of him that had that greater authority, or of that head, or of that Vicar. Because the doctrine of the Catholick Church teacheth us, that that greater au∣thority of Peter, whatever it was, and that Headship of his over the rest of the Apostles, and that one Headship, and one Vicarship under Christ in the Church and over the Church, was meerly and purely spiritual: and be∣cause not only that very doctrine, but reason also and experience tells us, that such greater authority spiritual, and even such one Headship and one Vicarship spiritual consist well very with a lesser authority temporal in the same Head or Vicar, and even with none such at all in Him, and yet with ano∣ther Headship and another Vicarship temporal in another person, and with a full entire subjection in temporal matters to this other person or other head, and other Vicar, whose authority and power is only and purely tem∣poral: as on the other side the temporal Headship or temporal Vicarship consists very well with its own subjection in spiritual matters to that Head∣ship and Vicarship which is only spiritual. And more or other then what is here said, Iohn the XXII. arguments in his discourse against this second Article of Marsilius and Iandunus, do not conclude, or indeed as much as pretend to: being all his reasons here are only and wholly bent against a parity of power in the Apostles amongst themselves without any exception of Peter, or preheminence given to him over them. How strong, or how weak his reasons are, I need not care, at least for the present: being that for the present I allow all in general both his definitions and reasons in this Bull, and in particular what he reasons and defines against this second Ar∣ticle, as not as much as in the least touching me or my thesis of the sub∣jection of all Clergiem (whether Apostles or not Apostles, and even of the very spiritual Prince of the Apostles, Peter himself) in temporal mat∣ters, to the supream temporal respective Princes within whose dominions they live.

For likewise as for the third of those Articles, or this, Quod ad Impera∣torem spectat Papam instituere & destituere, ac punire, as the said Iohn the XXII. relates it in the beginning of his Bull; or this other form of it, Quod ad Imperatorem spectat Papam corrigere & punire, ac instituere, & destituere, 'tis clear enough it may be allowed, as I also do allow it to be false, erroneous and heretical for one part, and in one sense, or even for both parts in a cer∣tain sense (whatever is in the mean while thought of the other part, or even of either in another different sense) and yet my grand Thesis, and all my doctrine hitherto, even where it descends, or rather ascends to the Pope himself, be untouch'd by any such censure. That one part I allow to be so is that which sayes, it belongs to the Emperour to institute and destitute the Pope: and the sense wherein I allow this part to be so, or to be false, erro∣neous and heretical, is that whereby any should conceive that the Empe∣ror could at any time, and by his own proper imperial authority as such, ei∣ther give the spiritual power of the Papacy, or take it away from any, or should conceive, that after the Church had legally revoked that power she once or twice gave Emperours to chose or elect for ever all Popes, nay and all other Bishops too of the Western Church, yet the Emperour could in∣stitute the Pope. And the sense also wherein I condemn that Article for both parts, is that which any should conceive or express by saying in other significant words, that both the spiritual institution and spiritual destituti∣on, and the spiritual correction and spiritual punition of the Pope, or the punition of him by spiritual wayes, or in a spiritual manner, or at all by the spiritual sword, belongs to the Emperour as such, or as only Emperour without any delegation or commission from the Church. And the sense moreover wherein I condemn that Article as at least false, is that whereby

any might conceive, that not only before the Popes were legally invested in those temporal principalities which they now enjoy, and did enjoy, or at least pretended to enjoy as supream temporal Princes in the time, or a little before and after the time of Ioannes XXII. but also after they were, and are legally invested and possessed of a supream temporal independent Sove∣raignty (if, I mean, they be so re vera at all (which is not my business here to determine, did I know well how to determine it) it belong'd or belongs to the Emperour to give as much as the sole Temporals of the Papacy, or take them away from the Pope, or as much as to correct or punish him, in any other though meer temporal, civil or corporal way of coercion by the civil or material sword. Now 'tis clear enough, that neither my Thesis in general, concerning the subjection of all Clergiemen whatsoever to their own respective civil Princes, nor my particular deduction from it concern∣ing the very Popes themselves, and their subjection likewise to the Ro∣man Emperors before these Roman Emperours were legally devested of the real Soveraingty of Rome, are touch't by the condemnation of either part or both parts together in any such sense of them or of either of them as I have given hitherto. And it is no less clear to me, that the reasons of Iohn the XXII. against this third Article drives at no condemnation of it in any other sense. For amongst these reasons, one is the forged donation of Con∣stantine the Great, cap. Constantinus, dist. 96. And another is composed of a plain denyal, or plainly false exposition of cap. Adrianus xxii. Dist. xliii. and cap. In Synod. ead. Distinc. and of a posterior revocation by the Popes themselves of the priviledge granted to Emperours in those Canons, nay, and of a renunciation made of that priviledge by later Emperours also. So that if we gather the sense wherein Iohn the XXII. censured this third Ar∣ticle, even for either of both parts, joyntly or severally, as we may and ought to gather it, from the reasons which he alledges against it, we must evidently conclude his censure to have related only to those times wherein the Pope pretended the very temporal and legal supream independent au∣thority or Soveraignty of the City of Rome, and of some other Principali∣ties, and to those times also which preceded such priviledge given to the Emperours, or followed the revocation and renunciation of such priviledge; not to the time during which it held. But it is apparent enough, that my doctrine concerning the Popes subjection to the supream civil coercive po∣wer of the Roman Emperours had relation to those other times only where∣in the Popes without any peradventure most expresly confessed themselves, and to those moreover wherein they should so (according to the truth of things) confess themselves, to be de facto and de jure subject in all temporals to the Roman Emperours. And therefore is is likewise ap∣parent enough that I am no way concern'd in this Article of Marsilius and Iandunus, or in the condemnation of it. Much less am I concern'd how false or how true the Popes allegations, or how weak and unconcluding his reasons are which he makes against it, and which are the only motives (as he pretends) of his definitions against it: for the very chief Assertors and Defenders of the infallibility of pure Papal Definitions in matters of Faith confess that the reasons alledged by Popes in their definitive Busts are no part of the definition it self, nor as such have any kind of infallibility, not tye any o••her to approve of them further then their own proper native evi∣dence works the understanding to an assent. And yet withal (as I said be∣fore) so I now say again, that Iohn the XXII's reasons against this third Article of Marsilius and Iandunus prove sufficiently, that the doctrine of a supream civil coercive power, as warranted by the law divine both natural and positive, to be in Emperours or lawful Kings of Rome to coerce, judge and punish the very Pope himself in criminal causes, when the Pope was no supream temporal Prince, or when, or if at any time hereafter he shall cease to be such, or if even at present he be not such, and that he live

within such Emperour's or Kings dominions (for this is it and all it I say in the exposition of my general Thesis in relation to the Pope) is no way concern'd in the condemnation pronounced by the same Iohn the XXII. against the same third Article: because not in the sense wherein his said reasons prove he condemn'd this Article.

But forasmuch as it may be of some good use to the Reader, not onely for a more full understanding of what I treat here, but in other parts of this work, to see at leingth both that no less famous then forged canon or chapter, Constantinus. dist. 96 (noted with a Palea in Gratian himself) and those other true canons or true Chapters, Hadrianus, and In Synodo, dist. LXIII. (for as true and undoubted these two are by all men quoted and accounted) I will not loose this occasion to give so here all three con∣sequently. If you think your labour lost in perusing them, (and you will not, if you be not extreamly uncurious) you may skip over them to my observations on the 4. and 5. article of Morfilius.

Ex Gratiano. distinct. XCVI. cap. Constantinus.

Constantinus Imperator quarta die sui baptismi privilegium Romanae Ecclesiae Pontifici contulit, ut in toto orbe Romano Sacerdotes ita hunc caput habeant, sicut judices Regem. In eo privilegio ita inter caetera legitur. Utile judicavimus unà cum omnibus Satrapis nostris, & universo Senatu optimatibus{que} meis, etiam & cuncto populo Romanae gloriae imperio subiacenti, ut sicut beatus Petrus in terris vicarius filii dei esse videtur constitutus, ita & Pontifices, qui ipsius Principis Apostolorum gerunt vices, principatus potestatem amplius, quam terrena imperia∣lis nostrae Serenitatis mansuetudo habere videtur, concessam à nobis, no∣stro{que} imperio obtineant, eligentes nobis ipsum principem Apostolorum, vel ejus vicarios firmos apud deum esse Patronos. Et sicut nostram terrenam imperialem potentiam, sic ejus Sacrosanctam Romanam Ec∣cle••iam decrevimus veneranter honorari, & amplius quàm nostrum im∣perium, & terrenum thronum, sedem Sacratissimam B. Petri gloriosé exaltari: tribuentes ei potestatem, & gloriae dignitatem, atque vigorem, & honorificentiam imperialem. Atque decernentes sancimus ut principa∣tum teneat tam super quatuor praecipuas sedes, Alexandrinam, Antioche∣nam, Hierosolymitanam, Constantinopolitanam, quam etiam super om∣nes in universo orbe terrarum Ecclesias Dei: & Pontifex, qui pro tempore ipsius Sacro Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae extiterit, celfior & prin∣ceps cunctis sacerdotibus totius mundi existat, & ejus indicio, quae∣que ad cultum Dei, vel fidei Christianorum stabilitatem procuranda fuerint, disponantur. & infra. Ecclesiis beatorum Apostolorum Petri & Pauli pro continuatione luminariorum possessionum praedia contu∣limus, & rebus diversis eas ditavimus, & per nostram imperialem jus∣sionem sacram tam in Oriente, quàm in occidente, vel etiam Septentri∣onali, & meridiana plaga, videlicet in Iudaea, Graecia, Asia, Thracia & Italia, vel diversis insulis nostra largitate ei concessimus, ea prorsus ratione, ut per manus beatissimi Patris nostri Sylvestri Summi Pontifi∣cis successorumque eius omnia disponantur. & infra. Beato Sylvestro Patri nostro Summo Pontifici, & universalis vrbis Romae Papae & omni∣bus ejus successoribus Pontificibus, qui usque in finem mundi in sede beati Petri erunt sessuri, de praesenti contradimus palatium imperii nostri Lateranense, deinde diadema, videlicet coronam capitis nostri, simulque phrygium, nec non & superhumerale, videlicet lorum, quod imperiale circumdare assolet collum: verum etiam & chlamydem pur∣puream, atque tunicam coccineam, & omnia imperialia indumenta, sed & dignitatem imperialium praefidentium equitum,: conferentes etiam & imperialia sceptra, simulque cuncta signa, atque blanda, & di∣versa

ornamenta imperialia, & omnem processionem imperialis culmi∣nis & gloriam potestatis nostrae. Viris autem Reverendissimis Clericis in diversis ordinibus eidem Sacro Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae servientibus illud culmen, singularitate, potentia, & praecellentia habere sancimus, cujus amplissimus noster Senatus videtur gloria dornari, id est, patri∣tios, atque, Consules effici, nec non & caeteris dignitatibus imperi∣alibus eos promulgamus decorari. Et sicut imperialis militia ornatur; & ita clerum Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae ornari decernimus. Et quomad∣modum imperialis potentia officiis diversis, Cubiculariorum nempe, & ostiariorum, atque omnium excubitorum ornatur, ita & Sanctam Romanam Ecclesiam decorari volumus. Et ut amplissimè) Pontificale decus praefulgeat, decernimus & hoc, Clericorum ejusdem Sanctae Ro∣manae Ecclesiae manipulis & linteaminibus, id est candidissimo colore decorari equos ita & equitare, & sicut noster Senatus calceamentis uti∣tur cum vdonibus, id est, candido linteamine illustratis, sic vtantus & clerici, ut sicut caelestia, ita terrena ad laudem Dei decorentur. Prae omnibus autem licentiam tribuimus ipsi Sanctissimo Patri nostro Syl∣vestro, & Successoribus ejus ex nostro indicto, & ut quem placatus, proprio consilio clericare voluerit, & in religiosorum numero cleri∣corum connumerare, nullus ex omnibus praesumat superbe agere. De∣crevimus itaque & hoc, ut ipse & Successores ejus diademate, videlicet Corona, quam ex capite nostro illi concessimus, ex auro purissimo, & gemmis pretiosis uti debeant, & in capite ad laudem Dei pro honore B. Petri gestare. Ipse verò beatissimus Papa, quia super coronam cle∣ricatus, quam gerit ad gloriam B. Petri, omnino ipsa ex auro non est passus uti corona, nos phrygium candido nitore splendidum resurectio∣nem Dominicam designans, ejus sacratissimo vertici manibus nostris impositimus, & tenentes fraenum equi ipsius pro reverentia B. Petri, stratoris officium illi exhibitimus, Statuentes eodem phrygio omnes ejus Successores singulariter uti in processionibus ad imitationem im∣perii nostri. Unde ut Pontificalis apex non vilescat, sed magis quam terreni imperii dignitas, gloria & potentia decoretur, ecce tam palati∣um nostrum, ut praedictum est, quam Romanam urbem, & omnes Italiae, seu Occidentalium regionum provincias, loca, & civitates, praefato beatissimo Pontifici nostro Sylvestro vniversali Papae contradimus, atque relinquimus: & ab eo, & à Successoribus eius per hanc divalem no∣stram, & pragmaticum constitutum decernimus disponenda, at{que} iuri Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae concedimus permansuta. Vnde congruum perspeximus nostrum imperium, & regni potestatem in Orientalibus transferri regionibus, & in Bizantiae provinciae optimo loco, nomini nostro civitatem aedificari, & nostrum illio constitui imperium, quoni∣am ubi principatus Sacerdotum, & Christianae religionis caput ab im∣peratore caelesti constitutum est, iustum non est, ut illic Imperator ter∣renus habeat potestatem. Haec vero omnia, quod per hanc nostram imperialem Sacram, & per alia divalia decreta statuimus, atque confir∣mavimus, usque in finem mundi illibata, & inconcussa permanere de∣cernimus. Vnde coram Deo vivo, qui nos regnare praecepit, & coram terrihili ejus judicio obtestamur per hoc nostrum imperiale constitutum omnes nostros Successores Imperatores, vel cunctos optimates, Satra∣pas etiam, amplissimum Senatum, & universum populum in toto orbe terratum, nunc & in posterum, cunctis retro temporibus imperio nostro subiacentem, nulli eorum quoquomodo licere haec aut infringere, aut in quoquam conuellere. Si quis autem, quod non credimus, in hoc temerator, aut contemptor extiterit, aeternis condemnationibus subia∣ceat innodatus, & Sanctos Dei, Principes Apostolorum Petrum & Pau∣lum sibi in praesenti, & in futura vita sentiat contrarios; atque in in∣ferno inferiori concrematus, cum Diabolo, & omnibus deficiat impiis.

Hujus vero imperialis decret nostra paginam proprius manibus ••obo∣rantes, super venerandum Corpus B. Petri Principis Apostolorum po∣suimus. Datum Romae. 3. Calend. Aprilis, Domino nostro Flavio Constantino Augusto quater, & Gallicano. V. C. Coss.

Item ex historia Ecclesiastica: ut habetur distinctione 63. Cap. Hadrianus.

Hadrianus Papa Romam venire Carolum Regem ad defendendas res Ecclesiae postulavit. Carolus verò Romam veniens, Papiam obsedit: ibi{que} relicto exercitu in Sancta Resurectione ab Hadriano Papa Romae honorificè susceptus est. Post Sanctam verò Resurectionem reversus Papiam, cepit defiderium regem: deinde Romam reversus constituit ibi Synodum cum Hadriano Papa in Patriarchio Lateranensi, in Ecclesia Sancti Salvatoris: quae Synodus celebrata est à CLIII. Episcopis reli∣giosis, & Abbatibus. Hadrianus autem Papa cum universa Synodo tra∣diderunt Carolo jus, & potestatem eligendi Pontificem, & ordinandi Apostolicam sedem, dignitatem quo{que} patriciatus eis concesserunt. In super Archiepiscopos, & Episcopos per singulas provincias ab eo investi∣turam accipere diffinivit: & ut, nisi à Rege laudetur, & investiatur, Episcopus à nemine consecretur: & quicumque contra hoc decretum ageret, anathematis vinculo eum innodavit, & nisi resipisceret, bona ejus publicari praecepit.

Item Leo Papa, ut habetur distinct. 63. cap. In Synodo.

In Synodo Congregata Romae in Ecclesia Sancti Salvatoris. Ad ex∣emplum B. Hadriani Apostolicae sedis antistitis, qui domino Carolo victoriosissimo regi Francorum, & Longobardorum, Patriciatus digni∣tatem, ac ordinationem Apostolicae sedis, & investituram Episcoporum concessit: ego quo{que} Leo Episcopus, servus servorum Dei, cum toto clero ac Romano populo constituimus, & confirmanus, et corrobora∣mus, et per nostram apostolicam auctoritatem concedimus, at{que} largimur domino Othoni, primo regi Tentonicorum ejus{que} Successoribus hujus regni Italiae, in perpetuum facultatem eligendi Successorem, at{que} summae sedis Apostolicae Pontificem ordinandi, ac per hoc Archiepiscopos seu Episcopos, ut ipsi ab eo investituram accipiant, et consecrationem unde debent: exceptis his, quos Imperator Pontificibus, et Archiepiscopis concessit: et ut nemo deinceps cujus{que} dignitatis, vel religiositatis eli∣gendi vel patricium, vel Pontificem summae sedis Apostolicae, aut quem∣cum{que} Episcopum ordinandi habeat facultatem abs{que} consensu ipsius Imperatoris (quod tamen fiat abs{que} omni pecunia) et ut ipse sic Patri∣cius et Rex. Quod si à clero, et populo, quis eligatur Episcopus, nisi à supradicto Rege laudetur et investiatur, non consecretur. Si quis con∣tra hanc regulam, et Apostolicam autoritatem aliquid molietur, hunc excommunicationi subiacere decernimus: et nisi resipuer it, irrevocabi∣li exilio puniri, vel ultimis suppliciis affici.

Now to consider the fourth Article of Marfilius and Iandunus, viz. this, Omnes sarcerdotes, sive sit Papa, five Archiepiscopus, sive sacerdos simplex, sunt ex institutione Christi authoritatis & jurisdictionis aequalis; quod autem unus plus alio habeat, hoc est secundum quod Imperator concedit uni, vel alii plus, & minus; & sicut concessit alicui, sic potest illud etiam revocare; albeit I confess this Article, and as to all the several parts of it be most justly censurable as false and erroneous in these tearms wherein this Pope Iohn the XXII. relates it: for whether Christ himself immediatly from his own mouth instituted this diversity of degrees amongst Priests, that one should be a simple Priest only, another should be an Episcopal Priest, a third an Archbishop, a fourth

a Primat, a fifth a Patriarch, and the sixt the chief of all Patriarchs, whom we now call the Pope, or whether Christ did not so immediatly by his own mouth institute any such or other kind of diversity of degrees, inferiour and superiour among Priests, but only mediatly by the mouths or decrees of his Apostles, or even only by the mouths, decrees, or mutual consent of the Priests them selves, who immediatly or mediatly after the dayes of the Apostles did govern the several Churches; yet it is plain that by the insti∣tution of Christ they are not after such decree made (who ever made it) of equal authority or jurisdiction; because it is plain, that (for any thing we read) Christ our Lord made no such particular institution, or such particular provision for parity or equality of jurisdiction amongst them, not even, I mean, in case the diversity of degrees were made by the Priests themselves, and not by Christ himself immediatly: as it is too plain, that if the immediat institution of this diversity of decrees be attributed to him, the immediat institution also of a disparity or inequality of jurisdicti∣on amongst them must be likewise attributed to him: and therefore the first part of this fourth Article which sayes the contrary, and if it do say the contrary, must be most justly censurable as false and erroneous, and as renewing the old Heresie of Aerius, and as deriving or handing it down to Calvin and his godly gang of Presbyterians; because we know that by the general and even immediat institution of Christ himself, the first Apo∣stolical Priests, and all their lawful successors in the priestly function (both immediat and mediate) until the consummation of the world, were, and are, and shall be impowered to govern the Church, and make laws of disci∣pline for the better government of it, and consequently to make laws for the diversity of degrees, of inferiours and superiours, and by consequence also for a disparity and inequality of jurisdiction; and because we know he said immediatly by his own mouth, Qui vos audit me audit, and Quaecun∣que alligaveritis super terram erunt alligata in coelo, and immediatly by the mouth of his Apostle, Obedite Praepositis vestris & subiacete eis, ipsi enim per∣vigilant quasi rationem pro animabus vestris reddituri: and therefore also the second part of this same fourth Article, for as much as it sayes that That one Priest hath more authority or jurisdiction purely spiritual then another Priest, it is meerly and only from the imperial power as such, that gives more to one and less to another of such spiritual power, if this be it it sayes) is no less just∣ly censurable as false, erroneous and heretical; as is consequently the third and last part for the supposition it also involves of such a spiritual power, greater and lesser, given so by the Emperour to this and that Priest: albeit, I say, my judgment of this fourth Article, and of all the several parts of it be such, and consequently be, in all respects, conformable to the censure of Iohn the XXII of it in this Bull; yet I say withal, what every one sees in this Article or condemnation of it, there is not a word in it reflecting either directly or indirectly, or at all touching the doctrine of a supream civil co∣ercive power in secular Princes to judge the criminal causes, and punish by secular means the crimes of all Clerks whatsoever living within their Do∣minions, or such Clerks as are not themselves also (for the time) supream temporal Princes, as well as Clerks, Priests, Bishops, Archbishops, Primats, Patriarchs or Popes. For the disparity or inequality of spiritual authority and jurisdiction betwixt them, and the several degrees of superiority and inferiority in such spiritual power, by whomsoever immediatly instituted, hinders not their parity and equality of temporal subjection to the secular Prince, and to his coercive power in temporal matters and criminal causes, all alike all from from the Pope himself to the most inferiour Clerk in the Church, without any other distinction in such temporal subjection and con∣sequents of it, but what the supream Prince himself and his own proper civil laws do make; being that by the law of God, declared by the Apostle, ad Rom. 13. & for as much as concerns, or depends only of it, the precept is in general,

as well to the Pope as to the meanest Acolyt, Omnis anima potentatibus sub∣limioribus subdita sit. Even as the disparity or inequality of temporal au∣thority and civil jurisdiction between the temporal estates of a Kingdom, and the civil diversity of degrees of superiority amongst them, by whom∣soever instituted, hinder not their parity and equality, and unity also of subjection (in meer spiritual things) to the spiritual Prince or Bishop, and to his supream spiritual corrective power, as purely such, and where∣in it is purely such. Whereby you may clearly see I am not any way con∣cern'd in John the XXII's. condemnation of this fourth Article; though I also condemn'd it in his sense, and in the very words too he gives it us, yea notwithstanding I do not approve at all either his allegations or suppositi∣tions, or the strength of his arguments where he disputes against it.

And for the last article of all the five, which only remains yet unconsi∣dered, and is this, Quod tota Ecclesia simul juncta nullum hominem punire possit punitione coactiva, nisi concedat hoc Imperator (as it is related in the beginning of the said Bull) or this other form of it (as in the repetition about the end of the same Bull, where 'tis censured) Quod Papa, vel tota Ecclesia simul sumpta nullum hominem quantumcunque sceleratum, potest punire punitione coactiva, nisi Imperator daret eis authoritatem, I say the very same I did of all the rest. Although I confess this Article at first appearance seems to come nearest home of all the five to that part of my doctrine, or suppositions, explications, answers, (in so many passages hitherto, and hereafter in some other parts of this Book) where I say, the Church as a Church hath neither sword nor territory, nor any civil or corporal force, coercion or penalty to be inflicted by her self immediatly, or, even by her, mediatly: that is, executed indeed immediatly by any other, but by vertue only of her authority derived to him, or injunction laid upon him. For this Article seems to say the very same thing, in asmuch as it sayes, that neither Pope, nor universal Church, joyn'd together in one, can punish any person, how wicked soever, with a coactive punishment, unless the Emperour give them authority to do so. Notwithstanding both which, it will be facil enough to shew out of this very Bull, and out of a great part of Iohn the XXII's own proper discourse therein against this fifth Article in specie, that he would understand a quite other thing by coactive punishment here, then I do any where; & consequently, it will be also facil enough to shew, that this Article of Marsilius and Iandunus taken so, or in any bad or heretical sense, and my said doctrine which denyes coactive punition, or civil and corporal punishments to the Church as a Church, or to be inflicted by her, and by virtue of her own proper native authority, are in the reality of things as wide from one another as from East to West; albeit according to the equivocation, or rather clear mistake of these two words punitione coacti∣va, or of this one single word coactive, or of its proper strict signification, they may seem the same thing, but to him only that is willing to be de∣ceived, or to such a one as Iohn the XXII. himself, either censuring this fift Article or disputing against it, or at least in some part of his disputes against it in this Bull, seems to be.

For immediatly after this learned Pope had given the said fift Article, and even in this form, Adbuc isti blasphemi dicunt, quod tota Ecclesia simul juncta nullum hominem puni••e possit punitione coactiva, nisi concedat hoc Impe∣rator, he proceeds immediatly to disprove it thus. Quod uti{que} doctrinae Evangelicae noscitur obviare. Constat enim quod à Christo, Petro, & in persona Petri Ecclesiae potestas coactiva concessa, vel saltim promissa extitit, quae quidem promissio fuit postea adimpleta cum Simoni Christus dixit, quodcum{que} ligaueris super terram &c. Ligantur enim non solum voluntarii sed inuiti. Adhuc con∣stat, sicut ibi legitur in Mattheo, quod si aliquis damnum alii indebite dederit, ille{que} ad mandatum Ecclesiae noluerit emendare, quod Ecclesia per potestatem à Christo sibi concessam, ipsum ad hoc per excommunicationis sententiam compellere

potest; quae quidem potestas est utique coactiva. Circa quod est advertendum, quod cum excommunicatio major, nedum excommunicatum à perceptione sacra∣ment••rum removeat, sed etiam à communione fidelium ipsum excommunicatum excludit, quod corporalis etiam à Christo coactio Ecclesiae est permissa; cum eti∣am secundum Imperiales leges gravius reputetur inter homines conversari, ipso∣rumque privari suffragio, quam ab hominibus separari. Ex quo sequitur pote∣statem c••activam non ab Imperatore terreno, sed ab ipso Christo fuisse originali∣ter Ecclesiam consequutam.

Where it is clear enough out of all his arguments here, that by coacti∣on, punition, and coactive power to punish so, or to use such coaction, and which he attibutes to the Church, as a Church, and as given her originally by Christ, he understands no other kind of coaction, coactive punishment, or coactive power, but that which is only and purely spiritual: because none other but that which is of excommunication, or to punish by excom¦munication, and by that kind of excommunication too which is certainly, properly and purely Evangelical, or grounded in the Gospel. And con∣sequently it is clear enough, that albeit this kind of coaction be called by him here a corporal coaction also: yet, as I must say, that he somewhat im∣properly calls it so, or corporal coaction, or even indeed coaction at all: be∣ing there is no corporal force used, or which may be used (by the judge that pronounceth it) to put it in execution, I mean which may be used by vertue of the same spiritual Church-power, out of which, or by vertue of which it was pronounced: so I must say, that whether he call it so im∣properly or no, or whether or no he may not properly call it both coaction and corporal coaction too (for asmuch as it brings some kind of necessity on the excommunicated to submit, and that this necessity relates also in some degree to the very corps or body of the excommunicated, by reason that all others do shun even his corporal communion, company or conversation, excepting only such as are by some superiour tye ••ound, and in such wordly matters only wherein they are bound to observe or converse with him:) however this of proper or improper wording be, it is most cer∣tain, that I allow the very self same thing all along in my writings every where, the very self same power of correction to the Pope and Church, and the very self same actual coercion and punition, which Iohn the XXII. vindicates here to both by his arguments, and which he calls here not only coactive power, and coaction, but also corporal coaction, saying in plain terms, Q••ud corporalis etiam à Christo coactio Ecclesiae sit pe••missa.

The difference is, that I call it spiritual only, because inflicted or pronoun∣ced only by a meer spiritual power, which hath no use, nor as such ca•• have any use at all of corporal force, as for example, by taking the cri∣minal by the neck, clapping him to the Jayl or Stocks, calling him into banishment, or putting him to death, or asmuch as to any other corporal torment whatsoever, against his own will: and that besides I must call it spiritual, because it per se directly regards and falls on the spirit, as it ought to be intended only for the good of the spirit: and he calls it also corporal for the reason presently above given in the parenthesis, or perhaps in imitation of St. Pauls manner of speaking and meaning, 1 Cor. 5.5. tradere hujusmodi Sathanae in interitum carnis, ut spiritus salvus fir in dit Do∣mini nostri Iesu Christi, as some do understand Paul there to speak of ex∣communication, and of the effects of it by the ordinary power of the Church; albeit others, as Chrysostome, ibid. hom. 15. St. Augustine, cont. ep. Parmon. l. 3. c. 1. and St. Ambrose, de Paenit. l. 1. c. 17. understand him there, far more probably, to speak not of excommunication at all, not of the ordinary power of the Church, but of a miraculous power, and mi∣raculous punishment of the incestuous Corinthian of whom he speaks, as meaning that he, by the operation of such miraculous power should be corporally delivered to Sathan, and both miraculously and corporally pos∣sessed

and scourged by Sathan in this world, and by some strange corpo∣ral infirmity. Datus est Sathanae tamquam paedagogo, sayes Chrysostome, ut eum flagellet malo ulcere, aut morbo alio. Even as Iob was, though not for any sin: and as Paul himself was buffeted by Sathan, 1 Cor. 14. but for his tryal only, and for his humiliation.

But however this of the reason why this Pope Iohn the XXII. call'd that kind of coaction which is by excommunication, or why he attributed to it the epithet of corporal, or even why at all he would have the power of excom∣municating said to be a coactive power, or excommunication it self to pass under the name of coaction, it matters not: being his dispute and defini∣tion against this, or any other Article of Marsilius and Iandunus, was not against words, but against their sense, or that meaning which (as he would have beleeved) was theirs, and so different from his own: and being that neither my meaning, nor words taken altogether, contain or signifie any thing against his meaning, either in his dispute, or in his definition, if we take the sense of his definition (as we ought in reason to do) from his dis∣pute, or to be that which his arguments fight against.

Yet because it becomes not me (as neither any conscientious Divine, in the like case) to dissemble what I know, or what others may apprehend (if they had known it) to seem much more convincing, that Iohn the XXII. drove in this Bull at another kind of coactive power in the Church, and another kind of coaction, and of corporal coaction too, then I have proved he drove by the former arguments: I confess ingenuously, his second sort of arguments, or those other he gives immediatly after the former, do fully convince my own self that he drove at another kind of coaction, and of corporal coaction too, in his meaning, then that of excommunicati∣on. But withal I maintain still, that he drives at no coactive power at all, or coaction at all, which I ever yet denyed, or shall at any time deny; or at any coaction at all which Marsilius himself or Iandunus denyed in that manner his even second or last sort of arguments require either to be ac∣knowledged: because not at any at all inflicted by corporal force or means, or by other means of man then by pure prophesie, or pure prayer of some prophetical or miraculous man in the Church: and consequently drives at no such other coactive power at all which we are bound to beleeve to be essential, or proper to the Church as a Church, or to be at all times in the Church, or at all times in any individual person of the Church, Inferiour or Superiour, Priest, Bishop, or Pope, as such, or at all times in them al∣together, or at all times in all the both Clergy and Layety, or in the uni∣versal Chuch taken also together in one collection: and so by any of his argu∣ments, or by his second or last sort of arguments drives at none at all which is to our present purpose, or which overthrows my said doctrine, or any part or explication hitherto given by me of the doctrine of no coer∣cive power in the Church as a Church to make use of any corporal force of her own or of others, and as by her own proper genuine authority to make use thereof for to punish corporally the crimes of any how criminal or wicked soever, and to punish him so (I mean still) whether he will or no.

For, thus Iohn the XXII. proceeds immediatly after what I gave before of his first sort, and thus he frames his second and last sort of arguments. Preterea Beatus Petrus post ascensionem Domini in personam Ananiae & Saphi∣rae uxoris suae, sine Imperiali concessione aliqua, hac usus est potestate; in quos quia de pretio agri Deo oblati fraudaverant, mortis sententiam promulgavit: quae quidem sententia non processit de ipsorum conjugum voluntate. Item Beatus Paulus Elymam Magum, Sergium Paulum à fide quaerentem avertere, ad tem∣pus luce corporali privavit. Illum quoque fornicatorem Corinthium in carnis interitum tradidit Sathanae, ut ejus spiritus salvus esset. Item Corinthiis ser∣••••ns dixit idem Apostolus, Quid vultis in virga veniam ad vos: an in

charitate, & in spiritu mansuetudinis? In quo saetis expresse coactivam potestatem supposuit se habere. Item scribens eisdem alibi dixit, Arma (inquit) militiae nostrae non sunt carnalia, sed potentia Deo, id est à Deo concessa, ad destructio∣nem munitionum consilia destruentes, & omnem altitudinem extollentem se ad∣uersus scientiam Dei. Et sequitur: In promptu habentes ulcisci omnem inobe∣dientiam. Ex quibus patet Paulum, non ab Imperatore, sed à Deo habuisse potestatem etiam coactivam. Cur contrarium Blasphemi praesumut dicere supra∣dicti? Rursus advertant isti nequam homines, quomodo audent dicere, quod ab Imperatore terreno Ecclesiarum Praelati coactivam, vel aliam receperint origi∣naliter potestatem, cum, ut supra dictum est, Imperatores us{que} ad Constantinum Magnum, fere omnes Pagani fuerint, ac Idololatrae, & persecutores, imo exter∣minatores, quantum fuit in eis, Ecclesiae sanctae Dei. Quomodo ergo illi tali∣bus coactivam, vel aliam potestatem concederent? Vti{que} nullus sapiens hoc cre∣dere debet.

Where albeit the last argument, which speaks of heathen and persecuting Emperours, be not as much as in any kind of appearance or seeming, or with any kind of colour, framed against Marsilius and Iandunus, or indeed against any other real Adversary; it being credible enough that none hath ever yet been so mad as to say, that heathen persecuting and exter∣minating Emperours had given either coactive or other power whatsoever to those whom they did so persecute and exterminat: and albeit these three several passages, which he brings out of Paul, Arma militiae nostrae non sunt carnalia &c, and, Quid vultis in virga &c, and, In promptu habentes &c, be all of them three (and not they alone, but all whatsoever other passages, or even Instances or examples either out of holy Scripture, or not out of holy Scripture) sufficiently convinced by the very first of them, that none of them can be justly alleadged for any true corporal coaction, or any true coaction by corporal means or by corporal force or by carnal armes, or for any carnal or corporal coactive power in the Church, or in Paul himself (which is that onely coaction and coactive power I deny all along to the Church, as a Church) for the very first of them sayes expresly that the armes of our militia are not carnal: yet forasmuch as Iohn the XXII. brings before them, three several Instances of corporal punishment inflicted by the power of Peter and Paul, as he supposes of all three, and that none of all three, at least neither of the two former were effects of excommu∣nication, or of the power of excommunication, it is plain be by his argu∣ments here drives at an other kind of corporal coaction and coactive power in the Church then that of excommunication. And yet it is no less plain out of those very instances he brings, that he concludes no such corporal coaction, nor any such coactive power of such corporal coaction as is denyed by me or by any Catholick at all, or even denyed as much as by any Heretick whatsoever (not to speak now of Marsilius and Iandunus onely; whether they were certainly, or were not properly Hereticks, and were such, or were not such either formally or materially in any true sense, and for any tenet which they held, and in the sense they held it.) For the first of those In∣stances is of Ananias and Saphira, Act. 5. strucken dead corporally in the place for having defrauded of the price of the land which they had for∣merly offered to God, and for their lye and hypocrisy in that matter. And the second is of Elymas the Magitian, who was struck with corporal blindness, Act. 13.8. for having resisted Paul, by hindering Sergius the Proconsul, at Salamina in Cyprus, to believe in Christ: and the third is of that Corinthian, who for his incestuous copulation with his own Fathers Wife was corporally delivered over to Sathan, 1. Cor. 5.5. for Paul sayes there, he should be in interitum carnis delivered to Sathan. And therefore no such corporal coaction, nor any such coactive power of such corporal coaction is concluded or could be concluded or driven at hence by this Pope, as that is which is denyed by me or by any other Christian to be

always proper to and necessarily resident in the Church. First because, albeit the death of Ananias and Saphira was in it self, properly and strict∣ly corporal, and the blindness of Elymas was such too in it self, and the punishment likewise of that Corinthian was (according to the sense of Augustine, Ambrose, and Chrysostom) no less corporal in it self; yet they were also purely spiritual, and purely miraculous too in the cause, means, or in∣struments, and inflicted by a pure spiritual, onely & by a pure extraordinary spiritual miraculous power of those blessed Apostles, and by no humane corporal force or coaction or coactive power of such force; if at all in∣flicted by them, at least as to the two first of the instances, and not rather only impetrated of God by their wonder-working prayer, or only prophecied or foretold by their prophecying spirit, and by the revelation made to them of things that were to come or to happen, and to be done by God himself immediatly for the propagation of the Faith. For, and as for the two former instances, which by the confession of all sides depended not of nor concern'd the power of excommunication, nor were any effects of it; there is not a word in the Acts, or in either of both places of the Acts (where they are related) that signifies more then that the present or immi∣nent death of Saphira was revealed to, and foretold by Peter, and the present or imminent blindness of Elymas foretold also to him by Paul in a prophetical spirit of divine zeal; there being not so much it self, that is, not so much as a prediction, or threat of death too Ananias, much less a prayer made by Peter to God for his death; so little ground is there to say or to think that Peter by his proper ordinary Apostolical and judicial power, and by his own proper ordinary and corporally coactive power, or by a power coactive by humane and corporal force or means, or by any that was to be transmitted in ordinary by him to his successors, or was promised by Christ to be transmitted in ordinary, or to the Church at all, pronounced sentence of death against Ananias and Saphira, or that Paul by the like ordinary coactive power of his Apostleship to be trans∣mitted by him likewise in ordinary to the Church did judicially sentence Elymas, and punish him with blindness. Secondly, because that as neither Clerk, Priest, Bishop, Patriarch, Pope, nor universal Church in one col∣lection of Layety and Clergy together do as much as pretend to this mira∣culous power in themselves always, or at all times, and that none sayes that this kind of spiritual extraordinary miraculous power is that which is said, & which is beleeved to be truly the coactive power of the Church, being that which is truly the coactive power of the Church, is alwayes in her or her Superiours, and alwayes in the Pope (how ever it be with other Superi∣ours) and yet most commonly without miraculous power in them: so do not I intend to say, nor have said any where, nor will say at any time, that sometimes past there was not, or that sometimes hereafter yet there may not be such a miraculous power as that of Peter and Paul by prophe∣cy and prayer in some other, or in many other godly persons of the Church, even such a miraculous power as may impetrat, or may fore∣tell the most corporal and deadly punishment on this or that wicked sinner. But what hath this to do with that which is the coactive power of the Church? this miraculous power may be in the most inferiour person of the Church, in him that hath no kind of Church office or Church po∣wer at all; and that coactive power is only in some chief Officers of the Church: this is extraordinary and miraculous; that, ordinary and re∣quiring no miracle: this very contingent, and for sometimes only, and tyed to no certain sort of persons; that absolutely and perpetually con∣stant for all, and in one certain degree of persons.

And therefore I may conclude again, that no such corporal coaction, nor any such coactive power of such corporal coaction is concluded, or may be concluded by the second or last sort of Iohn the XXII's. arguments, as that is which is denyed by me, or by any other Christian, to be alwayes

proper to, and necessarily resident in the Church, or as that is which is properly, truly, and simply called the coactive power of the Church.

And therefore also I may conclude further, that the definition of Iohn the XXII. against the fift and last Article of Marsilius and Iandunus con∣cerns not my foresaid doctrine, or my foresaid explications, answers, or digressions, where I say that the Church of Christ, as such purely, hath neither temporal territory, nor carnal or material sword; or say the same thing in these other words, that the Church as a Church hath no secular, corporal, or carnal power from Christ, but from worldly Princes and States only, to punish either corporally or civilly; or, that none at all from Christ to punish, for example, by imprisonment, banishment, death, or by confiscation or deprivation of his temporal goods or rights, or by any other corporal force or means can inflict any other kind of punishment against the criminal's own consent; but that all her power as from Christ is purely spiritual, and the means of executing such power must also be purely spiritual, whether in the mean time the power it self, or execution of it be miraculous or not miraculous, and whether also the things pre∣scrib'd or enjoyn'd be in their own nature purely spiritual or not. For I confess the Church even as a pure Church only may, and may by her own proper, ordinary, and perpetually constant Church power, both pre∣scribe and enjoyn, or command strictly many things which are otherwise (in their own nature) purely civil, temporal and corporal: and, that such commands oblige, the spirit of man under sin, when they are laid clave non errante, that is, when the laws of God or man, or nature do otherwise require the performance of the same things, either as a pure satisfaction to the vindicative justice of God for the fin committed,, or as a pure repara∣tion or restitution to another man of his goods unjustly detained, or as a remedy to prevent sin; and that therefore the Church even as a pure Church may in some cases enjoyn also even corporal fastings, watchings, disciplines, hair-cloathes, pilgrimages, &c. and not only a real restituti∣on of temporal goods illgotten or ill detained. Nay, and I alwayes con∣fess that for whatsoever she can justly prescribe by her directive power spi∣ritual, she hath also an answerable coactive power spiritual, even also in re∣lation to such corporal injunctions or afflictions, though she have not from Christ any corporal means allowed her of her own to force due obedience to such her either directive or coactive power; but only in ordinary, and to her Superiours only, the spiritual means of pure Ecclesiastical, or pure spiritual censures, or of such as are no way civil censures; and, in ex∣traordinary, amongst her Prophets and wonder-working Saints, the spiri∣tual means of pure prayer and prophesie.

All which I am sure can be very true and infallible, notwithstanding I allow this definition of Iohn the XXII. against the fift Article of Marsilius and Iandunus to be absolutely true and infallible, even this very definiti∣on, It is false, erroneous and heretical, that the whole Church joyn'd together cannot punish by a coactive punishment even the most wicked person, unless the Emperour grant them power to do so, or punish that person so. For the bare grammatical words of this definition, as it lyes in it self, or as they, I mean the two words punitione coactiva lye in it, and the theological sense too of them, given by Iohn the XXII. himself in other words in his Bull, if this sense of those or these may be gathered from his arguments, as (and as I have noted before) it must be in all reason, admit very well of my con∣struction: being coactive punition, whether in its own nature it be properly corporal, or properly and only spiritual, is a moral genus not only to that coactive punition which is properly and purely spiritual, and to that which is properly and strictly corporal, but to that also which is inflicted by means that are purely spiritual, and to that which is not inflicted or put in execution by such means, but by meer humane, civil or corporal means

and force: and being the rule is generally allowed, that such definitions and words in them are stricti juris, and consequently not to be extended be∣yond that which the most ordinary strict signification of them, and the materia subjecta, and no prejudice to a third, and (in a word) which a good sense requires: quia odia sunt restringenda, as the rule of the very canon law (in Sexto) is.

Yet if, notwithstanding all this, or all said hitherto upon this fift Ar∣ticle of Marsilius and Iandunus, any will be still so unreasonably contenti∣ous as to fix rather a contrary sense, that is, a bad sense to the definition of Iohn the XXII. against it, I cannot help that otherwise then to oppose to Iohn the XXII. and to such bad sense affixed to him, the clear and good sense of another Pope, even of Celestinus III. in the very canon law too, cap. Non ab homine. de Judiciis, quoted by me at length, in my former Section, or in my LXXV. Section: and to oppose also the clear and good sense of even a general Council, and that a late one too, as being held after the dayes of Iohn the XXII. I mean the Council of Constance, where the Fathers, Sess. 15. speak thus, Attento quod Ecclesia Dei non habet ultra quod agere valeat, judicio seculari relinquere, & ipsum Curiae seculari relinquendum fore decernit; which they speak in the case of Ioannes Huss, after they had excommunicated and degraded him: and lastly to oppose the very essential constitution of the Christian Church, and of her Eccle∣siastical Superiours, as such.

And yet I must advertise my Readers that the very contrary bad sense of this definition of Iohn the XXII. against this last article of Marsilius and Jandunus doth not gainsay or contradict at all my main purpose or Thesis of a coercive power supream in Christian Princes over all Clerks and in all their criminal causes whatsoever. For these two positions have no contradiction. 1. There is a coactive power humane and corporal (and civil too, if you please) in the Christian Church as a pure Christian Church. 2. This coactive power humane corporal (and civil too, or not civil, as you please) is not altogether independent in it self, but is sub∣ordinat to the higher humane and corporal powers of supream temporal Princes. That they are not contradictory, or inconsistent, we see by the ex∣ample of both civil and Ecclesiastical tribunals. For the inferiour tribu∣nals, notwithstanding they have a true proper innate coactive power civil or spiritual respectively, are subordinat to the superiour.

And so I have done at last with this long discourse, occasion'd by the fourth objection, or that of the conincidency of my doctrine with the condemn'd doctrine of Marsilius and Jandunus. Which by a strict examen of all their five Articles, and comparison of all and of each of them all to my own doctrine all along, and to that which is the doctrine of the Catholick Church, I have proved to be very false: as I declared also that I hold no part of even their very true uncondemn'd doctrine as it was their doctrine, but as it was and is the doctrine of the Catholick Church. Which Catholick doctrine, or doctrine of mine because it is that of the Catholick Church, I am sure without any peradventure I have sufficiently (nay abundantly) demonstrated by reason, Scripture, and Tradition. Therefore now to

The fift and last of all these objections, which I call'd remaining (for the reason before given) that objection (I mean) built upon the contra∣ry judgment or opinion (as tis pretended) of St. Thomas of Canter∣bury, and upon his Martyrdom or death suffered therefore, and of his canonization also therefore, and consequent veneration and invocation of him throughout and by the universal Church as of a most glorious mar∣tyrized Saint therefore. This objection, I confess, is very specious at first, as it makes the very greatest noyse and the very last essay of a dying cause. But it is onely amongst the unlearned inconsiderat and vulgar sort of Di∣vine,

or Canonists, or both, it appears to and works so. Tis onely amongst those who know no more of the true history of this holy mans contests and sufferings, or of the particulars of the difference twixt him and his King, or of the precise cause of his suffering either death at last, or exile at first for a long time or many years before his death, but what they read in their Breviary (which yet is not enough to ground any rational objection against me; though peradventure enough to solve any.) Tis onely amongst those who do not consider duely, nor indeed have the knowledg, or at least have not the judgment discretion or reflection to consider duely, what it amounts to (in point of Christian Faith as to others, or to the perswasion of others against me or my doctrine hetherto) that any one Bishop how otherwise ho∣ly soever in his own life should have (especially in these days of King Henry the second of England and of Pope Alexander the third of Rome) suffer'd even death it self for the defence of true Ecclesiastical Immunities in ge∣neral, or of this or that Immunity, in particular, or for having opposed some particular laws either just or unjust (I care not which) made by a secular Prince against some certain Ecclesiastical Immunitie (and whether made against those which are or were certainly true Immunities, or those were onely pretended, I care not also which.) Tis onely amongst those who do not besides consider duely that not even the greatest Saints and greatest Martyrs have been always universally freed not even at their death for any thing we know from some prepossession of some one or other ilgrounded even Theological opinion, or of moe perhaps, and that such weakness of their understanding Faculty in such matters did not at all prejudice their Sanctity or Martyrdom; because the disposition of their Souls or of that Faculty of their Souls which is called the Will was evermore perfectly obe∣dient & humble had the truth of such very matters been sufficiently repre∣sented to them, & because they had other sufficient & manifold causes and Instances of their true Sanctity and true Martyrdom according to that knowledg which is saving; though I do not averr any such prepossession here, nor am forced by the objection to averr any such prepossession of St. Thomas of Canterbury in any thing which is material. Tis onely among such inconsiderat Divines I say that the objection grounded on his opposi∣tion to Henry the Secon'd laws concerning Clergiemen, and on his exile, death, miracles, canonization, invocation, appears so strong against the doctrine of a supream inherent power in secular Princes (who are supream themselves) to coerce by temporal punishments all criminal Clerks whosoe∣ver living within their dominions. Whether the Divines of Lovain who censured our Remonstrance (as you have that Censure of theirs, page 120. of this first Part) be to be ranked amongst such inconsiderat Divines, I leave to the Reader's own better consideration, when, reflecting once more both on it and all the four grounds of it, he observes moreover par∣ticularly the day of the date of it, so signally express'd by them in these tearms: Ita post maturam deliberationem aliquoties iteratam censuimus, ac de∣cidimus Lovanii in plenu Facultatis Congregatione, sub juramento indicta, ac servata, die ••9. Decembris, gloriosi Pontificis Thomae Cantuariensis, Angliae quondam Primatis, mortyrio consecratae, Anno Dominae Incarnationis, 1662. And whether they did of purpose fix on this day of S. Thomas of Canter∣bury, as most proper for such a censure, I know not certainly; but suppose undoubtedly it was not without special design they mention'd him and his primacy, glory, martyrdom, and how that 29. day of December & of their censure was consecrated to his martyrdom: as I profess also ingenuously it was the reading of this so formal & signal date of theirs made me ever since, now and then, reflect on the specious argument which peradventure some weak Divines might alleadg for their fourth ground. Though to confess all the truth, I never met any that fram'd it methodically, or put it into any (due or undue) form of argument for them, or of objection against me;

but onely in general objected, that S. Thomas of Canterbury suffered for maintayning the liberties of the Church and of Clergiemen against Henry the second. Which is the reason, and that I may leave nothing (which may seem to any to be material) unsaid or unobjected cleerly and fully by my self against my self, I put all which my adversaries would be at (in this concern of St. Thomas of Canterbury, as relating to our present purpose) and put all that into this special form of argument Syllogisme and objection against my own grand Thesis.

Whatever doctrine condemns or opposes the justice of St. Thomas of Canterbury's cause, quarrel, or contest with Henry the second, must be false. But my grand Theirs, of a power in secular supream Princes to coerce all criminal Clergiemen whatsoever living within their dominions, is such, or is a doctrine which condemns or opposes that very cause quarrel, or contest of St. Thomas of Canterbury. Ergo my grand Thests must be false.

The Minor will be proved thus, and must be proved thus or not at all. Such doctrine must necessarily suppose an errour both in the solemn canoni∣zation of him at least for a martyr, properly such, and yet he was solemnly canonized for a martyr, properly such, by Alexander the Third Pope of that name, his own contemporary; and must further necessarily suppose an errour too (& that both in the belief and practise) of the universal Church of Christ, forasmuch as they believe him to be a martyr properly such, and both venerat and invocate him as such. For that such doctrine as condems or op∣poses the justice of his quarrel against Henry the Second must also necessari∣ly suppose such an errour in his canonization veneration and invocation as a martyr properly such, appears hence manifestly, that it is therefore he was canonized for such, and is venerated and invocated as such, because that quarrel of his was and is believed to have been just, and that it was for main∣taining the justice of it he suffered death, and suffered death patiently and Christianly, as became a true martyr, without any resistance at all. Now it is plain that such doctrine as must necessarily suppose such an errour in such canonization veneration and invocation of any, must be false, nay erroneous and schismatical, nay and heretical too in Christian belief: because it must consequently suppose, that not onely the Pope, nay not onely this or that particular orthodox nation, but even the universality of all true Christian nations, even the Catholick Church her self, taken in her whole latitude, not onely may sometime erre in matters which they & she accounts to be part of her holy belief & holy practise, but hath already and continually err'd, and almost for five hundred years compleat, that is, since the year of our Lord 1173. wherein Alexander Tertius canonized him solemnly for a martyr, and she no less solemnly invocated him as such. Then which consequent supposition, what Roman Catholick can say that any may be more even fun∣damentally heretical? For it must be granted as an article nay and also (at least among Divines) as a fundamental article of Christian Catholick re∣ligion, that the true Christian Catholick Church is infallible in credendis & agendis both in her belief and in her practise, I mean such as she her self accounts divine or holy; or certainly it must be granted, that we have nothing at all infallible in her, or in our religion delivered by her, but what may without any special revelation from God or any either particular or universal tradition from her be demonstrated by pure natural reason: and consequently that our belief of even the very whole mistery of the Incarna∣tion of the Son of God, and of that other (no less above our natural reason) of the Trinity of persons in one God, which are purely credenda, as likewise those of Baptisme and the Lords Supper, quatenus inter agenda, as they are practised, are fallible, and unreasonable practises: being we have nothing to render us absolutely certain of the contrary, if the universal Church be fallible in her belief and practise.

But for the Minor, as I confess that I see no other proof possible but by instancing the particulars of the difference 'twixt King Henry the Second and this holy Praelat: so I confess also, that if in any of those particulars, or in altogether my grand Thesis or any part of my doctrine hetherto in pursuance of that my Thesis may be found, and that it be clear also that St. Thomas of Canterbury suffered death therefore, and was therefore cano∣nized a martyr by the Pope, and as such was therefore venerated and invo∣cated ever since or at any time by the Catholick Church: then I must con∣sequently grant the objection to be very well or at least very probably grounded: as no man can deny it to be syllogistically formed, or deny the conclusion to follow of necessity, if both the Premisses be certainly true. And for the first of them, we have already seen it pretty well driven home, at least by a very specious discourse, and one concluding such an inconve∣nience as no Roman Catholick will dare allow: I mean the infallibility of the whole Catholick Church either in religious belief or practise; what∣ever in the mean time be held or thought of the Pope alone, or of his par∣ticular Roman Diocess, as taken a part from the rest, or of any one or moe even National Churches whatsoever of Catholick communion, so they amount not to that which we call and is truly the Catholick or universal Church, or the general congregation of all particular or National Churches, or of the more considerable parts of them, or the General Representative of such more considerable parts of them which are now in Ecclesiastical communion with the Roman Bishop & his particular Diocess of Rome. For this general Congregation of all such particular Churches or of all the more considerable parts of them, and this general Representative also (whenever it is) of all such more considerable parts, is it I call now here, and elsewhere still understand to be the Catholick Church. Whereof I desire my good Readers to take special notice; not that I see any special need of it to solve this objection, but that I may no where seem either to equivocat, or to be unwilling to be understood, when there is occasion to distinguish be∣tween the sense of the Pope, and that of the Church, or between the au∣thority of a particular Church, or some one, of ro moe peradventure, and that which is properly of the universal Church.

Therefore now, & not onely to shew what may be said or not said, and that even out of the very Ecclesiastical History or Annals of Baronius himself, of the particulars of the said difference or quarrel, and for the proof of the said Minor (being it is onely from History all that can be said for the proof of it must be had, and that Baronius can not be presumed to relate such matter of fact with any kind of partiality or favour to me or my Thesis or my do∣ctrine against his own pretended Immunity of all Clergiemen, or be presu∣med to omit any material thing which might any way advance his own pre∣tence of such Immunity upon the contradictory question confirmed by the sense by the life and death of so great a Saint, and even sealed by the bloud of so glorious a martyr as Thomas of Canterbury) but also to shew and lay down before hand such evidences out of the very self same Annals of Caesar Baronius as may hereafter (and forasmuch as depends of History) be most abundantly sufficient to justifie in all points my solutions of and answers to the said objection when I come to answer it in form and each of the promisses apart: therefore now (I say) and

First, you are to observe, out of Baronius tom. 12. ad an. Christi 1162. and from that year, all along to his year of Christ 1173. and out also of Rogerus Hovedenus, and Gulielmus Neubrigensis, both good faithfull ancient and Catholick Historians of England, the first of them being even contempo∣rary to St. Thomas of Canterbury, and the last if not contemporary yet I am sure in the very next degree of time, as likewise out of Herebertus one of the Saints own Clerks, and Willelmus Cantuariensis, Ioannes Sarisberiensis, and Alanus Abbot of Decche, the foure compilers of that life of his which is

in five several books in the Vatican, and all four the Saints own Disciples in his life time, as one of them, to witt Ioannes Sarisberiensis, was his Secretary: out of all these contemporary uncorrupt unbyassed wittnesses (at least un∣byassed to favour me) as well as out of Baronius himself who quotes them all, you are to observe, that upon the death of Theobaldus the 37. Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket then great Chancellour of England, but for∣merly Archdeacon to the said Theobaldus (for as Polydore Virgil sayes in Henrico Secundo, l. XIII. Hystor. Anglic. it was the very same Theobaldus that of himself at first chose this Thomas Becket to be his own Archdeacon, and soon after recommended him to King Henry the Second for the great Chan∣cellourship of England) being in a Council of the Bishops in England, held at London. an. 1162. the King himself Henry the Second present, and, at the same Kings desire and instance, chosen to supply and succeed Theobald in his then vacant See; and, as Herebertus writes, after some reluctance, and a protestation made to the King himself by him, that if he were chosen by his Majesty he must oppose him thenceforth in the point of Ecclesiastical Liberty, being nevertheless perswaded at last (sayes Ioannes Sarisberiensis) by Henricus Pisanus (Cardinal SS. Nerei & Achillei and Legat there and then at London and in that Council for Alexander the Third (who was himself at that time in France and in Monte Pessulano) being I say by this Cardinal Legat and President of the said Council perswaded to acquiesce in the election made of him, and having sent immediatly after to Alexan∣ander for his Pallium and received it, the same year of Christ 1163. that is at such time as Ecclesiastical Immunity was scrued too high by reason of the temporal usurpations of Gregory the VII. on the Empire and other Kingdoms also, and of the continuance of the same temporal usurpations by all or most or at least many of his Successors ever since the year of our Lord 1076. or thereabouts when Gregory began to lay about him so strange∣ly, until the Papacy of this Alexander the Third, who was nothing less backward against Frederick (the Emperour, and IV. of that name) then Grego∣ry was against Henry the III. and at such time nevertheless wherein the Nor∣man Kings of England one after an other continually, William the Conque∣ror, William Rufus, Henry the First, King Stephen, and our present Henry the Second, were mightily favoured or at least strangely connived at even in the very matter of investiture of Bishops Abbots and Priors, even by those very Popes who trampled under foot the Empire and Emperours and other Kings also, by occasion partly of the like investitures and partly of other quarrels: and were favoured or connived at so by those Popes, not onely be∣cause these Norman Kings of England were somewhat farre from Rome, and in an Iland so remote, and consequently more out of their reach then others, were stubborn and had the pretence of a late conquest to continue in their own hands that of investiture whereby to assure themselves the better of the English nation; but also because it was the fortune or prudence rather of those five Norman Kings one after an other to side constantly with those very Popes and acknowledg them as true Popes, against so many Antipopes, and Emperours too who raysed or who favoured such Antipopes; & moreover because the Popes thought it no wisdom to cut out too much work at once for themselves, or to fall out with all Kings at the same time, but to keep still in hand some of the little Serpents while the Roman See and Pontiffs were destroying others of them, and especially until they had quite destroy∣ed the great Dragon: for so Innocent the IV. called the Emperour by the name of the great Dragon, and other Kings by the name of little Serpents, if Matthew Paris relate such matters truly, Anonnullis affirmative dicebatur, sayes this ancient contemporary Monk of St. Albans pag. 142. quod Dominus Papa sitienter & super omnia desiderabat, ipsum quem magnum Draconem vocabat pessumdare: ut ipso suppeditato & conculcato, Reges Francorum & Anglorum nec non & alios Christianitatis Reges, quos omnes regulos & serpentes esse dicebat,

facilius exemplo dicti Frederici perterritos cenculcaret: and, pag. 740. relating what the same Innocentius Quartus said upon an occasion to one Martin his own Collector of Peter-pence and other exactions in England, but thrown out of England for his said intollerable exactions, Expedit (sayes this very Pope himself) ut componamus cum Principe vestro, ut his Regulos contera••••ts recalcitrantes, contrita enim vel pacificato Dracone, cito serpentuli conculcabuntu••••at such time as this, when albeit in many other parts beyond the seas, & where the Popes had power enough, Ecclesiastical liberty (as they call'd it) was right or wrong grown to a prodigious height, even over the very Imperial Crown, yet in England both it and other undoubted rights of the Church were on the other side too much often depressed and oppressed by those first Norman Kings, and particularly were endeavoured to be so by Henry the Second himself more then by any perhaps of all his predecessours (for he relyed partly on the Schysme which he saw then in the Roman Church, de∣vided twixt Alexander the Third, and true Pope as chosen canonically by the farre greater number of Cardinals, and Octavianus, alias Victor, the An∣tipope as chosen uncanonically and by an inconsiderable number, though allowed of by the Emperour; and partly on his own merits or great obli∣gations put on the said Alexander: as 1. that when forced to retire from Rome to France he was not onely acknowledged by him, as he was like∣wise by Lewis King of France, but also the said Lewis of France was for his sake and in his quarrel received by him in person leading a powerfull army and rescued from all the power of the Emperour Frederick accompanied with such numerous and formidable legions, and with all the Princes of Empire and Kings also of Denmark and Bohemia at Avignon, whether this Emperour of purpose to entrap Lewis in a conference and force him to quit Alexander: and 2. when immediatly after this he also personally visited this Pope Alexander, apud Bobiense Monasterium (where he was then retired) presented him richly, and did him so much honour and reverence, that after kissing his toe, he excused himself from sitting in the chayre prepared for him, and with all his Barons sate on the bare ground at his feet: and 3. That together with the said King Lewis of France, at their meeting upon the River Loyre, where this Pope mediated and concluded a peace betwixt them, he out of exceeding reverence towards him and to countenance him the more against the Antipope Victor and Frederick the Emperour, and for example to his own Subjects and those of France too and all others, per∣formed the office of a yeoman of the stirrop, upon one side, as the King of France did on the other, leading his horse by the reyns, both of them a foot, on the right and left hand, till they left him at his lodging, as he after continued constant in his observance of this same Pope Alexander, all along during the whole Schysme of three Antipopes created against him:) at such time and such a conjuncture as this, Thomas Becket having been so ele∣cted, by this Henry the Second as we have seen, and so confirmed by this Pope Alexander the Third; nay and, immediatly upon his election and before any word sent to or received from Alexander, though so neer him then as Mons Pessulanus in France, having received investiture (as the custom then yet was in England) from a lay hand, from that King's own hand, by receive∣ing from him a staff and a ring: the first occasion, spring, or motive of all their following great long and fatal differences, was very soon after unlucki∣ly happen'd, even the very second year of his Archbishoprick (that is, immediatly after his return from that great Council of 17 Cardinals, a hundred and four and twenty Bishops, four hundred and fourteen Abbots, and of an infinit number of other Priests and Clerks, held in the month of May 1163. by Alexander at Tours in France, concerning the Schysme; where Alexander did such extraordinary honour to this our Canterbury Arch∣bishop Thomas Becket, as to send all his Cardinals (two onely excepted who assisted himself) out of town to receive him as he came to the Council.

But that which you are specially to observe here, and first of all in order to our main purpose, is what the particulars were of this first occasion, spring, or motives. And indeed I confess, that as Gulielmus Neuhrigensis tells us in the 16. Chapter of his History, that at this Council of Tours, though not publickly in the Council, but privatly, this our St. Thomas of Canter∣bury resigned his Archbishoprick to Alexander, as not being able other∣wise to bear the stinging pricks of his own conscience for having received the investiture of it from a lay hand: and that Alexander again with his own hand invested him: so he also tells us, that the sole original cause of all the following fatal differences 'twixt St. Thomas and his King Henry the Second was, that he would not suffer the King to proceed by law against criminal Priests, that is, would not suffer him to have them tryed, sen∣tenced and punish'd in the civil Courts, or by the civil Judges, according to that law which the King said was the law of the land, the law and custom of his Predecessours. But Cesars Baronius, ad an. Christi, 11••3. corrects Neubrigensis in both particulars. And yet he, or his Epitomizer Henricus Spondanus, ad an. Christi, 1163, sayes, that Neubrigensis was an Author of that time, and both a faithful and accurat Writer; Willelmus Neubrigensis (sayes he) hujus temporis scriptur fidelis & a••••enatus. However Baronius corrects him in both the said particulars: and sayes, that as the first, of Thomas of Canterburie's resignation, happen'd in the year 1164. when, being fled out of England, he the second time accoasted the same Pope Alexander, and presented the heads of those laws about which the consequent main contest was 'twixt the King and him: so it appears out of the Acts of our Saints Life, written by the before named four Authors of the said Acts, that, besides that of not suffering the King to proceed by law against criminal Priests, which he confesses interceded, yet several other causes preceded, and most just causes too, which imposed a necessity on the Saint to reprehend the King.

For (sayes he) these Acts relate how the King came to be incensed against him, viz. because he endeavoured to recover from the hands or possession of Lay-men some lands which formerly belong'd to the Church of Canterbury, and were unduly alienated by his Predecessors: and be∣cause he endeavoured likewise to abolish the bad custom which had long prevailed in England, that the revenues of vacant Churches should be payed in to and challenged by the Kings Exchequer; whereby it came to pass, that the Churches were too long of purpose kept vacant: and yet because, that being Archbishop he quitted his former office of Chancellor∣ship, against the Kings will, who desired he should keep it still together with his Episcopacy; which yet he would not, reflecting on that of St. Paul, Nemo militans Deo implicat se negotiis secularibus: and because moreover he prohibited the exaction of an unjust assessement laid on the subjects: and further also, because he delivered not to the secular court a certain Priest condemn'd of murther; but only degraded him, and shut him up in a Mo∣nastery for his pennance; nor delivered to secular punishment, as the King desired, another certain criminal Chanon, but only laid him under Eccle∣siastical Censures.

And these were the causes or springs of the great contest which followed, as Baronius sayes out of the said Acts.

And yet I must say, that as he doth not as yet, out of the same Acts, or any thing here said by him out of them, disprove what Neubrigensis said to be the only, that is, the first, or sole first cause, motive or spring, for all these four or five did not happen altogether, and, that of not delivering the cri∣minal Priest and Chanon to the secular court, might have been the first of all, for any thing related by him out of those Acts, being they distinguish not, or declare not particularly, as he relates them, which was first or last in time: so it is clear by Baronius's own prosecution of the history of this

Saints troubles and the Kings quarrel to him, that this of not delivering those criminal Ecclesiasticks was that onely which occasion'd all the ensue∣ing differences, or that onely at least which the King took as the immediat pretence of his first publick quarrel with him and rest of the Bishops at the meeting at London; which was before that of Clarendon or Northamp∣ton. So that as Baronius or Spondanus out of him, or both say, it was to ex∣cuse his own King that Neubrigensis fixes on this of our holy Archbishops denyal to deliver to legal punishment those criminal Clerks as on the onely cause of the following tragedy, being it was so specious a cause on the Kings side to quarrel with the Archbishop: even so I cannot but say, that I think these two great Annalists have of purpose, albeit without sufficient ground contradicted Neubrigensis, to excuse the Saint even also in this very particular instance as well as in all other of the difference; being such a demand must appear to most men on first sight, to be but very just on the Kings side, and consequently that the denyal of it must on the Arch∣bishops side appear (to the same men) at least too too rigid, if not unjust, as to the matter in it self; though I for my own part, verely believe the Saint apprehended it farr otherwise: nay am certain he did: as I am al∣so at least very probably perswaded, that he apprehended it so upon very just grounds and very true even in themselves objectively.

But however this matter be of the sole cause, and because it is not much material to my main purpose whether of the two, Neubrigensis, or Baronius out of those other Authors, speaks most exactly of that; or, if it be any way or in any degree material, that surely Baronius's observation of others causes to have proceeded must be for me: (and though to help Neubri∣gensis, as likewise to illustrate the matter in it self a little more, I can add Hoveden, ad an. 1163. where he writes thus. Eodem anno gravis discordia orta est inter Regem Angliae, & Thomam Cantuariensem Archiepiscopum, de Ecclesiasticis dignitatibus, quas idem Rex Anglorum tuebare & minuere con••∣batur; & Archiepiscopus ille, leges & dignitates Ecclesiasticas modis omnibus illibatas conservare nitebatur. Rex enim volebat praesbyteros, diaconos, subdia∣conos, & alios Ecclesiae Rectores, si comprehensi fuissent in latrocinio, vel mu••∣dra, vel felonia, vel iniqua combustione, vel in his similibus, ducere ad secu••ari•• examina, & punire sicut & laicum. Contra quod Archiepiscopus dicebat, quod si clericus insacris ordinibus constitutus vel quilibet alius Rector Ecclesiae, calumniatus fuerit de aliqua re, per viros Ecclesiasticos, & in curia Ecclesiastica debet judicari: &, si convictus fuerit, ordines suos amittere, & sic alienatus ab efficio & Beneficio Ecclesiastico, si postea f••ris fecerit, secundum voluntatem Re∣gis & Bailivorum suorum judicetur.) therefore now,

Secondly, you are to observe the progress of this great jealousy of the Kings whatever the sole first cause of it was, and you are to observe it also out of Baronius (who takes it from Robertus, or Heribertus, one of the said four Authors of the Acts) viz, that in the same year of Christ 1163. the same King Henry the Second being mightily incensed against our holy Archbishop of Canterbury, and convening at London both him and rest of the Bishops of England, and urging vehemently that such criminal Clerks (as those before mentioned) should after canonical punishment inflicted on them in the Ecclesiastical Court, be delivered nevertheless to the secu∣lar Court; our said holy Archbishop, and not he alone, but all the other Bishops unanimously and flatly refused to do so.

That hereupon the King being wholly enraged, as seeing them all to a man so unanimous against him in that point, & demanding of them whe∣ther they would observe his royal customs, consuetudines suas Regias, they all having first consulted together, and every one apart, being demanded so apart, answered they would with this caution Salvo ordine suo.

That when the King urged them to promise absolutely that they would without any such caution; onely Thomas answered, that when they had

formerly sworn allegiance and fidelity to him, Vitam scilicet, membrum, & ho∣norem terrenum, salvo ordine suo, in this earthly Honour the Royal customs were comprehended; and that they would not oblige themselves in any other form to their observance then in that wherein they had formerly sworn.

That although Hilary Bishop of Chester, seeing the King more and more incensed vehemently, by reason of such their unanimous answer, did without advising with the rest, change that contentious caution into these other two words bona fide, promising that himself would observe the Royal customs, bona fide; yet the King was nothing at all appeased, but rejected him also with contumely, and after many altercations departed full of anger and indignation from London, without saluting any one of all the Bishops.

That, matters continueing thus for some time, next year after, which was 1164. Thomas of Canterbury, being much importuned by the reasons and desires of many Bishops and Abbots to conform himself in the con∣troverted point to the Kings pleasure; one of the Abbots having also told him, that Pope Alexander himself, when he had heard of these altercations, had given way to and licenced such their conformity; Thomas (I say) being per∣swaded at last by such arguments, accoasted the King, and promised him that he would alter the word, or the caution which gave so much offence to His Majesty in that which related to his Royal customs or to the form of their oath for observing those customs.

That the King being hereby somewhat appeased, and withal desirous that such alteration should be made publickly in Parliament, or in a general Assemb∣ly of all the three Estates, summon'd the same three Estates, Lords spiritual, Temporal, and Commons (or Magistrates, as Baronius calls them) to meet at Clarendon, this very year 1164. and upon the thirtyth of Jan.

That this great Assembly being sate, and the King urging the performance of what was so promised, Thomas apprehending again mightily that such per∣formance might prejudice Ecclesiastical Immunity, fell back from his promise: nor could ever be brought on to it again or to acquiesce to the King either by any threatnings or by any blandishments of his, untill at last moved by the continual intreaties, prayers, geniculations, tears, of as well the Bishops as of others of the Clergie and Nobility, and by the present danger of prison, ba∣nishment, death, represented by them to him, he chose rather sayes Baronius to obey them then him, that is, he chose rather to be perswaded by them then by him, and, however this be, acquiesced at last: and first of all, and in the presence of all the Bishops and whole Parliament swore to observe the Royal customs bona fide, omitting and suppressing the contentious caution or words Salvo ordine: and that immediatly after him all and singular the other Bishops, every one a part for himself, took the same oath and in the very self same tearms or form. And you are to observe here how Roger Hoveden (a contemporary English man, (though Latin Writer) and who might therefore have known the truth, and was most likely to have writ but what he thought was the truth, especially in a mat∣ter of such consequence, being he is reputed to be a sincere Historian, and as such quoted often by Baronius himself) tels us in his Annals, that S. Thomas and the other Bishops had Pope Alexander's consent to swear in that form; how∣ever Baronius deny it, for this reason forsooth, that Alexander being some time after this accoasted by S. Thomas when he fled out of England, and presented with the heads of those were called the Royal customs, did soundly check him for ever having upon any tearms sworn to observe them.

That after this Parliament or great Council of Clarendon was broke up, and upon S. Thomas his departure from the Court there, it happening (sayes Baro∣nius out of a certain Supplement, annexed to the Acts of S. Thomas) that he was grievously rebuked by his Cross-bearer, as having by such his carriage and oath betrayed the libertyes of the Church, the Saint immediatly and most deeply sigh'd, repenting what he did therein, and presently also dispatch'd an

express to Alexander, craving an absolution, and purposing in the mean while to abstain from all both Pontifical and sacerdotal office and ministery: and that to his letter the Pope return'd him an other full of comfort; whereby also, after commanding him to confess his sins to a discreet Priest, he absolved him from the said oath.

That when the King had heard how the Archbishop fell off the second time, and refused to sign and seal the agreement of Clarendon, according as it was there also agreed that he should sign and seal it, nay and that he refused to stand at all to his oath, whether seal'd or not seal'd; being much more bitterly exasperated then ever, he sent Embassadours to Alexander, and to desire par∣ticularly two things of him, viz. 1. that the Legantine Power Apostolick, used to be entrusted to the Archbishop of Canterbury, should be given for the time to the Archbishop of York, and that his own Holyness would be pleased to confirm the foresaid Royal customs.

That Alexander upon this embassy finding himself in streights on each side, that is, on the point either of alienating for ever from himself that Kings good affections, to whom nevertheless he owed so much for benefits receaved former∣ly, on of granting his desire to the prejudice of the Church or Church liberty, thought fit to use this mean for saving all, viz. to bestow that Legantine power on the Archbishop of York, whereby to satisfie the King in some degree, and yet to deny him the confirmation of those Royal customs, that the Church might not suffer: writing withall at the same time to the Archbishop of Can∣terbury, our S. Thomas, and exhorting him earnestly that by all means he should endeavour to observe and please the King always and in all things, Salva honestate Ecclesiastici ••rdin••.

That in a conjuncture wherein by other letters of a later date this Pope Alex∣ander had restrained so that Legantine power of the Archbishop of York that he should have no power at all over Thomas of Canterbury's person or Diocess, or to exempt the Suffragans of Canterbury from obeying him still as their own pro∣per Metropolitan, & in all Metropolitical rights, & thereby frustrated the Kings great design in desiring that Legation for York; being this design was no other but to get Thomas canonically deposed: & wherein the King, being therefore in earnest angry even with the Pope himself, had rendered the said Lega••∣tine Commission useless to all other lesser purposes, now that the Pope had so rendred it to the said great purpose: that, I say, in this conjuncture, Thomas of Canterbury with the rest of the Bishops, being called by the King to Northampt∣on, to give a•• account of the revenues of the vacant Churches, which he had, while he was Chancellour, administred: and being accordingly brought to a strict account of these revenews: and after demanding the advice of the rest of the Bishops when he had heard most of them advising, that either he should re∣nounce and give up his Archbishoprick, or obey the King in all things, having desired time to consider till next day, and having also early on that next day ce∣lebrated the Mass of St. Stephen the Protomartyr, as preparing himself for martyrdom, which on that very day he hoped to suffer, having carryed secretly about himself the most Sacred Hoast, according to ancient custom, but pub∣lickly carrying in his own hands his own Archiepiscopal cross, and going in this manner to the Palace, he was both scorn'd and derided by his own Suffragan Bishops, and was by them, and by others also of the Kings Council, and as they sa••e in Council, condemned by a sentence of deposition, as a perjured man and one disloyal to the King, because he refused to stand to his former promise and oath to observe the Royal customs.

That S. Thomas having there in presence pleaded his own cause, and shewed that when he was against his own will drawn by the King to the Church or Archbishoprick of Canterbury, he was at that very time of his election and promotion declared by the King to be freed of and absolved from all tyes of the Court, and further declining the judgment as well of the King as of his Council, and appealing to the Pope, and declaring also that he did by no

means quit or give up his own Archiepiscopal See, he reserved the further and universal cognizance of his whole cause to the See Apostolick of Rome: to which he there also and then summon'd his fellow Bishops, for having chosen rather to obey men then God: & that, presently departing Court, but loaden with contumelies and reproaches of Courtiers, he soon after fled or parted the King∣dom for Flanders, and to an Abbey of Monks called S. Bertin's in the Citty of S. Omers: whence writing to the Pope of all things done, and of his Appeal and flight, he obtained from his Holyness an abrogation of all such proceed∣ings against him.

That, on the other side, while all his other lesser Adversaries in England de∣cryed him as a fugitive, the King, above all, being wonderfully enraged, sent the Archbishop of York and other Bishops of England to Alexander, to accuse Tho∣mas, and to desire his Holyness to send a Legat a Latere to England to judg of the cause depending twixt him and Thomas, provided also he sent Thomas in per∣son back to be judg'd in England.

That albeit these Episcopal Embassadours press'd this matter vehemently in the name of their King, and even to threats of Schysme on his behalf, yet the Pope thought not fit to deliver so innocent a man to such cruel Adversaries; but rather that he should be expected as he was called to be judg'd by himself, that is, by his own Holyness in their presence: and that they refusing this offer of the Pope, or not content with this answer, departed with much indignation and and without any Apostolical benediction.

That soon after, Thomas, being come to the Pope, and pleading his own cause, offered a copy of those Royal customs so much controverted. Which, being read, seem'd so execrable, and so contrary to the ancient laws every where re∣ceived for the Liberty's and Immunities of the Church, Church-persons, and Church-lands or goods, that they all (to wit the Pope himself and his Consisto∣ry of Cardinals) agreed unanimously, that the universal Church was to be supported in the person of Thomas of Canterbury, for that not he alone but she also would by the consequence of such customs be absolutely and most vilely enlived to the servitude of Lay Princes and their Ministers. Whereupon also the Pope most sharpely rebuked Thomas for not having rather run any hazard whatsoever then given any consent or approbation to such manifest subversions of the law of God. However because (albeit amongst all there was none good, yet) some of them seem'd to be tollerable: this, Pope Alexander did (after ma∣ture advice taken to discriminat them.) Of the sixteen heads (wherein they were all comprised) he absolutely damned ten, and ordered these ten to be for ever damned by the Church; the other six he tollerated.

So Baronius, and out of him Henricus Sp••ndanus ad An. Christi. 1163. & an. 1164.

Thirdly you are to observe the particulars of the said 16. Heads, as the same Authors Baronius, and his Epitomizer Spendanus give them ad An. 1164. and tel us they are extracted out of the Vaticane book, before quoted of our S. Thomas's life, and out of the Epistles annexed to the said Book: and also tel us that these ten here in order next following are those of the said Sixteen which Alexander did so condemn, as above.

1. De advocatione, & praesentatione Ecclesiarum, si controversia emerser it inter laicos & laicos, vel inter clericos & laicos, vel inter clericos & clericos; in curia Domini Regis stetur & terminetur.

2. Clerici citati & accusati de quacum{que} re, moniti à iustitia Regis, veniant in curiam ipsius, responsuri ibidem de hoc, unde videbitur curiae Regis quod sit ibi respondendum. Ita quod justitia Regis mittet in, curiam Sanctae Ecclesiae, ad videndum qua ratione res ibi tractabitun: & si clericus convictus vel con∣fessus fuerit non debet de cetero cum Ecclesia tueri.

3. Archiepiscopis, Episcopis & personis Regni, non licet exire de regno abs{que} licentia Domini Regis. Et si exire voluerint, si domino Regi placu∣erit, assecurabunt quod nec in eundo nec in moram faciendo, nec in redeundo, perquirent malum vel damnum domino Regi vel regno.

4. Excommunicati non debent dare vadium ad remanens, nec praestare juramentum: sed tantum vadium & plegium standi judicio Ecclesiae, ut ab∣soluantur.

5. Nullus qui de Rege tenent in Capite, nec aliquis dominicorum ministro∣rum ejus excommunicetur, nec terrae alicujus eorum sub interdicto ponantur nisi prius Dominus Rex fi in terra fuerit, conveniatur, vel justitia ejus, si fuerit extra regnum, ut rectum de ipso faciat; & ita ut quod pertineat ad curiam regiam, ibidem terminetur; & de eo quod spectabit ad Ecclesiasticam curiam, ad eamdem mittatur, ut terminetur.

6. De appellationibus si emerserint, ab Archidiacono debent procedere ad Episcopum, & ab Episcopo ad Archiepiscopum; & si Archiepiscopus de∣fuerit in justitia exhibenda, ad dominum Regem perveniendum est postremò, ut praecepto ipsius in curia Archiepiscopi controversia terminetur, ita quod non debet ulteriùs procedere abs{que} assensu Regis.

7. Si calumnia emerserit inter clericum & laicum, vel è converso, de ullo tenemento, quod clericus velit ad cleemosynam attrahere, laicus verò ad lai∣cum sendum: recognitione duodecim legalium hominum, per capitalis justitiae Regis considerationem terminabitur, utrum tenementum sit pertinens ad cleemosynam, five ad feudum laicum, coram ipsa justitia Regis. Et si re∣cognitum fuerit ad cleemosynam pertinere, placitum erit in curia Ecclesiastica; si verò ad laicum feudum, nisi ambo tenementum de eodem Episcopo vel Ba∣rone advocarint, erit placitum in curia regia. Si uter{que} advoca verit de feudo illo eumdem Episcopum, vel Baronem, erit placitum in curia ipsius, ita quod propter factam recognitionem, Saifinam non amittat qui prius saisitus fuerit.

8. Qui de civitate, vel castello, vel burgo, vel dominico manerio Regis fuerit, fi ab Archidiacano, vel Episcopo, de aliquo delicto citatus fuerit, unde debeat eidem respondere, & ad citationes eorum satisfacere noluerit; benè licet cum sub interdicto ponere, sed non debet excommunicari, priusquam Capitalis Minister Regis villae illius conveniatur, ut justitiet cum ad satisfacti∣onem venire. Et si Minister Regis inde defecerit, ipse erit in misericordia Re∣gis, & exinde poterit Episcopus ipsum accusatum, ecclesiastica justitia coer∣cere.

9. Cum vacaverit Archiepiscopatus, vel Episcopatus, vel Abbatia vel Priora∣tus in dominio Regis, debet esse in manu ejus, & inde percipiet omnes reddi∣tus & exitus sicut dominicos. Et cùm ventum fuerit ad consulendum Eccle∣siae, debet dominus Rex mandare potiores personas Ecclesiae, & in capella ipsius debet electio fieri assensu Regis, & consilio personarum Regis quas ad hoc faciendum vocaverit: & ibidem faciet electus homagium & fidelitatem domino Regi, sicut ligio domino de vita, & membris, & de honore suo terre∣no, salvo ordine suo, priusquam fit consecratus.

10. Placita debitis, quae fide interposita debeatur, vel abs{que} interpositione fidei, sicut in curia Regis.

Behold hither too the ten heads of the laws in difference twixt Thomas Becket, and Henry the Second, which were condemn'd by Pope Alexander the Third. These other 6. now following are those (of the sixteen) which were allowed as tollerable, by the same Alexander and his Consistory: as Spondanus further tels us out of the said Vaticane Code.

1. Ecclesiae de feudo domini Regis non possunt in perpetuum dari abs{que} assensu & concessione ipsius.

2. Laici non debent accusari nisi per certos & legales accusatores & testes in praesentia Episcopi, ita quod Archidiaconus non perdat jus suum, nec quid∣quam quod inde habere debeat. Et si tales fuerint qui culpantur, quod non velit nec audeat aliquis accusare eos; Vicecomes requifitus ab Episcopo faciet jurare duodecem legales homines de visueto, seu de villa coram Episcopo, quod iude veritatem secundum conscientiam suam manifestabunt.

3. Archiepiscopi, Episcopi, & vniversae personae regni, qui de Rege tenent in capite, & habent possessiones suas de dominico Regis, sicut Baroniam &

inde respondent justitiis & ministris Regis, & sequuntur & faciunt omnes consuetudines regias & rectitudines, & sicut ceteri Barones, debent interesse judiciis curiae domini Regis cum Baronibus, us{que} perveniatur in judicio ad diminutionem membrorum, vel ad mortem.

4. Si quisquam de Proceribus Regni diffortiaverit Archiepiscopo, vel Epis∣copo, vel Archidiacono, de se, vel de suis justitiam exhibere, Rex debet justitiare: & si fortè aliquis disfortiaverit domino Regi rectitudinem suam, Archiepiscopi, vel Episcopi, & Archidiaconi debent eum justitiare, ut domino Regi Satisfaciat.

5. Catalla eorum qui sunt in Regis forisfacto non detineat Ecclesia vel ••••∣meterium contra justitiam Regis, quia ipsius Regis sunt, sive in Ecclesiis, sive extra fuerint inventa.

6. Filii rusticorum non debent ordinari abs{que} assensu domini, de cujus terra nati dignoscentur.

Fourthly, you are to observe, out of the same Authors, Baronius, Sponda∣nus, &c, That notwithstanding the principal or grand quarrel was concerning these, and those, in all sixteen heads, yet the more immediat motive of the Saints death was only his refusal of giving absolution from Ecclesiastical censures (but upon a certain condition) to some Bishops, after the King was reconciled to him. For to pass by at present all other matters happen'd in prosecution of the said great difference, from the year, 1164. wherein the Saint present∣ed those heads to Pope Alexander, and 1170. wherein being reconciled to the King in France and with his licence return'd to England, he suffer'd at Canterbury: and to say nothing at all here of the Kings excessive cruelty against the favourers of St. Thomas, during those six years after of his exile, nor of the Saints earnest prosecution (of the grand quarrel, and of his own part) against the King abroad in the Papal Court, both in France and Rome, when that Court was removed to Rome in the interim: nor of the first meet∣ing design'd 'twixt the Pope himself and the King, to determine the controver∣sie, but frustrated, or rather impeded wholly, because the King would not assent to the Saints being present: nor of that other meeting which came after to be held about the same controversy, twixt the same King of England Henry the second, and King Lewis of France, even the Saint himself too being admit∣ted to be present: nor of three or four solemn Embassies even along to Rome about the same matter from the same Henry, and so many more of Bishops Archbishops and Cardinals, part of them French and part Italian, sent from Pope Alexander to Henry: nor of the different judgments or affections of the same Cardinal Embassadours or Legats, and how some complain'd they were corrupted by the Kings money: nor of King Lewis of France (though other∣wise both a pious Prince and great favourer of Thomas) his having been dissa∣tisfied with our Saint's rigour at the conference with Henry, wherein Lewis in∣terceded for him to Henry: nor of the said Lewis's favouring again mightily the Saint, and in his quarrel undermining closely at Rome King Henry: nor of the Legantine power for the Kingdom of England excepting only the Diocess of York committed by the Pope to our Saint, notwithstanding his being still a banish'd man in France: nor of the revocation or moderation and suppression for a time of that same power upon new applications made to Rome by Henry: not also of the renewed confirmation (after all this) of Thomas in all the ful∣ness of the same power, extending even to the Kings own person and to the in∣derdiction of his whole Kingdom, if it pleased Thomas: nor of Thomas's con∣demning (while yet he was in France e••iled) the controverted laws, especially and namely some chief heads of them, by virtue of his said Legantine power, excommunicating also all the advisers, upholders, observers &c. of them, and absolving moreover all the Bishops from the oath they took firmly to observe them: nor of the excommunications he moreover pronounced nominatim as well against the Kings Embassadours to the Emperour Frederick as against seve∣ral others in England: nor of the other difference happened twixt him and the

Archbishop of York with his associat Bishops, who joyntly consecrated the young King at the old Kings or Fathers command, and consecrated him so in the Diocess of Canterbury, against the express inhibition sent them both by him∣self the ordinary of that Diocess; and whose right or priviledg such consecra∣tion was, and by Pope Alexander too: nor of the excommunication also and other censures fulminated partly therefore against the said Archbishop and his consecratours the Bishops of London and Salisbury, and fulminated—even by the very self same Pope Alexander, and partly for having sworn to maintain or observe the 16. controverted laws: nor of the preparations made by Thomas to interdict by his own Legantine power both King and Kingdom: nor of the peremptory day prefixed the King even also by the Pope himself and by some other extraordinary Legats sent him to agree with Thomas at his peril by the said day: nor of the final and terrible threat indeed sent also by them to the King from the said Alexander, to witt, that, if he would not restore Thomas immediatly, and without any condition at all of observing the controverted laws, His Holyness would deal with him as he had all ready done with Frederick; that is, bereave him by a judicial sentence of his Crown and Dignity, rayse both his own people and forraigners against him &c: nor of the absolute re∣conciliation of Thomas by such threats to the King on the Feast of Mary Mag∣dalen, and his solemn admission then to his Majesty by the mediation of the said last extraordinary Legats, the Archbishop of Roan and Bishop of Nivern, and without any condition at all on S. Thomas's side: nor of the King's falling off immediatly in some things from his promise to the Legats, by denying to restore to the Church some lands which Thomas claimed as its proper right: nor lastly of the new threats of Interdict from Pope Alexander for not restoring these lands: I say, that to pass by at present and say nothing here of all these and some other particulars happen'd in the prosecution of the principal controversy twixt the said King Henry and S. Thomas, from the year 1164. until 1170, it is manifest even also out of Bar••nius himself, that after the King had newly pro∣mised Thomas to restore those lands when he (I mean the King) should be in person return'd from Normandy to England, and that Thomas himself laying aside all further delayes of his own return to his own See of Canterbury, having the Kings licence to return, and the Dean of Salisbury to safe-guard him along by the King's command, had accordingly embarked and was landed, though upon his landing (all the Ports being by the Archbishop of York, Bishop of Lendon, and Bishop of Salisbury's directions beset with Souldiers) his baggage was narrowly search'd of purpose to seize on all his Bulls, and letters from the Pope; it is manifest, I say, that presently after this affront, when or assoon as he was come to Canterbury, the Kings Ministers (sollicited by the said Bishops of York, London, and Salisbury, who were then also come to Canterbury of pur∣pose to vex Thomas) declared unto him in the Kings name, that he should ab∣solve the Bishops who were suspended and excommunicated by the Pope; be∣cause what was so done against them redounded to the Kings injury, and to the subversion of the customs of the Kingdom. That to this declaration or demand Thomas answered first, Non esse judicis inferioris soluere sententiam superioris, that it was not the part of an inferiour judg to solve the sentence of a superiour. And secondly answer'd (when others more urgently press'd him, and threatned him in the Kings behalf) that for the peace of the Church, and reverence he boare to the King, he would run the hazard of giving absolution to those Bishops, so they would swear in forma Ecclesia in the then usual form of the Church to obey the commands of the great Pontiff. That hereupon when the rest of the Bi∣shops began to yield, as not thinking it safe to oppose themselves to the Church, and impugne the Apostolical sanctions, for the preservation of the customs of the Kingdom, the man enemy of peace (sayes Spondanus out of Baronius) and author and propagator of all dissention from the very beginning of the troubles, the Archbishop of York disswaded them, advising that they should rather go to the King, without whose consent (sayes he) such an oath could not be taken.

That following this advice they all immediatly crossed the Sea to the King then as yet in France, and adding sin to sin (sayes Baronius, or his Epitomizer Sp••n∣danus) sent messengers back to the young King in England, ••••o should per∣swade him, That Thomas had sought to depose his Majesty. That finally with the Father King, Henry the Second himself, having been otherwise before ill enough affected to Thomas, though lately so as we have seen reconciled, those ill advisers wrought so much by their accusations, that wholy transported with rage he was heard often to let fall those fatal complaints and curses of all who had been bred with him, whom he had so favoured and advanced, that none of all would ri•• him of one Priest who so troubled the Kingdom and sought to despoyle him of his Royal Dignity. And therefore also what is the scope of this fourth observation is manifest, viz that notwithstanding the grand quarrel, which continue•• so long, was about those 16. Heads of laws or customs, yet the more immediat motive of the Saints death was onely that his refusal of giving absolution to those censur'd Bishops, after the King was reconciled to him without any condition of tying him to the observation of the said Heads, nay rather with express promise made by the King to the Pope and his said last Le∣gats, that he would no more urge their observance. For, as the said Baronius and Spondanus tel the particulars of this last motive out of the often mention'd Acts of his life and out of the 73. epistle of S. Thomas himself, which was his last to Pope Alexander (as they relate also out of the same Acts, and other Historians and epistles of the Saint all other particulars given by me in this fift observati∣on:) so they tell us out of the same Acts, wherein (as to this now) all other Histories agree, how the Courtiers being much moved to indignation against Thomas by these words of the King, four of them conspiring the death of Thomas, and immediatly therefore sayling into England, and being come to Canter∣bury, and with their swords drawn (on the 29. of Dec. 1170. scarce a month after the Saint was return'd from his long exile) then & there broke violently into the Church, when and where the good Archbishop was at evening prayers with his Monks and other Clerks, and furiously calling for him by his name, and the Saint hereupon being come towards them mildly, and (after reproving the Sextons for endeavouring to shut the Church doors and to keep out these mur∣therers, saying, that the Church was not to be kept or defended after the man∣ner of camps, non esse Ecclesiam castrorum more custodiendam) telling the murthe∣rers he was ready to suffer death for God, and for asserting justice and the liber∣ty of the Church; and commanding them under excommunication not to hurt any other of his, either Monk, Clerk, or Laick; and lastly bowing down his head, as in prayer, and recommending himself and the cause of the Church to God, to the blessed Virgin, to the holy Patrons of that his own particular Church of Canterbury, and to S. Denis by name, and in this Christian posture expecting the fatal strokes, he received them withall constancy, whereby in an instant his bloud and brain mixed together with his dead trunk covered the sacred pavement. Whence appears undoubtedly, that whatever the former differences were twixt the King and our Saint, the sole immediat later diffe∣rence, and onely cause of those fatal exclamations of the Kings, which made or occasioned those four unfortunate gentlemen to commit so prodigious a Sacri∣ledg, was his above recited refusal of absolution to York and the other censur'd Bishops, unless they would promise in forma Ecclesiae consueta to stand to the judgment of the Pope.

Fiftly you are to observe how it is so farr from appearing out even of Baro∣nius, or Spondanus, that S. Thomas of Canterbury did break or would breake with the King, or have any difference at all with him upon every of the above 16. Heads individually & separatly taken, as it is certain on the contrary 1. That even Pope Alexander himself even in a publick consistory, where also Thomas himself was present, allowed of the six last as tollerable. 2. That the same Pope writing in the year 1169. epist. 11. and epist. 30. to the said King Henry the Se∣cond, and his Bishops of England, even then when the contest was in the very

height, took notice onely of two points: in as much as he onely therein ad∣monish'd the King most earnestly to suffer that the vacant Churches might be provided for by canonical election of Bishop, and commanded the Bishops to excommunicate all both receivers and givers of lay investitures, and to see that all such persons should be effectually sh••nned by all the fa••••••••. 3. That Polydore Virgi••, in Henric. 2.••. XIII. Histor. Angl. tels us expresly and p••ainly, that the grands or chief ca••••e of S. Thomas of Canterburys so great and long contest with his King Henry the second, was that he observed this King daily advancing such Priests to Ecclesiastical dignities and even Bishopricks as were le•••• deserving; and doing so (as the King pleaded for himself) by ve•••••••• of the Norman laws in force which empowered him to bestow such Ecclesiastical preferments and dignities on those he thought 〈◊〉〈◊〉: and consequently observed 〈◊〉〈◊〉 takeing a direct course to break all the authority and dignity of the Sa∣cerdotal order, and labouring mightily to bend all right and law whether soe∣ver he pleased: nam cum Thomasvir summa integritate at{que} prudentia cerneret Re∣gem quotidie sacerdotes minus idoneos, aut eligere Episcopos, aut ad a••d perducere sa∣cerdotia, ac ex praescripto Normannicarum legum, jure, ut ille aicbat, suo utendo nihi•••• a ••••jorum consuetudine at{que} concessis alienunt faciendo, omnem sacerdotalis ordinis au∣thoritatem dignitat em{que} frangere, & demum ius fas{que} co••ari trahere, quo vellet, pri•••• cum admonuit &c.

And sixtly your are to observe several passages in that most exact latin relati∣on or latin li••e of S. Thomas written and publish'd by Matthew Parker in his Antiquitates Brittannicae, amongst other lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury. To which so exact relation yet of Parker I do not by any m••ans remit you as that I do my self, nor would have you (good Reader) to approve any of his expressions where they are to the contempt, prejudice, or dishonour of St. Tho∣mas being this Matthew Parker was of an other communion, that is a Protestant, and even also too the very first Protestant Archbishop placed in the See of Can∣terbury under Queen Elisabeth, and consequently no great adorer or admirer of S. Thomas; but remit you to it rather as well for the better justification of S. Thomas in his grand controversy as for the great illustration of my own Answers (in some particulars) to the argument grounded against me on the contrary. And you are to note that Parker gives you in his margent those ancient Catho∣lick Historians of England out of whom he takes his said most exact relation, as to the matter (though not as to his own in everent words in some passages.) and gives you Houeden, Walter Coventren. Roff. Histor. Ioranal Hist. Roger de Cestriae, William Cantuariens. Matthew Paris, Florilegus, Heribertus, Arch. Nicholas Trivet, Radulph de Duceto, Gemblacen. Sigibertut, Allanus Abbas Theokesheriensis, Annal. Eccles. August. Aurea hystor. part. 2. Matthew Westmonast. Gervasius.

Therefore out of this relation (partly, and partly in order to it) so given by Matthew Parker (who questionless might have had more then any other of his days all the Records & both printed books and ancient manuscrips of this Saints life (if onely those which are said to be in the Vatican be excepted, whereof not∣withstanding he seems to have had a copy; for Heribertus, whom he frequently quotes in the Margent, was one of the four compilers of the Vatican life) you are to observe to my purpose and even to the Saints advantage and for his justi∣fication. 1. How when he had been pitch'd upon by the King to be chosen Arch∣bishop against his own will, he declared freely to the ••ame King, that if his Majesty would have him chosen, his Majesty must expect opposition from him in the concerns of Ecclesiastical rights or immunities whenever entrench'd upon by his Majesty or civil officers. 2. That the Priest accused of murder was not con∣vict by witnesses nor by his own confession; though he sailed in that was called canonical or legal purgation. And yet for failing herein was punish'd as much as the Archbishop could punish him, and as much too as the law required he should be: that is, was degraded and cloyster'd to do perpetual pennance during life, and even that strict pennance which the canons, laws, and customs of England pre∣scribed. 3. That albeit of the crime of the Chanon Phillip B••••is nothing in

particular is written by our Historians, besides that of his reviling, the King's Judges, when he was spre'd to their tribunal, yet the Archbishop not onely had him whip'd or scours'd publickly, but also deprived of all Ecclesiastical bene∣fices and offices. ••. That it was onely by due course of law our holy Archbishop recovered those land•• (as of right belonging to the Church of Canterbury.) whereof or of which 〈…〉〈…〉 such complaints were made to the King. 5. That for having 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••s Seal of Chancellourship to the King to Narmandy, and so quitted himself of that office, he did nothing against the law of God or man: nay or any thing but what he was licenced, to do by the young King, Henry the Son, at such time as he consented to the election and was consecrated in the said young King's ow•• presence: as the Saint himself pleased for him∣self publickly in the Parliament at Westminster. 6. That for his having hindered the payment of the yearly contribution from every hyde of land, he did not hinder any free and voluntary contribution of such payment, but the exaction of it as of an assessment laid by the Kings own warrant and to be paid as a du∣ty in the case into his own excheque, whereas by the law or custom of the land there was not in the then case any such duty of e••action and assessment of such money to be paid into the Kings Treasury. 7. That those 16. Heads of laws or customs, about which the grand and long contest was, are acknowledg'd here by Matthew Parker himself not to have been as yet then, either laws or customs of the land (though, Henry the Second alleadg'd them and would have them as such, and as the laws or customs of his grand Father) but onely were conceived or written, by Henry the first, but never by him, or other after him till Henry the Second, pass'd so into laws or customs: and that Thomas of Canterbury reflect∣ing hereupon, gave it amongst other reasons for his falling back from his forced oath at Clarendone, and for his not confirming by his seal, as was expected, what he had so formerly sworn ex metu ca••ente in virum constantem. 8. That the four Squires who murther'd him demanded three things of him to be done: The first was, that he should do homage to the young King for his Barony; the se∣cond, that such Clerks as he brought with him into the Kingdom should take such an oath to the same King as would be prescribed to them for the security of the Kingdom; and the third was, that he should absolve the Bishops and other excommunicated persons from those Ecclesiastical censures which they had incurr'd. 9. That S. Thomas denyed none of all, but onely with this caution the two last that the oath to be offred to himself or those Clerks should be such an oath as might be justly or by law required of them, and that those Bishops and other excommunicated persons, who had done manifest injury to him and to his Church of Canterbury, for which injuries partly they were excommuni∣cated, should first by oath promise to make satisfaction or repair the prejudices and injuries so done by them. And that for such his answers, which was but very just, they immediatly next day murthered him in the Church, as he was at evening prayer.

Seventhly, you are to observe (good Reader) what the ancient Christian civil or municipal laws of England (or those I mean of the State politick and civil, as they are distinguish'd from the meer canons of the Church) were con∣cerning the immunity of Clergiemen from secular tribunals in the punishment of their crimes and were yet in the days of S. Thomas and Henry the second, or at any time before that contest, not legally repealed then by a contrary civil or municipal law of that land, or by any contrary custom admitted or in force. For I must confess that often considering with my self, how it was not probable that so vertuous, and just a man, and even so knowing a man also as S. Thomas of Canterbury must have been, being he studied so long both in Oxford and Paris, and the civil law in Italy, and was one of the Justiciers in London before he went to Italy, was after Archdeacon, and last of all (before made Archbishop) was five whole years great Chancellour of England, sitting and judging in the Court of highest judicature, how I say it was not onely not probable but not even really possible that such a man being made Archbishop of Canterbury, should

upon false grounds (that is, upon any such vain or trifling grounds as those are of some of our late School-divines, Canonists, or Historians, or as those are of Bellarmine, Baronius, &c. for the exemption of Clergiemen from se∣cular tribunals, even the very supream, in, or as to the judgment or punish∣ment of their crimes whatsoever) contend so mightily, and so dangerously, and so fatally at last with Henry the Second, or contend with him at all (upon such grounds) for any kind of exemption of those two Clerks (whereof before) from the Kings Judicatories, especially when the King himself desired they should be delivered to the secular Court, because of their own proper great delinquency, and because also (or indeed cheifly) of the great clamours were then against the more general delinquency of Clerks in England, as not re∣garding much Ecclesiastical punishments; or should also (but I say still) upon the grounds of Bellarmine or his Associats, contend with that King upon the matter or subject of the second of those 16. Heads, which begins Clerici cita∣ti, &c. and which is the only indeed of all those 16. Heads that any way touches our present controversie, or which of all those Heads may at all be made use of against my doctrine of the subjection of Clerks in criminal causes to the su∣pream civil power: Therefore I took the pains in reading over all the more ancient, civil, or municipal laws of England, as many as I heard were extant, and not only the Saxon laws, publish'd of late by Abrahamus Whelo∣cus, though formerly translated into Latin out of the ancient English or Saxon language by Gulielmus Lambardus, but also the Norman laws made for Eng∣land by William the Conquerour, and his youngest Son King Henry the first, as Roger Twisden gives them: as likewise I yet further took pains in consulting the Histories of William the Conqueror, William Rufus, Henry the First, King Stephen, Henry the Second, &c. because I perswaded my self it could not be otherwise, but that certainly S. Thomas had some good & sure ground for himself in the municipal, proper, & peculiar laws of England, for that which concern'd his grand contest, or even for that second head fingly taken of those above 16. or even also for his not delivering up to secular judgment those two criminal Clerks.

Nor truly was I deceived in my perswasion, nor frustrated in my inquisition. For having read the laws of King Inas (who began to raign an. 712. and end∣ed an. 729.) of King Alured (who began his raign an. 871. and ended an. 900) of King Ethelred (who began an. 979. ended an. 1016.) of King Edgar (who began an. 959. ended an. 975.) of King Edmund) who began 940. ended 946.) of Edward the Second, of that name of Saxon Kings (who began 900. end. 924.) and of Guthrun the Danish tributary King, those laws I mean which are called Faedera Edwardi ac Guthruni Regum; of King Ethelstan (who began his raign 924. ended 940.) of King Canutus (who began 1016. ended 1035.) of Edward the Third of that name of the Saxon Kings, otherwise called Edouardus bonus, Edward the Confessor, and St. Edward (who began 1042. ended 1066.) as likewise those of Gulielmus Conquaestor (who began 1067. ended 1087.) and of Henricus primus (who began 1100. ended 1135.) I find enough to my pur∣pose.

'Tis true those of Inas, Ethelred, and Aelstane have nothing in particular touching it: nor those even of Edgar (which were renewed again LXVII. years after his death, and after that by reason of the intervening wars they had been so long out of use, and were so renewed by Edwardus bonus, St. Edward the Con∣fessor) any thing but that in general, which is the first of all his laws: Pri∣mum Ecclesiae Dei jura ac Immunitates sitas omnes habento; de••umas quis{que} &c. yet those of Alured determine thus; Sacerdos si quempiam interfecerit, eorum omni∣um quae ope domicilii fretus acquisierit confiscatio sequitor, eum{que} gradu spoliatum Episcopus è fano pellito, ni Dominus data capitis aestimatione veniam illi exorarit. And those of Edmund thus: si quis hominis Christiani sanguinem effuderit, ad Re∣gium conspectum (etsi ei seruierit) non admittitor, ni prius id sceleris (juxta ac fue∣rit ei ab Episcopo ac sacerdote imperatum) compensarit. But those of Edward the Second and Guthrum thus:

Si quis sacris initiatus clepserit, dimicarit, peie∣rarit,

aut fornicatus fuerit, capitis aestimatione mulcta aut legis violatae paena, pro îpsa delicti ratione compensato, Deo saltem (prout se regulae habuerint Ecclesiasticae) faciat satis, at{que} in custodiam (ni fidejussores admoverit) conjicitor. Sacerdos si in diebus festis, aut jeiuniis populo indicendis erra∣verit, 30. solidis (si quidem id inter Anglos evenerit) mulctator, fin idem in Dacis acciderit, sesquimarcam pendito. Sacerdos si ad dies in hoc con∣dictos oleum non pararit sacrosanctum, aut baptisma (cum usus fuerit) de∣negarit, inter Anglos mulctator, in Dacis autem legis violatae paenas lucto∣oras nimirum duodenas numerato. Si quis sacris initiatus capitale quid∣quam perpetrarit, capitor, ut tandem Episcopo criminis admissi paenas de∣pendat.

And those also of Canutus in part after the same manner, and in part otherwise, or thus:

Si eorum qui Arae deservierint aliquis hominem occiderit, aut insigne aliquod perpetrarit flagitium, gradu & honore dispo∣liatus, perinde ei at{que} Papa circumscripserit habitandi locum exulato, ac cu∣mulatè compensato. Sin is crimen fuerit inficiatus, excusatio tripla esto. Atque ni hanc quae Deo & hominibus debetur compensationem intra terdenos aggrediatur dies, ab omni legis commoditate destitutus habetor.

So one of his laws. But another thus: concerning criminal Priests guilty, or accused of murther, or other hainous crimes.

Si quis sacris inauguratus, rei capita∣lis obnoxius extiterit, comprehenditor, at{que} ut tandem Episcopo criminis admissi paenas dependat, asseruator.

And a third yet thus, concerning ho∣micides, whether Laymen or Clergiemen failing in their purgation, either that which was canonical by fire, or water, &c. or by any other way whatso∣ever.

Si quis alium trucidarit palam, perempti cognatorum in potestatem detor. Sin ca••dis insimuletur tantummodo, atque in excusatione afferenda ceciderit, Episcopum penes esto ejus rei judicium.

Now for St. Edward the Confessor's laws (which indeed were chiefly, or above all other the laws for which the people of England were so often at va∣riance with some of the Norman Kings, or William the Conquerors Succes∣sors, and which too Ingulphus and the Chronicle of Lichfield tell us were first enacted by King Edgar, and but only revived with some amendments or additi∣ons by his said grand child Edwardus bonus) its likewise plain the first of them is in these words:

Omnis Clericus (aliter, Clerus) & etiam Scholares, & omnis eorum res & possessiones, ubicumque fuerint, pacem Dei & sanctae Ecclesiae habeant. And the Fift in these: "Quicumque de Ecclesia aliquid tenuerit, vel in fundo Ecclesiae mansionem habuerit, extra curiam Ecclesiasticam coactus non placitabit quamvis foris fecerit, nisi (quod absit) in curia Ecclesiastica de recto defecerit. And the seventh also in these: "Si quis vero sanctae pacem Ecclesiae violenter infregerit (alias, violaverit) Episcoporum est justitia. Quod si nocens sententiam eorum diffugiendo, vel arroganter contemnendo despexerit, clamor de eo ad Regem deserator post XL. dies, & Regis justi∣tia mittet eum per vadimonium & plegios (fi habere poterit) usque dum Deo primitus, & Ecclesiae postea satisfaciat. Quod si infra XXXI. dies, sive per amicos & notos, sive per justitiam Regis inveniri non poterit, utlegabit (id est, omni legum protectione excludet) eum Rex verbo oris fui. Si vero postea, repertus fuerit, & retineri possit, vivus Regi reddatur, vel caput ejus, si se defenderit. Vulpinum enim gerit caput, quod anglicè vulfesherfod dicitur. Et haec est lex communis & generalis de omnibus utlegatis.

As for William the Conqueror, its no less plain, that amongst his other laws, he, in the last year of his raign, gave this for one, and for a general rule

Hoc quoque praecipio ut omnes habeant & teneant Legem Edwardi Regis in omnibus rebus, adauctis his quae constituimus ad ••utilitatem Anglorum.

And its as plain too, that in all those he calls his additions or amendments of St. Edwards laws, there is not one derogating to the jurisdiction which Bishops formerly had by those laws of King Edward, or any other former laws or customes of England for punishing criminal Clerks, or for the exemption of

such criminals from the Secular Judicatory, or their subjection in the punish∣ment of their crimes to the Court Ecclesiastical only.

Nay, it is further plain also, that in the begining of Henry the firsts raign, the same Henry (understanding the general dissatisfaction, murmurs and grievances of both Clergie and People of England, in that under William Rufus, his immediate Predecessor, their rights, ancient laws, and wholsome customes were intrench't upon, and infring'd so generally by the Judges and other Officers of the Crown) obliged himself by publick Charter, and by laws of his own to maintain the said former rights, laws and customes, especially to the Church, and to reform as well in the point of jurisdiction of Bishops in the criminal causes of Clergiemen, as provision for vacant Churches, and other matters whatsoever relating either to Clergie or Layety, all the abuses so lately crept in: as accordingly he declared by the same Instrument all such actually taken away and abolished. All which may appear sufficiently out of these following Records, and laws of his own, which may be seen in my Au∣thors, Abraham Whelocus, and Roger Twisden. For thus begins the first head or chapter of his laws, extracted out of his said Charter, or epistle ad omnes suos fideles, at his coronation, testibus (sayes himself) Archiepiscopis, Episco∣pis, Baronibus, Comitibus, Vice comitibus, & Optimatibus totius regni Ang∣liae apud Westmonasterium quando coronatus fui. Henricus Dei gratia Rex Anglorum, Omnibus Baronibus & fidelibus suis, Francis, Anglis, salutem. Sciatis me Dei misericordia & communi consilio [& assensu] Baronum regni Angliae ejus∣dem Regni Regem coronatum esse, & quia regnum oppressum erat injustis exactionibus, ego respectu Dei & amore quem erga vos [omnes] habeo, sanctam Dei Ecclesiam, im∣primis liberam facio, Ita quod nec vendam, nec ad firmam ponam, nec mortu•• Archie∣piscopo, sive Episcopo, vel Abbate aliquid accipiam de dominio Ecclesiae, vel hominibus ejus, donec successor in eam ingrediatur, & omnes malas consuetudines quibus regnum Angliae opprimebatur inde aufero, quas consuetudines hic pono, &c. And thus after he proceeds in his LXVI. law, or chapter, expresly and particularly home to our present purpose. Si quis Minister altaris hominem occidat, vel malis actibus supra modum differatur, ordine simul & dignitate privetur, & peregrinetur sicut ei Papa injunget, & opus emendet. Et si se purgare velit, tripliciter hoc faciat, & nisi in∣fra triginta noctes hoc incipiat, erga Deum & homines utlaga sit. And in his LXXIII. law, or chapter, thus also: Si Episcopus homicidium faciat, deponatur, & paeniteat duodecim annis in pane & aqua, & quin{que} ieiunet tribus diebus in hebdoma∣da, & aliis communi eibo utatur. Si Presbyter hominem occidat, vel Monachus, or∣dinem perdat, peniteat & decem annis, sex in pane & aqua, & quartuor in hebdomada ieiunet tres dies, caeteris utatur cib•• suo, &c. And those were the laws, to our purpose of Henry the first, third Son to the Norman Conqueror. Though I confess that neither he himself (I mean this Henry the first who made them) nor his Successors did at all keep to them exactly, how specious soever and great his promises were and his charters too at his coronation. Whereof Polydore Virgil speaks thus in his life, and XI. book of Histories; Deinde summa ope in∣tendit hominum studia in se vertere, partim dando, partim grandia pollicendo: sed quia leges quas tulerat Pater ejus Gulielmus, neutiquam aequas populus judicabat, illas imprimis tollere promittit. And a little after: Leges quas Edovardus tertius utendas dederat, in pristinum usum revocat, quae tamen sensim absoluerunt, Norma••••s pro comm••do Principis, ad incommodum Anglorum, leges a Gulielmo primo conditas constantissime usurpantibus. And again about the end of his life; Tulit initio sui Principatus aliquot leges, quas nec ipse, nec Reges qui secuti sunt, hine servarua••: However those I have given were his laws, not repealed after by himself in Par∣ment (for he began Parliaments in England) or otherwise, by any publick Instrument declared as a law to the people; albeit I deny not but those 16. heads controverted after twixt Thomas of Canterbury and King Henry the Se∣cond, were first conceived in writing by this very Henry the first; but never as a law published by him.

To all which I will add those further laws yet, which were (to our purpose also) made by King Stephen (Henry the First's immediat or next Successour) in two several Parliaments, one at Oxford, and t'other at London: in that of Ox∣ford, abolishing quite that kind of tribute or assessment which other Kings had former∣ly often exacted from every hyde or acre of ground, and promising too that neither Episcopacies nor other Ecclesiastical Benefices or Sacerdotal Prefectships should be kept vacant as much as for any the least time: and in this of London or Westminster, enacting for the Clergy's sake (& because they had liberally contri∣buted for the warr in hand) that whoever should strike any Churchman in holy orders, or should without licence from the Court Ecclesiastical or Bishops lay hands upon or seize any criminal Clergymen, whatever his crime were, should be held excom∣municat, impious and accursed, and should not be restored at all to the com∣munion of the Church, or absolved, but by the Roman Pontiff onely. Of which laws of King Stephen (albeit there be no Parliament Records preserved of them, as neither indeed are of all or any of those held before King John's days) Polydore Virgil tels us expresly and particularly in his 12. book of Histo∣ries, and life of the said Stephen. For these are his words, concerning the first: Stephanus autem ex sententia summum consecutus imperium, Oxonium proficis∣citur, atque ibi Principum conventum facit: quo in Conventu, inter caetera, ut suo∣rum animos sibi devinciret, illud tributi genus quod alij Reges per singula jugera ter∣rae saepe exigere a populo solebant, prorsus sustulit, at{que} promisit se curaturum, ut de∣inceps Episcopatus & aliae Prefecturae sacerdotales ne puncto quidem temporis vacarent, &c. And concerning the second, these: Interea Rex Londinum venit, ubi celebrem Principum ac Antistitum conventum peregit, in quo talia verba fecit: Cum Principes fidelissimi &c — His dictis cuncti praesidium salutis ac libertatis defendendae se laturos pollicentur. At Episcopi cum suis sacerdotibus, quia pugnare fas non est, pe∣cuniam conferre promittunt, quibus ut aliquid gratiae referretur, in eodem Conventu constitutum est, ut quicum{que} deinceps sacris initiatos percuterent, aut alicujus crimi∣nis reos Episcoporum injussu caperent, impii importuni{que} haberentur, nec ab aliquo praeterquam a Romano Pontifice in piorum caetum restitui possent, quemadmodum jure Pontificio iampridem sancitum esset, sed apud Anglos ante id tempus minus serva∣tum.

And so I have given at large whatever I would have the Reader observe in this Seventh place of the proper civil or municipal laws of England, before Henry the seconds time concerning our purpose, especially the exemption of criminal Clerks, even in case of murder, from the lay Judges.

Eightly, and in the last place you are to observe (but onely out of this present book of my own, which you you read now, that is, out of all, said by me for∣merly in so many Sections, from that place where I first began to dispute of Ecclesiastical Immunity) what my doctrine is, against which the objection is made, for (and to come to) the answering of which I have premised so long a discourse in so many observations. And you are to observe well that my said doctrine is no other in effect but what I now repeat heer briefly. viz. 1. That neither by the law divine, positive, or natural, nor by the canons of the Catho∣lick Church which are properly those are and are called Canones universalis Ec∣clesiae, nor even by those other canons which are more properly and onely stiled Papal Canons, Clergiemen living within the dominions of any Supream lay or secular Prince are exempt in criminal and temporal causes from his supream civil even coercive power. 2. That not onely they are not so already exempt∣ed by any such law of God or man, but also that they cannot be hereafter by any pure law of man not even of Pope or Council exempted from the said supream civil even coercive power, without the consent of the Princes them∣selves. 3. That neither can the supream secular Princes themselves grant any such exemption to Clerks living still within their dominions and remaining Subjects to them (because this implyes a plain contradiction) or to any Clerks at all, but to such as are at the same time wholly set free from all kind of subjecti∣on or acknowledgment of their Principalities. 4. That on the other side, both

by the natural and positive law of God, and especially by the 13 of the Ro∣mans, by the letter, and meaning, and scope or end of that whole text of St. Paul there, all Christian Clerks, not even the Popes, not even the Apostles themselves exempted, are subject in temporal matters and criminal causes, even to the coercive power of the supream secular Magistrat. 5. That by the doctrine also of the holy Fathers generally until Gregory the VII. and by their exposition or understanding of that text of Paul, all Churchmen whatsoever were and are so in the dominions of the respective supream temporal Princes whom these Clerks own to be their own legal Princes. 6. That by the practise also of so many Christian Bishops, Popes, and Princes, they were and are so. 7. That even by the testimony of clear (even Papal) canons they were and are so: & that by no argument hithertoo alleadged out of reason, scripture, traditi∣on, Fathers, Councils, Papal Canons, Histories, by any of our adversaries, the contrary is as much as any way convincingly deduced. 9. And finally and in a word, that all their true exemptions from either inferiour or supream secular judicatories in any temporal or criminal cause whatsoever, as to the coercive punishment of them by the civil power, force and sword, is originally from and wholly still depending of the supream civil power. In all which, or in any discourse or clause said thereupon by me, you are also to observe, that I never said or say or intend to say that Clerks have not a true right to those exempti∣ons from lay judicatories which the municipal or civil laws of the land wherein they live or the approved customs thereof do give them, until the same exemptions be legally repealed by an equal authority to that which gave them: nor said, nor do say, nor intend to say but it is as lawfull for them to maintayn in all just and legal ways their own such immunities, as it is for lay subjects in such ways to maintayn their own against the encroachments or usur∣pations of the Princes themselves or of their Ministers: and consequently did not say, nor do, nor intend to say, that they are bound to obey the pleasure of the Prince by subjecting themselves to his lay Judges in such criminal causes, or any other, wherein the law of the land doth free and exempt them from such judges. But say and averre still the quite contrary of all these three say∣ings: because the sublimer civil power, which is in the law of the land for them in such case doth warrant them from transgressing in so much that Prae∣cept of Paul. 13. to the Romans.

Those eight observations being so premised and considered it will now be easy enough for me to answer fully and satisfactorily the before given fourth and last of all the remaining objections, viz, that so specious grand objection built, as tis pretended, on the contrary judgment or opinion, &c. of S. Thomas of Canterbury: and it will be as easy for my Reader to understand that my answers which I now give, are full and satisfactory. Therefore

My first answer is in general, by denying positively, plainly, and flatly that there is any as much as the least truth in the pretence, or supposition; or in that, I mean, which pretends or supposeth, that St. Thomas of Canterbury was of a contrary judgment or opinion to my doctrine, or to any part or proposi∣on of my doctrine hitherto, of the subjection of Clergiemen to the supream coercive power of secular Princes in criminal causes; or which pretends or supposeth, that because he was so of a contrary opinion in theory or practice, or both, to any part of my said doctrine, he opposed his King, fell into his disfavour, was exiled by him at first, suffered death at last, was accounted a Martyr, cano∣nized as such, and invoked too ever since by the universal Church. All which, and every particular of which, I deny both positively, and plainly, and flatly. Neither do I doubt at all, but that in my several observations hitherto (taken altogether, or if the seven first out of History be compared exactly to, or ta∣ken together with what is given in my eight and last out of this very book, of the particular heads of my doctrine in it, concerning ecclesiastical exemption) I have given sufficient proofs, that I do upon very good, very justifyable and unanswerable grounds deny so positively, plainly, and flatly this

whole pretence or supposition, and every part thereof. For I have shewed what the immediat cause of his death, or why he was so cruelly murthered was, and that this was no other but for having answered, that he would not ab∣solve the excommunicated Bishops, unless they had first promised to make satsfaction for the injury done by them to his Church, or at least abide or submit to the judgment of the Pope in that case; and that his Clerks who came with him from beyond the Seas should not take any oath but such an oath as were just. And I have shewed also what the intermediat cause,, the grand long contest indeed, 'twixt him and his King was, and that this was no other but of the 16. Heads of customes of Henry the First, or of his Grandfather, as Henry the Second, called them avi∣tas, which heads also I have given at length. And the judicious Reader may himself clearly see, that amongst all those causes or occasions, either immedi∣ate, or intermediat, final, or original, proximate or remote, there is nothing at all concerns, or which may well or ill be said to concern our dispute, or my doctrince, but only the second head of those 16. customes (as they were cal∣led) and that of the Saints not delivering up to the secular justice the two crimi∣nal Clerks, or the Priest and Chanon. And the Reader also may clearly see, that my doctrine no where teacheth formally, or virtually, or consequentially, any thing contrary to what St. Thomas did either practice, or must have held in theory, as to either his not assenting to that second Head, (as neither indeed to any other of all the 16.) or as to his not delivering up to secular justice those criminal Clerks.

For any rational man may very well understand, that St. Thomas of Canterbury might without any contradiction, inconsequence, or contrariety to himself, or to these two actions of his, nay indeed, or to any other opposition made by him to Henry the Second, might I say have held, or have been at the same time of the very self same judgment or opinion with me hitherto concerning the exemption or subjection of Clergiemen, or (which is the same thing) that he might at the same time have held even positively, formally, and expresly, that by no law of God, or Nature, or Nations, or of the Catholick Church, or of Roman Emperours, or Pontiffs, Clergiemen were, or are exempted from the supream civil even coercive power in criminal causes; but on the contrary, that by Reason, Scripture, Tradition of the Fathers, practice of both Fa∣thers and Princes, and even also by the very Canons of as well Popes as Councils they were and are subject to the supream civil coercive power, nay, and to the subordinate civil or lay inferiour Judges also, in all criminal causes whatsoever, as far as the civil or municipal laws of the land do subject them, or wherein the said temporal, or municipal laws of the land exempt them not from the coercion of lay Courts; I say that any rational man may very well understand how St. Thomas might have held all this, and yet at the same time, and without any change in his judgment or opinion, or any con∣tradiction, inconsequence, or contrariety have practised justly, conscientiously, and holily all that he did in opposition to Henry the Second, and particularly that of not delivering up to secular justice the two criminal Clerks, and that also of not assenting to the second head of those 16. which were pretended by by the said Henry to be his Grandfathers customes. St. Thomas of Canter∣bury had the very municipal and politick laws of the land or of England, for himself in both these Instances: as indeed he had them for himself in all other particulars wherein he opposed that King, albeit his own proper undoubted Soveraign. And that he had them so for himself in all his differences, and particularly in these two, I have clearly shewed, and proved at length in my former seventh observation: wherein the Reader may see, that by the munici∣pal laws of England still in being, or in force, as not legally repealed by a con∣trary law, not even till after the death of St. Thomas of Canterbury, and by the Saxon, Danish, Norman laws of England all along till Henry the Second himself's own raigne, (and until after this controversie happen'd) criminal Clerks even guilty of murder were to be judg'd and punish'd only by the Court

Ecclesiastical ••ay, & that not only by the same laws, all Clergiemen 〈…〉〈…〉 all crimes whatsoever to be judg'd only by the Bishops, but that all the very 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Church were ••••all causes whatsoever to be adjudg'd only in the Church of Ecclesiastical Tribunals, nor should have recourse to those were by way of distinction commonly called the Kings Courts, but only in default of justice done according to law in the Courts of the Church. Which being in or as to both differences the law of England, contrary to which i•• both dif∣ferences o•• cases Henry the Second would have forced St. Thomas: and no other law of God or Man commanding St. Thomas to submit to the King in either as the case stood, not even that of St. Paul 13. to the Romans, because St. Thomas had in both, as in all his other differences, the sublimer ••o••••ers in the law of the land for himself: who sees not that St. Thomas needed not for his own justification in either differences pretend either the positive law of God, or the natural law of God, or the law of Nations, or the Imperial law, or even any Church law, or Papal law, or Canon for the exemption of criminal Clergiemen from the secular Courts, when he denyed to deliver up the two criminal Clerks, or when he refused to sign or seal that second Head of Henry the Second's customes; which second head was such as subjected all Clergie∣men in all kind of causes, civil, criminal, mixt; spiritual, and temporal to the cognizance of the Kings even ordinary lay Judges and Courts; as you may see by turning to, and reading over again in my fourth Observation that second Head of those 16? And who see•• not, but he might at the same time, with∣out any contradiction, inconsequence, o•• contrariety, maintain, that still it was true, that abstracting from the laws of England then as yet 〈◊〉〈◊〉, be∣cause not legally repealed, all Clerks in England were by the laws of ••eason, and laws of God, and doctrine of the Fathers, and many Canons too of Popes and Councils, subject in all temporal causes, both civil and criminal, to the lay civil Courts and Judges of Henry the Second? Nay, & who sees not, but for any thing alledg'd, or known out of the Histories of either his life or death, or martyrdome, or canonization, or miracles, or invocation of him after as a glorious martyrized Saint, and even martyrized only too (if you please) in meer defence of the Church liberties and immunities, who sees not, I say, but that notwithstanding any thing hitherto so alledg'd out of all or any of those Histories, he not only might be, but was rigidly and constantly of this judge∣ment and opinion? especially being these Histories tell us, in one instance, that when he was so much pressed to sign to those 16. Heads, as the royal customes of Henry the First, he doubted they were no such customes of Henry the First, or were no customes at all: and therefore chiefly and only fell off after swearing them, and would not sign or seal them at all as was desired and ex∣pected from him; albeit his Cross-bearer's check did forward his repentance for having sworn. Sed cum descriptas consuetudines (sayes Parker himself, in the life of our Saint)) perlegisset Thomas (for when he swore to observe them, he did not see them in writing, nor were they digested at all into heads, and there∣fore he only swore in general to observe those customes which Henry the Second called ••nitas cons•••• tudines, his Grandfathers customes, and royal customes) ••ul••∣•••••• 〈…〉〈…〉 an ill ••um quaedam inter consuetudines essent habendae, it•••• diem deli∣•••••• 〈…〉〈…〉 sigillum & chirographum adhiberet petiit; and whereas also he could not be ignorant of the laws both Imperial, which he had studied, and of the laws of England where he lived, and judged so long as Chancellor. Or who sees not briefly, that that there is no contradiction, that a most rigid 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Bishop should dye for the rights of the Clergie, and be therefore a Mar∣•••••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 yet acknowledge all those rights, or at least many, or some of them 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••••••ch he dyed, as for example, that of exemption, came to the Clergie from the meer civil or municipal and politick just laws of the land, and only from such laws of the land, and not by any means immediatly from any other law divine or humane, of nature or Nations, or of the Church, Pope, or Empe∣rour; if not in so much only as the laws of God and nature, approve all just

laws of every land 〈◊〉〈◊〉 they be repealed by an equal authority no that which made them? Finally who sees not also, that notwithstanding all this, or not∣withstanding the municipal laws of England, were for St. Thomas in every particular of his said manifold opposition to his King, or that by the same laws the English Clergie had such exemptions from secular Courts; yet St. Thomas might have been of this opinion also and perswasion at the same time, and was so too most rigidly and constantly for ought appears to the contrary, out of the Acts of his life or, other Historians, that as by no other laws of God, or man or reason, so neither by those very laws of England, either him∣self or any other Clergieman was exempt from the supream, civil coercive power, or even could be exempt, during their being subjects, or their acknow∣ledging to be so, or their living in the quality of subjects? 1. Because the very name and nature of subjection draws along with it, and either essentially, or at least necessary implyes this, which is to be subject to the supream co∣ercive power, at least in some cases and some contingencies. 2. Because that if both himself and all other Ecclesiastical Judges and Bishops (taking the Pope himself too in the number) did fail in their duty of punishing Clerks notoriously scandalously and dangerously criminal; or that if the criminal Clerks themselves would not according to the law of the land submit to the sentence and punishment prescribed into them by the Bishops, or if even also the Bishops themselves were altogether guilty of the same crimes, or patroni∣zers of the criminals, and would not amend or satisfie of themselves without any peradventure tis evident that the supream civil coercive power might and ought in such cases to proceed against them by plain force and corporal co••r∣cion; cuia salus populi, su••rema lex esto. 3. Because the power whereby S. Thomas himself and all other Bishops and Ecclesiastical Judges proceeded in a com∣pulsory way to any civil or corporal coercion of criminal Clerks, against the will of the same Clerks, as to seizing, their persons, imprisoning them, whip∣ing them, taking away their temporal goods, confining them to a perpetual cloyster'd life, &c, was derived unto them and wholly depending of the su∣pream temporal or civil coercive power residing originally and independently in the Prince and in his laws; for the very Papal canons, even Pope, Caelestine the III. himself, cap. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 homine, de judicijs, as I have quoted him in the for∣mer section confesseth, that after and besides suspension excommunication and deposition or degradation the Church hath no other nor, any more punishment for any. 4. Because the very self same supream civil coercive power, which as Legislative authorized the Bishops to be the onely ordinary Judges of crimi∣nal Ecclesiasticks, and did also both prescribe and warrant that kind of punish∣ment which they inflict on such Clerks and did ordain there should be no other punishment but that for such persons, and the very self same supream civil power that made those municipal laws for the exemption of Clerks in criminal causes from the lay Judges, may again unmake them upon just occasi∣on, or may lessen or moderat that exemption, as there shall be cause: and con∣sequently criminal Clerks are still in so much under the supream civil coercive power; as de facto & de ••ure they are indeed, and were indeed always for so many other respects, and in so many other cases and contingencies, notwith∣standing the most ample municipal laws for exemption that are or have been. 5. And lastly because there is no contradiction inconsistence or contrariety be∣twixt S. Thomas his being of this opinion and perswasion, and the being of the laws of England such as I said they were then.

Which yet we may easily understand by the example of the priviledge of Peers. For certainly the Peers of a Kingdom will not pretend themselves ex∣empt from the supream coercive power of the Prince, albeit they cannot by the laws of the land be judg'd or condemned but by their own Peers. There∣fore an exemption from one sort of Judges doth not argue an exemption from the supream power that is above all sorts of Judges. And therefore nothing can be alleadg'd out of the life or death, or sanctity, or martyrdom,

or canonization, or invocation, or even miracles of S. Thomas of Canterbury, nor out of all these joyntly taken with the laws of the land for which he stood, to prove that he was of a contrary judgment or perswasion to my do∣ctrine. All that is alleadged of any such matters do onely evidence the purity of his Soul and justice of his cause; neither of which my doctrine doth at all oppose, but allow approve and confirm.

But if any should replye that the laws of the land as to our controversy were chang'd by the swearing of those 16. Heads of customes by all the Arch∣bishops, Bishops, Earls, Barons, Abbots, Priors, and whole Clergie, and even by St. Thomas of Canterbury himself, first of all (as Matthew Paris tels us in these tearms, Hanc recognitionem consuetudinum & libertatum Deo de••estabilium, Archie∣piscopi, Episcopi, Abbates, Priores, Clerus, cum Comitibus Baronibus & Proctribus cunctis juraverunt se observaturos Domino Regi & heredibus ejus, bona fide, & abs{que} malo ingenio, in perpetuum. Inter alios etiam his omnibus Thomas Cantuariensis consen∣sit) and should replye that after such change by such swearing, S. Thomas of Can∣terbury did fall into his own former opposition of or differences with Henry the second, even as to the second head of those customes, and in prosecution of his former refusal to deliver up to secular justice those two criminal Clerks: and should therefore conclude, that S. Thomas must have pretended for him∣self at such time, not the former laws of the land, which were so repealed by a contrary law of Henry the second, but either the laws of God, Nature, or Nations, or the Canons of the Church or Pope, &c: if I say, any should make this objection here, the Answer is at hand, very facile and clear, out of my for∣mer observations, viz, that such swearing alone was not enough, without fur∣ther signing and sealing, as it seems the custom then was of the Bishops and Peers in making of laws: nor all three together (whether signing and sealing was necessary or not) without a free consent in those or of those who swore so or sign'd or sealed so: and that there was no free consent but a forc'd one by threats of imprisonment banishment death, appears out of my said observati∣ons and all the several Historians, especially Hoveden, who treat exactly of this contest. Now it is plain that such laws are no true laws, or have not at all as much as the essence of laws, which are not freely made without such coaction. And therefore consequently it is plain that such repealing was no true legal re∣pealing of the former laws. Whereof also this was a further argument, that Henry the second himself did in the end of the contest wholly quit his challenge to those controverted customs, which he did so for a time constrain the Bishops Clergie and people to submit to against their own will and their own true laws.

Yet as it must be granted by such as are versed in the antiquities of England, that there was a time and some ages too of the Christian Church in England even after the conversion of the Saxons, before such municipal laws were enacted for such favourable and ample immunities to Clergiemen, and before also the Clergie did as much as pretend by custom or otherwise to any exemp∣tion in criminal causes from the lay courts: so I confess there have passed seve∣ral ages of the very Roman Religion professed by law in England after the same great immunities and exemptions in criminal causes were in some part or for the greatest part legally repealed by law or custom or both, and free consent or submission of the very Bishops and Clergie themselves, upon new occasions and grounds, being weary of contesting with the lay judges and Kings, and that immediatly too or very soon after the days of Henry the second himself; the very Popes also themselves at least many of them either consenting or cer∣tainly conniving at this change in the laws customs and practice of England in order to Clergiemen. Whereat we are not much to wonder, being that Roger Hoveden (so faithfull an Historian as he was, as he was also contemporary to Alexander the third and St. Thomas of Canterbury, and was moreover so extra∣ordinary an admirer of this Saint, as may be seen by reading his Annals of him) being I say this Roger Hoveden tels us in plain tearms, ad an. 1164. that the

said Pope Alexander the third himself, before his going to Rome out of France, sent express directions to Thomas of Canterbury (when the great difference began about the 16. Heads.) to submit himself in all things to his King, and to promise to receive observe and obey (without any exception) those very customs or laws controverted. Deinde (sayes our Annalist Hoveden) venit in Angliam vir quidam Religiosus, dictus Philippus de Eleemosyna, missus a latere Alexandri summi Pontificis, & Cardinalium omnium, ad pacem faciendam inter Regem & Archiepiscopum Cantuariensem: per quem summus Pontifex & omnes Cardinales mandaverunt Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo, ut ipse pacem cum Domino suo Rege Angliae faceret, & leges suas sine aliqua exceptione custodiendas promitteret. Nor are we much to wonder that either Popes of Rome or Bishops of England, for peace's sake, and upon new occasions, should after the days of St. Thomas of Canterbury, either connive at or concurr to, or at least not oppose the legal re∣pealing of the former municipal laws of England; and of their own Ecclesiasti∣cal canons too, if any had been in that point of jurisdiction or exemption of criminal Clerks from or subjection of them to even the ordinary secular judi∣catories, at least in some cases, and criminal cases too: being they had, and had in the very case of such enormous crimes of Clerks as murder, theft, malefice, a precedent so auncient and of such great authority in the Catholick Church, as that I have given in my LXIX. Section, out of the first Council of Matisconum, held in the year 532. where the auncient Fathers and Bishops who composed that Council do in express tearms, and in their 7. canon, leave such Clerks (or rather suppose them still left) to secular justice as were guilty or accu∣sed of murder, theft, or malefice. For that 7. canon is in these words. Vt nul∣lus Clericus de qualibet causa, extra discussionem Episcopi suia seculari judice in∣juriam patiatur, aut custodiae deputetur. Quod si quicum{que} Iudex abs{que} criminali cuasa, id est, homicidio, furto, aut maleficio, facere fortasse praesumpserit; quamdiu Episcopo loci illius visum fuerit, ab Ecclesiae liminibus arceatur.

Besides that they had the precedent of all the Bishops of the world both in the Eastern and Western Church, under the Roman Empire: who all, for so many hundred years of Christian Religion established by law, submitted to the civil laws of the Roman and Christian Emperours: by which laws (until Frederick the Seconds laws) Clerks were subjected in all criminal causes to the very inferiour lay judges. As for the case of treason against the person of the Prince, or rebellion against the State or Commonwealth, it was never in any Country not even England, nor at any time, as much as thought on to be exempted from lay cognizance or punishment, at least when the King pleas∣ed to proceed by extraordinary commission.

And yet also I confess, that such repealing Statuts, Customs, or both (whate∣ver they were under Edward the Second, or any former or later King from Henry the Second to Edward the Third) made so a municipal law of England, suffered again some chang or some amendment in favour of the Clergie, in the year 1344. under King Edward the Third, in a Parliament held by him at Westminster. For so Matthew Parker tels us expresly in his Antiquitates Britannicae, pag. 236. in his life of Ioannes Stratford, Archbishop of Canterbu∣ry. Rex Gallum (sayes he) feroci Marte expilans postquam biennio bellum gessisset, exercitu in castris relicto, in Angliam reversus est, & Westmonasterii Parlamentum tenuit. In eo Clerus ei concessit decimas triennales, & Rex Clero vicissim concessit, quod nullus Archiepiscopus vel Episcopus coram Iusticiariis Regis judicium subeat, nisi Rex hoc nominatim & specialiter praeceperit. Tum quod nullus Clericus coram Iusticiariis Regis judicium sustineat, sive ad ipsius Regis, sive alicujus partis instanti∣am, si se submittat Clericatui, & dicat se membrum Ecclesiae sanctae, nec debere ipsis Iustitiariis respondere. Quod si quis Clericus de bigamia accusetur, de eo non fore permissum Iustitiariis inquirere, sed mittatur curiae Christianae. Which same Author, Matthew Parker tels us further thus (pag. 244.) in the life of Simer. Istippe Archbishop of Canterbury, that the same Archbishop Islippe obtained further from the same King Edward the Third, and in an other Parliament

held by him at Westminster, in the five and twentieth year of his Raign, and of Christ an. 1351. a more ample redress of the grievances of the Clergie from the oppressions of the lay Judges and other the Kings Ministers. Archie∣piscopus deinde a Rege & proceribus in Parliamento obtinuit, ut legum ac liberta∣tis Ecclesiasticae oppressiones, quibus Clericorum status diu afflictus fuit, statuta tolle∣rentur. Quo impetrato, cum Clerici permulti privilegio Clericali abutentes quam plurima flagitia perpetrarent, Rege & proceribus id flagitantibus ab Archiepiscopo, suis{que} Suffraganeis, statutum est ut Clerici, de capitalibus criminibus, testibus, proba∣tionibus, suave confessione convicti, Episcopalibus perpetuò carceribus mancipati, ad pristinum locum aut ordinem numquam restituantur, ne ordini Clericali scandalum generetur; sed perpetuam agentes paenitentiam, quarta & sexta feriis & in sabbathis pane doloris & aqua angustiae semel in die, caeteris diebus pane & tenuissima cerevisia, dominico autem die pane, cerevisia, & legumine tantummodò nutriantur. And further yet the same Author Matthew Parker pag. 279. in the life of Henricus Chicheley Archbishop of Canterbury, tels us, how the Clergie holding a Sy∣nod under the said Chicheley, in Edward the Fift's Raign an. Dom. 1420, and having granted that King a Tenth, Clerus a Rege vicissim impetravit, Ne hospi∣tii sui pro victualibus provisores Clericorum bona, aut possessiones attingerent. Deinde ut Clerici in foro Regio capitalium crimmum postulati datis fidejusseribus judicio sisti carceribus liberentur. Tertio ut Presbiteri castrati, felonum, id est homicida∣rum, paenis afficerentur. And finally the same Author and Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury, Matthew Parker tels pag. 298. in the life of Ioannes Mort••n Archbishop of Canterbury under Henry the Seventh, an. Dom. 1487, how upon occasion of a Rebellion in England, against the said Henry the Seventh, and of the abuse of Sanctuaries & of the priviledg of Sanctuaries, especially of that of Colchester, by some of the Rebels, who for a time sheltering their lives in them, yet when they found a fit opportunity, started out often to do mischief, & then return'd again, how I say upon this occasion the former priviledg of the very Sanctuaries was lessened by law: before which law a Bull also was procured from Pope Innocent (who then sate) declaring that such criminals should be by the lay power extracted out of Sanctuary. Lata{que} ex illa Papali Bulla lex est (sayes Parker) ut asylis inscripti, si homicidia, furta, incendia, sacrilegia, depopulationes agr••rum, Regni aut Regis proditiones postea commiserint, inde ejecti vi laica ducan∣tur ad supplicium.

All which several changes of or concerning the Immunities of Churchmen and Churches in England, are so many strong confirmations of that which is (and which I gave already as) in effect my first Answer in general to the fourth, the grand, and last of all the remaining objections (as it is made in general.) For if I be not very much deceived they strongly confirm not onely the rational probability but the moral certainty of what I have answered so, that is, that Thomas of Canterbury was not of a contrary judgment or opi∣nion to my doctrine concerning the exemption of Clergiemen from inferiour lay tribunals, and their subjection to the supream civil coercive power not∣withstanding any true or pretended exemption; but that he held (as I do) that all true Ecclesiastical exemption of either Churchmen, or Churches, and of the lands or goods of the Church is meerly and onely proceeding from the civil power of the municipal laws of the land, not from any other law divine or human; and held that by no such even municipal law, Churchmen either have been or might be universally in criminal causes exempt from the supream civil coercive power of the supream Magistrat, while otherwise they acknow∣ledg themselves or indeed remained subjects. And yet for exemplifying this, I do not insist on that out of Parker concerning the Asyla: because though he sayes 'twas made a law; yet I do not find it clear in him, it was so by autho∣rity of Parliament, but of a Synod, in pursuance of the Popes Bull; though for any thing I know, it might have been so also by Parliament, or otherwise by custom, without any relation either to that Synod or that Bull.

My Second answer to this grand fourth & last objection is more particular: cause it is to it as it is framed into a Syllogisme against me, and is to each of

the particular premisses a part. Therefore to the Major, which in effect is in these tearms, whatever doctrine condemns of opposes the justice of St. Thomas of Can∣terbury's quarrel with Henry the Second, &c, is false. I answer, that for my own part, and for any thing may be deduced thence, I admit it, or this Major, and admit it simply and absolutely without any distinction, and even admit it so not onely as to the immediat cause for which he suffered, but as to the inter∣mediat or grand and long quarrel concerning the 16. customs, and also as to the very original or that other complex of those antecedent five differences (and as to a sixt original too if you please to add a fixt, whereof hereafter, and which might have been the very first spring or occasion of all that follow∣ed, if we believe Parker.)

For I confess it is my own judgment (whatever judgment some contempo∣rary Catholick Authors, though otherwise both true Historians and good Ecclesiastical, regular, & Monastical persons, were of to the contrary) on the whole matter, and for what I can judg of matter of fact, in relation to those dayes of St. Thomas, and to the laws were as yet then legally unrepealed in Eng∣land, and to that King Henry the Second, I confess I say that takeing all these relations together, it is my own judgment plainly, that Thomas of Canterbury had justice of his side in all these several following instances. 1. In changing the pomp and vanity and pleasures and delicacies of his former life while he was high Chancellour of England (and how splendidly pleasantly and deli∣catly he lived before in that office and in his other high employments of warr and peace and embassies abroad, may be seen in Parker; though Parker tax him not even for that time with any injustice sinfulness or viciousness, but with a courtly and wordly pleasant and pompous life to the height, and to humour the King and Court) and in changing all I say into a life devoted wholly to God above all humane esteem, and yet also unto the austerities of a most rigid Monk and Hermit, as to his own body. Which, if Parker guess aright, was the first cause or rise of the Kings alienation ever after from him, before any other difference happen'd. Quod (he means the Archiepiscopal Pallium) simul at{que} Thomas accepisset, (sayes Parker in the life of Thomas of Canterbury) tam dissimili at{que} immutato genere vitae a priori illa curiali fuit, ut Monachalem supersti∣tionem (so Parker cals it) sub vestitu Clericalitexerit. Nam, ut scribit Trivetus, (and he quotes also in his Margin, Roff. Hystor. Arch. Nich. Trivetus, & Will. Canter. all of them ancient Catholick Historians) post susceptum Pastoris officium supra humanam aestimationem factus est Deo devotus. Consecratus enim cilicium clam induit femoralibus, & usus est us{que} ad poplites alicinis, sub vestis Clericalis honestate habitum colens monachalem. Et Wil. Cant. Paucis consciis sub lorica fidei militabat, gaudens quia in triplici veste triplicem personam gereret, exteriori clericum exhiberet, interiori monachum occultaret, & intima Eremitae molestias sustineret. Ex quo quidem existimare facile est, quamvis Monachorum sibi studia hac dissimulatione (this of dissimulation is Parkers own addition, and not what he read in his Authors) adjunxerit, quantum tamen Regis, Praesulum, at{que} Procerum animos abalienaverit, si quis ea quae de communi omnium voto, de Monachis ab Episcopali dignitate deinceps repellendis in Rodolphi vita antea scripsimus, animadverterit. At{que} haec prima esse poterat offensionis & dissensionis Regiae causa, quod cum antea politius urbanius{que} vixisset, jam odiosam illam Monachalem institutionem susceperit, sive sponte sua, sive quod illam obsoletam Papalis excommunicationis sententiam, in Elphegi vita antea descriptum, timuerit. 2. In discharging himself of the Chancellours place; especially being that he had no command from the King to the contrary. 3. In recovering to his Church of Canterbury, and by due course of law those lands which some of his Predecessors had against law alienated to lay persons and secular uses. 4. In using his best endeavours that the fruits or temporal revenews of vacant Churches should not be swallowed by the Kings Exchequer. 5. In declaring his judgment frankly and compassio∣natly for the ease of the people according to law, in that case wherein the Kings Officers against law extorted from them Hyde money or accridg money,

and extorted it as a duty, whereas it was or should be but a free benevolence, at the pleasure of the people, and this too but in certain cases, whereof none was then. 6. In not delivering the two criminal Clerks to secular justice. 7. In not swearing first, at the Kings demand, to receive and observe the 16. customes: and when he had through too much importunity and fearfull ap∣prehensions of others, and at the entreaty and perswasion, and tears also of the Bishops of Salisbury and Norwich, and of the Earls of Lester and Cornwal, and of those two Templars Richardus de Hastings, and T••stes de St. Homero, all stretch'd along on the ground at his feet weeping and beseeching him, and at their representing to him, how the King had threatned him and all his with exile with destruction and death (unde Rex, sayes Hoveden, ad an. 1164. plu∣rimum 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 Antece∣dents, 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 Arch∣bishop 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 propositi∣on, 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 inconve∣nience 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 seve∣ral 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 Ca∣pitula 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 Monothe∣lit, 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 Catho∣licks believe and maintain to be in the Church necessarily implyes her infalli∣bility 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 Scrip∣ture or Apostolical Tradition. 3. That St. Thomas of Canterbury could not be a holy ma••tyr, or great miraculous Saint in his life or death, or after his death at his tomb, were his quarrel against Henry the second not just in all the essential integral and circumstantial parts of it, from first to last, were it not I say just according to the very objective truth of things and of the laws of God and man; though it had been so, or at least the substantial part of it whereon he did ultimately and onely all along insist, had been so according his own inward judgment; and though also his Soul had been otherwise both in that and all other matters ever so pure, holy, religious, resigned to follow the pleasure of God and embrace truth, did he know or did he think it were of the other side in any part of the quarrel, and though his body likewise had been subservient and obedient in all things to the most holy dictats of his Soul. For we know that invincible or inculpable prejudice ignorance or inadvertisement against the truth of things in the course of a mans life, in his actions or in his contests, or even some time in his doctrine (which strikes not at the fundamentals of Christian doctrine, so his Soul be ever piously and charitably and Christianly and resignedly disposed to embrace truth when known either by evidence of reason or from such an authority as it is bound to submit unto) doth not hinder either Sanctity or martyrdom or miracles or due canonization or a fit veneration or answerable invocation of him as even a martyrized and miraculous Saint. The example of S. Cyprian that great holy martyrized Saint and Patriarch of Affrick, who both lived and dyed in a wrongfull contest with even the Popes of Rome themselves, and even also in a very material point of Christian doctrine, is evidence enough for this. And S Paul's contest with S. Peter at Antioch about the observation of the Jewish laws is evidence enough. And very many other examples of great holy Fathers and Doctors of the Catholick Church (who lived and dyed in mate∣rial

errours and material heresies too, especially if the doctrine of Bellarmine in many places nay or that of even of many or rather most other School Di∣vines be true) may be produced ex superabundanti to make good this evidence. 4. That the infallibility of Pope Alexander the third, in canonizing S. Thomas of Canterbury (and I speak now to them who suppose the Pope so infallible in all his Definitions or Bulls concerning any doctrine or fact or matter of Piety that he is so too in his canonization of Saints) implyed or inferr'd of necessi∣ty that all his quarrels, or at least the substantial part of that quarrel which occasion'd his death principally immediatly & ultimatly, not onely was just, but must have been just according to the very objective truth of things in them∣selves, and that otherwise there could be no infallibility in the said Alexander's canonization of him for a Saint and a martyr: and that likewise the pursuant veneration and invocation of him for such by the Church, and the miracles wrought at his hearse before he was interr'd, as for example the candles light∣ing of themselves about his hearse after they had been quenched, and his lift∣ing up his hand (after the office of the dead was ended) and blessing the peo∣ple, &c, and so many other miracles wrought at several times at his Tomb, after he had been long enterred, that I say neither that veneration or invoca∣tion could be in truth practised without impiety, or at least very much teme∣rity, not those miracles alleadg'd without forgery and fallacy, nor he called a martyr in any true sense, if his quarrels or quarrel (as now is said) with Henry the Second had not been just according to the objective truth of things in themselves. For as I denyed the former three suppositions, so I, do this fourth also: or at least I say that I am not bound to admit it. First because that even allowing, or if I did allow Bellarmine's or any other's doctrine of the infalli∣bility of Popes in their Bulls of canonization and other Bulls whatsoever; yet is it plain enough and even admitted by such Divines, that possibly there may be an errour in some particular allegations or suppositions entertained by the Popes in the process formed for such canonization, and even expressed also or insinuated in the very letters of the canonization, and that no such al∣legations or suppositions, reasons or motives are defined in any Bull of cano∣nization, or even in any other whatsoever; but the principal design onely; and that this in Bulls of canonization is onely, that such or such a holy man is in the joyes of the blessed, seeing God in the face, and therefore he may be in∣vocated as such: and consequently that the infallibility which they do attri∣bute to the Popes in their Bulls of canonization may subsist, notwithstanding that some of those motives, or inducements were in themselves false, accord∣ing at least to the objective truth of things. For all which these Divines pre∣tend to in this matter, is the infallible assistance of Gods holy spirit or of his external Providence promised infallibly (as they suppose) to the Pope in not proposing any by such a solemn declaration to be invoked as a Saint who is not so indeed; but not in supposing this or that which is said of some passage of his life, nor by consequence in supposing what was the true cause of his violent death, when he dyed so, or that the cause was such as would make him a martyr in the stricktest sense of this word Martyr, as used in the Church by way of distinction not onely from a Confessour, but from such holy men who suffered violent deaths unjustly, that is, not by the prescript of the laws but by the power onely of wicked men or women, and that too sometimes not for any cause they maintayn'd but out of hatred to their persons or to arrive at some worldly end which their life observed (whereof St. Edward the Se∣cond, a Saxon King of England, Son to the good King Edgar, is a very suffici∣ent example, who was and is invoked as a martyr, and a very miraculous mar∣tyr too, notwithstanding he was murthred onely by a servant, and at the com∣mand of his Stepmother Alfreda as he was drinking on horseback, and this too for no other cause but that her own Son Ethelredus should come to be King, as presently he was made. Polydore Virgil, Anglicae Historiae l. VII.) as some∣times also for a cause which though not so clear on either side, in the judg∣ment

I mean of some other indifferent men, nay perhaps unrighteous on the side of the holy sufferers, according to the objective truth of things in them∣selves, yet invincibly appearing just or the more just and the more holy and pious unto them, and to others also who had their life (otherwise, and justly too, or according also even to the certain objective truth of other things) in due veneration. For Martyr in Greek is a witness in English: and martyrdom in the Ecclesiastical use of the word, is variously applyed; sometime strictly to import a violent death suffered without any reluctance, and suffered meerly and onely for professing or for not denying a known certain evident or notori∣ous Catholick Evangelical truth, or (which is the same thing) to import a witnessing or a bearing testimony to such a truth by such a death; sometime largely, or not so strictly, however properly still, to import by such a death a witnessing or a bearing testimony to a good zeal and great piety and excellent conscience in being constant to a cause which one esteems the more just and generally seems the more pious, for all he knows, though it be not an evange∣lical truth, and though perhaps too he may be deceived in the objective truth of things; and sometime to import onely a witnessing by bloud so spilt or a testimony of innocent and holy bloud against those cruel men who spil'd it for no other cause but that themselves might reap some worldly advantage thereby, though otherwise they had no quarrel at all with such a Saint nor he with them or with any other for defence of which his life should be taken away. Secondly this fourth supposition is denyed by me, because neither the diffusive nor representative Church was ever concern'd: I mean their pursuant veneration or invocation of any canonized for a Saint and under the title of a martyr was never concern'd in such an intrigue as this, viz, whether in the more strict or large sense of the word Martyr he were a Martyr: nor concern'd whether his whole, or even any substantial part of his quarrel, as in his Legend, or in the process of his canonization was true or no or such as might entitle to martyrdom strictly taken according to the objective truth of things: nor truly concern'd any further in him or in his life or death, but that he was a great extraordinary servant of God in both, or at least at the time of his death, and that now he was in the glory of God. For this onely being certain, though all other matters reported of him were uncertain, their veneration and invocation of him must be not onely void of all impiety but acts of true religion and true piety: and for the rest, they are free to believe or not by humane faith, according as they see those humane proofs alleadg'd to be strong or weak. Thirdly that fourth supposition is denyed, because the miracles wrought, cannot be said upon rational grounds to have been wrought in confirmation of the (at least) objective truth or justice of this or that contro∣versy, whatsoever not certainly Evangelical which such a Saint or Martyr some∣times had in his life; being they were not wrought at the invocation of God (by the Saint himself or by any other) that God might be pleased by working such miracles to evidence the justice of such a cause. For if they had been wrought so, the case would be clear enough (as to such who saw those miracles or to whose knowledg authentick proofs of them did sufficiently come) that even the obedience truth and justice of things in such a controversy had been on such a Saints or Martyr's side. But otherwise wrought, they can be no more but divine testimonies of his having wonderfully or extraordinarily ser∣ved God either in his life or death, or both, whether he was deceived or no in some things, and whether he had some times and in some occasions or con∣troversies some failings or no, at least out of want of true knowledg or sound reflection (for the very greatest Saints might have been deceived sometimes, nay and failed too sometimes in their duty:) and besides, they can be no more, or at least on any rational ground cannot be said to be any more, then divine testimonies of his being now with God in glory.

Out of all which I think 'tis evident enough there are several suppositions in the proof of the Major which I am not bound to allow, not even in their

principles or doctrine who teach the infallibility of the Pope in his Bulls of canonization; and several suppositions which yet I am not bound to allow, notwithstanding I do my self (as I confess I am bound) most religiously allow the canonization, veneration, and invocation of St. Thomas of Canterbury, and all three of him as of a glorious martyr too, and notwithstanding I allow also all the miracles reported of him. And consequently I think 'tis evident enough, that it is not necessary to admit the Major (to wit this proposition, whatever doctrine condemns or opposes the justice of S. Thomas of Canterbury's quar∣rel against Henry the Second is false) for any such suppositions, or for any such inconvenience as that proof of it (which I have given before) would in∣ferr or deduce out of the denyal of it.

Therefore my reason in and for admitting that Major (in this my second answer) is no such matter, nor is that I could not maintain St. Thomas of Can∣terburie's extraordinary great sanctity in his life and in or at his death, and his consequent canonization, veneration, invocation, miracles, not that I could not I say maintain all without admitting that Major and granting that of ne∣cessity the quarrels causes or controversies of such a Saint with such a King and in such matters as those of Thomas of Canterbury were in must have been just from first to last of the Saints side, and just (I mean) according to the ob∣jective truth of things in themselves. But my reason for admitting it so sim∣ply and absolutely without any distinction, in this second answer, is, that I see no reason to call in question the credit of those Historians who relate the mat∣ter of fact (in that controversy) so and so circumstantiated, or the credit of other Historians or Antiquaries who relate those ancient Saxon Danish Norman laws of England all along unrepealed in our case till Henry the Second did so repeal or attempted to repeal them so: and that on the other side all right reason shewes that S. Thomas of Canterbury having so the very municipal laws of the land of his side, he had justice also (arising immediatly from such laws) of his side; and consequently that the same right reason shews that whatever doctrine condemns or opposes such known justice in the quarrel of any man whatsoever (Saint or not Saint, Martyr or not Martyr) must be false in the case. And this and this onely is my reason for admitting so that Ma∣jor.

But what then? Must I admit the Minor, subsumed thus, But my doctrine condemns or opposes the justice of St. Thomas of Canterbury's quarrel &c with Henry the Second? Must I admit this Minor I say? nothing less. For I deny it plainly and flatly, and that too without any kind of distinction. And that I may deny it so, & deny it without any contradiction, contrariety, inconsistence, or falsity, you have had already in my first answer and in my precedent obser∣vations, enough to convince you. Therefore consequently it must be said that the conclusion does not follow, or that (of the Syllogisme) which pretends my doctrine of a supream civil coercive power of Clerks in criminal causes to be false: for it is ill inferr'd, the Minor being false, or being denyed upon such rational grounds as I have formerly given.

An other Answer yet may be (as a second to the Syllogisme, though a third in order to the matter in it self or to the judgment of St. Thomas of Canterbury.) For the Major may be distinguish'd thus: whatever doctrine condemns or op∣poses the justice of such part of S. Thomas of Canterbury's quarrel, which was all along, and, until the very last of his life, that whereon he did and would insist ultimately without any change, did Henry the second quit all other branches, that such doctrine I say is false, concedo: But that whatever doctrine condemns or opposes such other branches of his quarrel whereon he would not so insist ultimately to the effusion of his bloud, if the rest were quitted by the King, that such doctrine I say is false, nego. Or even thus that the doctrine is false which condemns or opposes the Saints quarrel above the 16. Heads collectively taken, concedo; But that doctrine to be false which condemns or opposes the justice of his quarrel (if he had any such, as 〈◊〉〈◊〉

he had not) for every one a part, or for every head not onely collectively taken or joyntly with all the rest but even severally or separately taken, nego: Or thus also, if you please yet more neer home to our purpose; whatever doctrine condemns or opposes the justice of his quarrel as in relation to the second Head of the sixteen, and as it was proposed in terminis, is false; concedo: but as in relation onely to the punishment of criminal Clerks by the supream civil coercive power, or even by the subordinat, when the laws of the land are for the civil Judges; nego: Or finally thus: Whatever doctrine condemns or opposes so the quarrels or even any part of the quarrels of St. Thomas of Canterbury with Henry the Second that it also condemns or opposes his San∣ctity, or martyrdom in all the several and Ecclesiastical acceptions or uses or senses of the word martyrdom or opposes at all his canonization veneration invocation &c, is false, concedo: that condemns or opposes otherwise that con∣test only, is false; nego. And conformably the Minor being distinguish'd, I am sure the consequent inferr'd in the Syllogisme will appear to any and be in it self a meer non sequitur.

And further yet a fourth answer may be to the matter of this objection (and a third to the Syllogisme) by denying that there is any necessity to admit the Saints quarrel or controversy with Henry the Second to have been objectively just in all respects for any part of it, whether original, intermediat, or ultimat: or by denying that it was objectively prudential for the Saint, to have been so rigid or so stiff in his own way and in such matters or any part of them against that King, all circumstances duly considered. Conformable to which answer to the matter, the major and minor of the Syllogisme may be again distin∣guish'd, and the consequence denyed absolutely as a non sequitur.

Which two last Answers, the third and fourth, I add to the former two, not that I find those former two first any way defective or unsatisfactory, or that I do not my self insist on those former as the answers which I own and which chiefly I would have reputed to be my own or those onely upon which I do most rely, or that I do at all give this last of all or the fourth answer as my own; but that I observe several reasons why it is not amiss to give them for the solution of the argument one way or an other, in all sorts of judgments of Catholick writers, and even also contemporary writers to St. Thomas himself, who gave their judgment severally though briefly on those contests of his with Henry the Second. Whereof,

The first reason is, that St. Thomas of Canterbury doubtless might without any sin have complyed with Henry the Second, that is, might have had permitted him to have his will in all the several Instances or branches of the whole contro- either of the first original complex of the five first, or of the intermediat grand and long of the 16. customs, or even of the final which was the onely proper and immediat cause or occasion of his death. For (to lay aside that which Parker sayes (but sayes onely by guess) might have been the very first of all originals in this controversy, the Saint's changing his former way of living vainly, and changing it into the strictness and holyness of a Saint, I say that leaving this onely a side as not being to be or even indeed that was not quar∣reld at by the King, nor quitted nor to be quitted at any mans pleasure by the Saint) without sin he might cease from such earnest pursuance of those laymen who till his time held those lands alienated to them by his predecessours from the Church of Canterbury: and without sin retayn his office of Chancellorship: without sin abstain from hindering the temporal revenews of vacant Churches to be payed into the Kings Treasury or Exchequer: and abstain also from speaking against the collection of hyde money: without sin deliver over to secular justice the two criminal Clerks: I say that he might without sinning have yielded in all those five instances (which make the complex of the first original causes of the following evils) to such earnest desires of such a King: and that moreover he might without sin have yielded to him also in signing & seal∣ing the 16. customs, especially when he knew all the other Estates both spiritu∣al

and temporal to have approved of them, and to have entreated him so ear∣nestly and passionatly to concurr: that likewise he might without sin have abstained from appealing to the Pope, and from his flight to Flanders incognito and against the Kings will, and from incensing so much as he did in his volun∣tary exi••e the Papal Court against his King, and from procuring or accepting a Legantine power to proceed joyntly by such an extraordinary power of Le∣gat a latere by special commission and of his own ordinary Archiepiscopal Ju∣risdiction against even the King himself, and from threatning and preparing himself to publish an Interdict against all the Kings dominions, and from ex∣communicating by name and during his exile so many Bishops and others who had sided against him in the controversy of the 16. customs, and from falling a new upon others at his return from exile in the temporal concerns of his Church of Canterbury: lastly that he might without any sin have not only absolved the excommunicated Bishops without any condition (being he very well knew they were excommunicated by the Pope at his own instance, and that himself had all the Papal power might be delegated, and that the injury was not such as lay not in his own power to remit without such a condition, tying them to stand to what the Pope should enjoyn to or determine of them) but also have permitted his Clerks to swear the oath proposed or to be pro∣posed to them, viz. that of maintaining the Kings laws and his said 16. customs, for it could be no other oath: I say that without sin St. Thomas of Canterbu∣ry might have so behaved himself as to have let the King have his desire in all and each of these branches, and therefore in his whole controversy with Henry the Second; being these instances or branches I have now repeated make up the whole series of his controversies, and being there was no law divine at all ob∣liging him to the contrary, nor any humane either civil or Ecclesiastical that could oblige him to the contrary, and in the case, where of one side he saw the three Estates of the Kingdom consenting to the King in those matters con∣troverted, and on the other the so powerfull and passionat a King fully resol∣ved to ruine him and all his partakers. But I say this onely, as in relation to the objective connexion or being of things and laws in themselves, not to that of the same things or laws as they perhaps appeared otherwise in that holy zealous Bishop's apprehension or misapprehension of them or of some of them or of all or of some circumstances which by an unerring judgment ought to be or would be considered. And however, I by no means say, that either accord∣ing to his own apprehension he was bound under sin to conform to that Kings will in any of all those Instances, nor that abstracting from all then present cir∣cumstances he was so bound according to or by the very objective nature of the things or laws in themselves, whatever they were subjectively in his conception. For there is a great deal of difference betwixt saying, that he might without sin have done so, and that he was bound under sin to do so.

Second reason. That very ancient and at least some of them contemporary Catholick and (even some of them also) Ecclesiastick persons and authors too of great esteem credit and faith seem (partly in their relations of matters of fact and partly too in their own judgments delivered of purpose on such mat∣ter) and seem also manifestly enough to condemn our Saints too much rigour in not submitting to what Henry the Second desired of him. For, during the Saints exile, of what passed after that Lewis of France and Henry the Second of England were made friends (for lately before they were at warr) and that Henry went to see Lewis to Paris, and that amongst other matters some over∣tures of reconciliation twixt the same Henry and Thomas of Canterbury were made by Lewis, St. Thomas himself being then personally at the French Court, though not appearing then before his own King, but sending his desires in writing to him, amongst which this was, that his Majestie would restore him to his Bishoprick, restore also the fruits or revenews of his said Bishoprick, de∣tain'd from him and received by whomsoever during his exile, and moreover yet would restore him to all the other lands taken from him after he was made

Archbishop: and after that the King had answered to these demands, that he could restore nothing to him who freely of himself without any compulsion had deserted his own Church by his voluntary flight, and so had rendred it or made it to be accounted or held pro derelicta as forsaken, and given him just occasion to make use of his Royal power in applying the vacant fruits to other persons, according as the law and custom of the Kingdom was in such cases; and yet that he was ready to give him all due satisfaction before either the King of France himself, or the Parliament of Paris, or even before the Vniver∣sity of Paris wherein so many learned and disinteressed persons were out of many different Provinces and Nations: and after that King Lewis and other of his Court present at this answer had been by it reconciled to Henry no less then they had till then, and in relation to St. Thomas, been extreamly prejudi∣ced against, and averss from him; and that hereupon immediatly Thomas be∣ing admitted to the presence, had prostrated himself at King Henry's feet, saying these words, Domine Rex totam causam unde inter nos orta est dissentio, tuo committo arbitrio, salvo honore Dei: and after that King Henry, being much troubled at thi•• ad••e••tion, salvo honore Dei, had called Thomas an unmindful & ingrateful person for all his royal munificence & favours to him, and turning himself to the King of France, had said as followeth: I say that of what passed then in such a presence, Abbas Theokesburiensis writes in these words, Et ad Gallum conver∣sus

Quicquid isti inquit displicuerit, dicet honori Dei esse contrarium; Sed ne videar vel Dei vel suo honori in aliquo velle resistere hoc tantum po∣stulo. Multi in Anglia extiterunt Reges, quorum quidam majori, quidam minori authoritate atque ditione fuerunt quam ego sum. Multi rursus Archi∣episcopi Cantuarienses praeter hunc magni atque sancti viri. Ita{que} quod officii suorum antecessorum maximus meorum minimo praestitit hoc mihi Thomas prae∣stet & acquiescam. Quae cumdixisset Rex, ab astantibus undi{que} acclamatum est, Rex satis se humiliat. Cumque Thomas aliquantisper siluisset; Gallus, quid in∣juit, Domine Archiepiscope, vis esse major sanctis viris, vel major Petro? Quid dubitas.

Ecce pax pro foribus. And writes moreover, that to this question of King Lewis of France, Thomas of Canterbury answered, that the condition of those and these times, or of the times of his Predecessours and of his own, were not the same: Illos sayes he (as the same Author relates his words) pedetentim Reges ad Christum obsequio allexisse, cum omnia quae ad religionem spectarent uno memento perficere non poterant: se ab his non esse recessurum quae jam Ecclesiae acquisita atque incrifacta sunt. Praeterea lapsos illos in multis, ut homines, ipsum{que} Petrum, singulos fuisse, quorum exempla sequi necesse non haberet: crevisse Ecclesiae facultates semper constantia Praelatorum, quas suae jam acquisitas Ecclesiae ut diminuantur nunquam esse passurum. And the same Author partly, and part∣ly Matthew Paris, write, that upon this answer of Thomas the Nobility of both Kingdoms, France and England, there present, imputed to this extraordinary stiffness and rigour of Thomas, that a perfect peace and reconciliation was not concluded 'twixt the King and him at that very time and place; and said it was unfit that a voluntary fugitive from his own Countrey should be main∣tain'd in France. That however so many and so powerful were the interces∣sors for him, that questionless the King and he had then agreed, if he had not so rashly added the Proviso, salvo honore Dei; that the King proffered him all kind of security, preter osculum pacis; but that the Archbishop refused all other conditions of peace. Finally, that when the Assembly was parting or breaking up, the Bishops and other Peers, who were mediators in the mat∣ter, upbraided the Archbishop to his face,

Quod semper superbus, elatus, sapiensque in oculis suis fuisset, propriaeque semper sectator voluntatis; quod per ipsum ex parte jam destructa, penitus cito destrueretur Ecclesia.

So these Catholick Authors, as to their relation of some part of the matter of fact, and as to their relation also of the Saints too great strictness in his own way, I mean according to the judgment of the Prelats and Nobles of that Assembly at Paris. But for a judgment also given of purpose on that

whole controversie, and given by a contemporary Historian, a Catholick by religion, a Monk by profession, and writer of very good repute, Gulielmus Neubrigensis; and a judgment given by him of this matter even after Thomas had been both martyrized and canonized, you have it in his third Book, cap. 16. and in these words.

Sane cum plerique soleant in iis quos amant & laudant, affectu quidem propensiori, sed prudentia parciori, quicquid ab iis geritur approba••e. planè ego in viro illo venerabili, ea quae ita ab ipso acta sunt, ut nulla exinde proveniret utilitas, sed feruor tantum accenderetur Regius, ex quo tot mala post modum pullulasse noscuntur, laudanda nequa∣quam censuerim, licet ex laudabili zelo processerint; sicut nec in Beatissimo Apostolorum Principe, arcem jam Apostolicae perfectionis tenente, quod ge••tes suo exemplo Judaizare coegit, in quo eum Doctor gentium repre∣hensibilem deciatat fuisse, licet eum constat laudabili hoc pietate fecisse.

Third reason. That he might possibly be imbued with the doctrine (which was growing then) of the exemption of Clergiemen either by divine imme∣diate right of the positive, or even natural law of God, or by that which is pretended to be mediatly divine, and immediatly canonical or humane from the Canons of the Church, or at least from the (bad or false) interpretation of those Canons, or by some prescription and will and power of those Popes who so mightily in his dayes, and for almost a whole age before his dayes, im∣mediatly and continually contested with the very Emperours themselves, and all other Bishops, for both the spiritual and temporal soveraignty of the world, and this too by a pretence of divine right. And that we must not wonder that even on so great a Saint as Saint Thomas of Canterbury himself, the authority of the first Apostolick See, and the numbers of her admirers, adorers, and followers then in what quarrel soever, and the specious pretence of piety in the cause, and education in such principles, or amongst such people, should work a strong pre-possession of zeale, as for the cause of God, being it was reputed the cause of the Church; however, that according to the veritie of things, or true laws divine or humane, as in themselves nakedly or abstracted¦ly, it might peradventure not have either the cause of God, or the cause of the Church.

Fourth reason (and it is a confirmation, that is, a very probable argu∣ment (though nor perhaps throughly or rigidly demonstrative) of the truth of the Third.) That in the speech or words of St Thomas of Canterbury in the time of his banishment to his King Henry the Second at Chinun, which Ho∣neden, ad. an. 1165. calls,

Verba Beati Thomae Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi ad Henricum Regem Angliae in Concilio suo apud Chinun) we find this sentence of his, "Et quia certum est Reges potestatem suam ab Ecclesia accipere, &c.

Wherein I am certain this holy Bishop was point blanck contrary to the sense of ten thousand other holy Bishops before him in the more primitive ages of the Church, and contrary to plain Scripture and universal Tradition of the Catholick Church for at least the ten first and best ages of Christianity.

Fift reason. That it is not so clear in all respects, that those sixteen heads of customs passed not legally, and long before the Saints death, into a just municipal law of the land, or of England, notwithstanding that St. Thomas denyed, and even justly too denyed his own hand and seale, or even justly also retracted his own former consent by oath, yea, and notwithstanding that it was meerly out of fear that the rest of the Bishop, did at first consent, or gave their own consent by oath likewise. For it may be said first, and said also upon very probable grounds out of the several ancient Catholick, and even Ecclesiastick Historians, who writ of purpose of those dayes and matters, that they all freely after consented. And secondly it may be said, that the greater vote enacts a law in Parliament, having the consent royal; whether one Bi∣shop, or moe peradventure, or even all the Bishops dissent. And thirdly, yet i•• may be said, that all laws, most commonly, or at least too often, may be cal∣led in question upon that ground of fear of the Prince.

Sixt and last reason, That we must rather give any answer, that involves not heresie or manifest errour in the Catholick Faith, or natural reason obvious to every man, then allow or justifie the particular actions or contests, or do∣ctrine of any one Bishop or Pope, how great or holy soever otherwise; or even of many such, or of all their partakers in such, against both holy Scriptures plain enough in the case, and the holy Fathers generally for the ten first ages, in their explications of such Scriptures, and consequently against that universal Tradition which must of necessity be allowed:

Nihil enim innovandum; sed quod traditum est observandum.

Behold here six reasons, which taken at least altogether, may justifie my giving the two last Answers, or my adding them to the other two former. As for the rest, I leave it to the Readers choice, which of all four he will fix on; though I my self, and for my own part, and out of a greater reverence to the Saint himself, and to the Pope that canonized him, or to that Pope, I mean, in as much as he canonized him for a martyr in such a cause, if he did so, or intended so, taking the name of martyr properly and strictly (whereof what we read in our very Breviary of the cause for which the Pope sayes he suffer∣ed may perhaps give some occasion of scruple: being it is there said of those Laws of Henry the Second, and only said that they were

leges utilitati ac dignitati Ordinis Ecclesiastici repugnantes;

but not said, that they were laws against the laws of God) though, I say, I could wish for these reasons, that all my Readers did fix, as I do my self, rather on the first and second Answer then on the two last.

But on which soever of all four they six, I am confident none may infer, that they or I question Thomas of Canterbury's sanctity in this world, either in his life or at his death, or his glory in heaven after his death; or questi∣on the Bull of of his canonization, or question the holy practice of the Ca∣tholick Church in her veneration or invocation; or finally, question as much as those miracles which I suppose were sufficiently proved in the process form'd for his canonization, or even those, which, as wrought after that time at his Tomb or elsewhere, are alledg'd upon sufficient grounds (if any such be so alledg'd.)

Though I cannot here but give my Reader this advertisement also, That even with such questions, both the infallibility of the Catholick Roman Church, and the religious and rational piety also of that very Church in ve∣nerating and invoking him, may subsist. Because her infallibility regards other matters, as I have said before: and because her veneration and invoca∣tion of this or that Saint in particular, whose sanctity on earth and glory in heaven is not revealed unto her otherwise, or taught by clear Scripture or constant Tradition from the beginning, doth, and must of necessity alwayes imply (as to such I mean who see no evident miracles, or who are not throughly convinced of such) this tacit condition, That he or she whom they invoke be in glory; and because also moral certainty from humane faith may ground a religious and pious practice: as no certainty at all, but meer proba∣bility of natural grounds, may be sufficient to enact a binding law or sanction even also in order to piety; and because moreover the prayers of the faithful to Saints, whether they invoke them in recto, or in obliquo, regard principally (and without any comparison, but that of an infinit disproportion) God him∣self, and are terminated in him alone, and so farre only regard the Saints as they are in his favour, grace and glory, and so far only as he is pleased we should either venerat or invoke them. So that if in any kind of contingency it may happen that the Church be deceived in her opinion (which in this mat∣ter depends of humane testimonies, and humane knowledge, apprehension or sense) it cannot be therefore said that her practice is either impious or irre∣ligious, or indeed any way foolish. Not impious or irreligious, for the reasons hitherto given of the tacit condition, and primary termination of the worship and prayer: nor foolish, being she hath grounds enough of and for a moral

humane certainty, or firm adhesion (of such humane belief or perswasion) to the material object of her understanding, by reason of the formal object of her assent in such matters, this formal; object being in part the most credible testimonies of other men, and in part also, at least sometimes, the evidence of sense.

And so I have done at last with all my answers to the fourth and grand, and very last of all those I call'd remaining objections, and have done also with all my observations and advertisements to the Reader concerning this matter of Thomas of Canterbury.

Only for a final perclose, and for the greater satisfaction yet of the more curious Reader, I will add here two appendixes The one is brief, and con∣cerning the height or amplitude whereunto the exemption of some persons, and some crimes, from the civil Judicatories in England grew. For at last it came to be such, that not only the criminal Clerks themselves, however guilty of what crime you please, but also the very most enormous lay crimi∣nals, when their crimes had relation to, or had been committed against a Clerk, that is, when they had impiously and execrably murdred any Clerk, Priest, or even Bishop or Archbishop, were exempted from the secular power (but understand you this conformably to my doctrine before) were sent to Rome to receive such pennance as the Pope should be pleased to inflict, and thereby were absolutely freed of all other punishment, that is, of any which the civil power, and the civil or municipal laws did use or inflict for murder. All which to have been so in England for some time is so true, that not even any of those very most impious four murtherers of St. Thomas of Canterbury himself, though a long time after remaining peaceably and publickly altoge∣ther in the village of Cnaresburc in the West of England, and at the house of Hugh de M••roville (who was himself one of the four murtherers, and Lord of that Town or Village of Cnaresburc) was at all enquired after by the lay Judges, nor as much as touch'd or proceeded against in any wise by them; but suffer'd to depart peaceably to Rome (when themselves saw that all men and women shun'd their company, and that none would either speak or eat with them, nor even the very dogs taste of their relicks or fragments) whence they were sent by Pope Alexander to do pennance at Jerusalem; where final∣ly, living a penitential life by his command, in Manic nigro, they dyed, and were buried without the gate of the Temple, with this inscription,

Hic ia∣cent miseri qui martyrizaverunt Beatum Thomam Archiepiscopum Cantua∣••iensem.

And yet is so true, that immediatly, or at least very soon after the dayes or death of St. Thomas of Canterbury, Richard Archbishop also of Canterbury (either he that was the Saints immediat Successor, or he at least who was the Sixt after him in that See (for both were Richards, and this last was called Richardus Magnus, and sate, as I take it, in the dayes of Henry the Third: and I have not leasure now to see which of them it was; nor is it ma∣terial much to set down here which) complain'd of the abuse, and complain'd thus most grievously of it, as you may read in Petrus Blesensis, and in his seven∣ty third Epistle to the Bishops of England.

Clerici vel Episcopi occisores Romam mittuntur (sayes he) euntes{que} in deliciis cum plenitudine Apostoli∣cae gratiae & majore delinquendi audacia revertuntur. Taltum vindictam excessuum Dominus Rex sibi vindicat; sed nos eam nobis damnabiliter reser∣vamus, at{que} liberam praebentes impunitatis materiam, in sauces nostras Laico∣rum gladios provocamus. Ignominiosum est quod pro capra vel ovicula gra∣vior, pro sacerdote occiso pae••a remissior irrogatur.

Where also you see this good Archbishop acknowledging in formal words, not only a double in∣convenience arising from such exemptions and reservations; but in effect also, and expresly enough acknowledging that the King did upon one side justly challenge to his own say Courts the punishment of such criminals, and that on the other side the Bishops did as damnably (that is, unjustly) reserve them to their own ecclesiastical cognizance only.

The other appendix is a redection upon their impiety and inhumanity, who, wel-nigh four hundred years after the death of St. Thomas of Canterbury (and in the general sack of all the Churches and holy places in England, but more especially of those which were more eminent and rich, and yet more particularly of the three excellently glorious monuments (the first of Alban the Protomartyr of Great Brittain, under Dioclesion the Emperour; the se∣cond of St. Edmond that Christian Saxon King, and martyr too, as who was killed by the Pagans in odium fidei; and the third of St. Thomas of Canter∣bury) perswaded Henry the eight to have a process formed against him, I mean Thomas of Canterbury in a Court of Justice, and perswaded this King accordingly and effectually (though otherwise ridiculously enough) to have him declared guilty of high Treason, and yet perswaded this King to have an Act passed in Parliament whereby it was made capital for any either to keep holy∣day for him, or to pray unto him, or to call him a Saint at all, or even to suffer his name to be in their Calanders, &c. (if Sanderus, de Schismat. Angl. l. 1. in Henric. speak truth of such matter of fact in Henry the Eights raign) nay moreover perswaded this King to have him disinterred or dis-entombed, and his Relicks (body or bones) burn'd, and the very ashes scattered into the four winds (if Pope Paul the Third was rightly inform'd; for thus he speaks of this matter, in his Bull, of the year, 1538. against the said Henry,

Post∣quam ipsum Divum Thomam, ad majerem religionis contemptum, in judi∣cium vocari, & tanquam contumacem damnari, ac proditorem declarari feeerat, exhumari & combu••i, cineres in ventum spargi jussit: omnium pla∣••è cunctaram gentium crudelitatem superans; cum ne in bello quidem, holles victores saevire in mortuorum cadavera soleant.)

All which this King was perswaded unto by such wicked Councellors as had no other God but gain. For, if Sanderus tell truth in this matter, there was so great a trea∣sure of gold, silver, and pretious stones, and so much most costly stuffs, hang∣ings, &c. in and belonging to that only Tomb of St. Thomas of Canterbury, as loaded six and twenty Waines of the greatest and largest, by the confession of that Kings own Treasurer who received them. Ut occasionem quaeri oportuerit, unde expilaretur. And histories tell us, that Henry the Eight did not so, or give any such command, out of any such principle of religion or irreligion as that is which sayes, that no Saints are to be venerated or invocated, or even honour∣ed by such pretious donaries bestowed on their Tombs: for he never altered from the saith of the Roman Church in this, as neither did he in any other, except that only of the Popes Supremacy, if in this very point of Supremacy understood rightly he altered at all otherwise then schismatically. And rea∣son tells us, that for maintaining or forwarding his schysm it was unnecessary that he should spoil this holy mans Tomb, or indeed any other Shrine or Church or Chappel. For a separation from the power of the Pope, or even renunciation of both his pretended and true power of primacy, whatever this be, may be very well conceived to be and to have been (both in its own nature and all the then circumstances) wholy independent from any such pro∣ceedings against St. Thomas of Canterbury, or indeed any other Saint, espe∣cially being that, as I have demonstrated heretofore, St. Thomas of Canter∣bury never either formally or virtually, or consequentially in any of his contests with Henry the Second denied the Kings of England's supream temporal inde∣pendent power, or any which was in him according to the laws of the Land which were then unrepealed. So that I may here to that impious Councel∣lor, whoever he was, of Henry the Eight, apply that of St. Augustine in Psal. 63. v. 7. Sed avaritia illa quae captivavit discipulum comitem Christi, cap∣tivavit & militem custodem Jepulchri.

Yet Matthew Parker, very like himself in other things, would fain justifie these proceedings of Henry the Eight. For in the end of that life which he writes of Thomas Becket, amongst his other lives of the Archbishops of Can∣terbury, though he write that exactly enough (laying aside his own censorious

terms of & against the Saint in some passages) yet in the perclose of all he writes thus. Thomas, etsi celebri testimonio Martyrii à Papali Clero pro Ecclesiae suae Can∣tuariensis privilegiis candidatus, & in Ecclesia Christi humili primum, & in crip∣to positus, deinde sublimiori & excelso ac sumptuoso delubro conditur fuerit, in quo caput ejus seorsim à cadavere situm, Thomae Martyris corona appellabatur, ad quod peregrinantes undi{que} confluerent, munera{que} praetiosa deferrent, stupenda{que} edita mi∣racula, quae ab Anglicis Latinisque scriptoribus ejus laudes celebrantibas comme∣morantur, ut{que} perenni gloria, nulla oblivione interitura floreret, horis matutinis at{que} vespertinis preces ab acutissimo Theologo Thoma Aquinate, elegantiori style, tamquam rythmo compositae atquae concinnatae, quibus auditorum aures mulcerent, in ejus{que} stuporem raperentur, quotidie ei fusae fuerint, tandem tamen (saeculis aliquot labentibus) diligenti ac sedula indagatione, adhibitis totius regni Praesulibus ac Proceribus, Rex & qualis Thomas fuerit, certo comperit, quam nefanda gesserat, quantas{que} turbas & tragaedias in regno concitaverat. Ideo{que} nomen ejus in publicarum precum libris ut Sanctum ubivis decantatum, deleri penitus & abradi praecepit. Intollerabili enim arrogantia, & supra Regiam authoritatem jura{que} pub∣lica, magis{que} quam Christianae aut Ecclesiasticae libertatis immunitas divino jure postulat, se extulerat. Tanta autem fama & celebritate adumbratae sanctitatis suae nomen percrebuerat, ut Cantuariensis Ecclesia, in qua delubrum ejus situm erat, quae, ut diximus, Christi servatoris Ecclesia ex prima institutione dicebatur, id no∣men amiserat, & in sancti Thomae Ecclesiae nomen fere transierat. Sed hic semper est adulterinarum & fucatarum rerum exitus, ut veritate tempore probata, hypocrisis patestat, & in nihilum concidat. And with these last words of his own il-ground∣ed, il-affected censure, this otherwise good Antiquary (but first Protestant Archbishop of Canterbury, made by Queen Elizeabeth) shuts up his whole life of his so great holy Catholick Predecessour in that See. Which entire passage out of him I give here, that the Protestant Readers of this work of mine (who have a prejudice against any thing related by Sanderus, or exagge∣rated by Paulus Tertius; and perhaps they have reason to be so against San∣ders in many things, and this Paul too in some things, and yet perhaps also against neither for what relates to the present subject) may see the said usage against St. Thomas of Canterbury attested for the most weighty part by Par∣ker himself, and for no part denyed by him; and that my both Catho∣lick and Protestant Readers may see in this relation of Parker himself very much to confirm us in our opinion and belief of St Thomas of Canterburye's undoubted sanctity in his life or death, or rather both (whether he was a martyr or no, in the rigid sense of the word) being that he, I mean Matthew Parker, acknowledges here in such express words, that there were stupendious miracles wrought at his tomb, and that he neither here nor elsewhere contra∣dicts those miracles, by saying they were either forgeries or delusions. And besides I give this passage all along in Parkers own words, that the candid Reader may see I have reason to wish that Parker had not been so little candid himself in this very passage, as neither to name that King or fix on that time, by whom, or wherein Thomas of Canterbury, after some ages, and upon a review of his life, or actions, and knowledge of his nefarious turbulencies and tragedies, and of his intollerable arrogancy in raising himself above the royal power, laws and dignity (as he sayes) was so condemn'd. It seems he was ei∣ther ashamed to name the person or raign of Henry the eight in such a matter, and in opposition to such a Saint: or verely he would impose on his unskilfull Reader, and make him think it might peradventure have been so by a King and so in a time that was not reputed Schismatical by the Romanist's them∣selves; and thereby would wholly undermine the credit of a Saint, who cer∣tainly could be no true Saint if Parker was either a true Bishop in the truth and unity of the Catholick Church, or true Christian in the truth and inte∣grity of the Catholick Religion. And I give it moreover, to take notice of his wilful imposture, where he sayes, that that nameless King found out what kind of man Thomas was, what evilt he had raised, &c. and sayes also

that that nameless King found out all this in a great Conneil of all the Prelats and Peers of the Kingdom, meaning so to impose on his Reader as a truth (without as much as the authority of any writer, for he quotes none in this, nor could) but against all truth, that the Bishops of England in that Kings time concurr'd with him in his judgment or condemnation of Thomas of Canterbury for a traytor, viz. against the Kings person, or people of Eng∣land, or their laws, or all three. For certainly he could not be on any ratio∣nal ground declared traytor, or even to have been such at any time in his life (not to speak now of the instance of his death, or of any time after his recon∣ciliation to Henry the Second) but upon one of these three grounds, or as having acted either against the Kings own person or royal rights, or against the liberties of the people, or against the sanctions of the municipal laws of England.

And, O God of truth! who is that is versed in the Chronicles of Eng∣land can imagine any truth in this sly insinuation of Parker concerning that of the Bishops to have concurr'd with Henry the Eight in the condemnation or prophanation and sacriledge committed against St. Thomas of Canterbury, so many hundred years after his holy life and death, and so many hundred years after he had possessed not England alone, but all the Christian world with the certain perswasion of his sanctity, attested so even after his death by such stupendious miracles at his tomb, and wrought there at or upon his invo∣cation, and by such stupendious and known miracles, I say, that Parker him∣self hath not the confidence as much as to mutter one word against the truth and certainty of their having been or having been such? Nay who is it can upon a a sober reflection perswade himself, that either Henry the Eight him∣self, or any other, whatever, and how even soever atheistical Councellor of his could pretend any as much as probable ground in natural reason (laying aside now all principles of Religion) to declare this Thomas of Canterbury (so long after his death) to have dyed a traytor? nay, I say more, or to have lived so, or to have been so at any time in his life?

Tis true, that in all branches and each branch of the five membred com∣plex of those first original and lesser differences which preceded that great one of the sixteen customs, he for some part did not comply with the Kings ex∣pectation, and for other parts positively refused to obey the Kings pleasure, or even command. But so might any other Subject, and might, I say, with∣out being therefore guilty of treason, nay without being guilty of any other breach of law or conscience, had he the law of the land and liberty of a Sub∣ject of his side as Thomas of Canterbury had in each of these five original differences. And that he had so the law of the land for him even in that very point of them which Henry the Second took most to heart, that I mean of the two criminal Clergymen: besides all what I have given before at large of those very laws to prove it, this also is an argument convincing enough, that Henry the Second was not, where he had the law of his side, a man to be baffled by any Subject whatsoever, nor would be so ceremonious as to call so many Councils or Parliaments of Bishops and other Estates to begg that which by law he had already in his power without their consent. And therefore cer∣tainly had the law of the land been at that time for him, that is for the ordi∣nary coercion of criminal Clerks in his lay Courts, and in what case soever, or even in case of felony or murder committed by Clerks, he had without any further ceremony (at least after he saw the Archbishop refuse to com∣ply with his desire, or obey his command, and after he saw also the Priest was in the very Ecclesiastical Court convict of murder) sent his own Officials to force him away to and before the lay Judges; and sent his Guards too, or Souldiers, were this necessary. Neither of which he as much as attempted to do. And therefore had we no other argument, who sees not that it is clear enough out of this very procedure, that the Archbishop committed no trea∣son in this very matter, wherein of any of also the branches of that whole

five membred complex, he most positively and plainly opposed that King; though by such a kind of opposition as might become a Subject, that is, by an opposition of dissent, without any interposition of arms or force.

2. Tis true also that (after this) Thomas of Canterbury opposed mightily (but with such a kind opposition as I have now said) all those sixteen heads of Henry the Second, pretended by him to have been the Royal Costoms of his Grandfather: and that after giving a forced consent, and taking a forc'd oath to maintain them, he retracted again freely and conscientiously his said consent and oath, and refused to give his hand or seal for introducing or esta∣blishing them. But I am sure there was no treason in this, not only because he saw or apprehended they were against the former laws, and for an evil end too press'd by that King so violently, but also because he saw or apprehended that the very pretence was false, that is, that some of them had never been customes. Is it not lawful without treason (nay or other breach of law) for any Peer, and so great a Peer as the Archbishop of Canterbury, to deny his own assent in Parliament, or even to revoke, and for as much as belongs to himself, his own former assent, at least when otherwise his conscience is wounded, and when he proceeds no further by force of arms, and that the laws is yet only in deliberation to be establish'd, but not absolutely or actually yet establish'd? Or doth not the very nature of a Parliament, and the necessa∣ry and plenary freedom of the members thereof evince this?

3. Tis likewise true, that in the great Council or Parliament held at North∣thampton, and when he saw some of the very Bishops violently bent against him, to ingratiat and endear themselves more and more to the King, and the rest through fear yielding, and saw them all generally conspiring with the lay Peers, and joyntly with such Peers condemning and deposing him by their sentence from his Bishoprick, he appealed to the Pope from such a sentence and such Judges, and such a Judicatory, and in such a cause. But what then? Or was it treason by the nature of the thing in it self, or of such an Appeale of such a man, and in such a case, and from such Judges? or was there any law then in England, making such appeal to be treason? certainly it was not by either. Not by the nature of such an appeal as abstractedly considered in it self; because neither appeals in a spiritual cause to the Pope; nor decisions in a spiritual way of such Appeals by the Pope, do of their own nature draw along with them any lessening of the Majesty or supream power of the Prince, or of any part of it which is proper to him, nor of the safety of the people; though by accident, that is, by abuse only sometimes of the Appellants them∣selves, or of such Appeals, or of the decision of them by some Popes, and by the neglect of either Prince or Parliament giving way to frivolous appeals, or admitting of notoriously corrupt decisions, they may prove hurtful. Nor was there any law of England, as yet then establish'd when the when the Saint appealed so, which made it treason, or which indeed at all prohibited him or any other Clerk to appeal to Rome in any pure ecclesiastical cause whatso∣ever, or from the judgment of either spiritual or secular Judges, or even of both together, in any pure spiritual or Ecclesiastical cause, such as that judge∣ment was which was pronounced in that Council or Parliament of Northam∣ton against this holy Archbishop, even a sentence of his deposition from the See. Nay the continual practice of England till then, for so many hundred years before, and for some time after too warranted by the very municipal laws, or municipal Customs, or both, to appeal to the Pope in such causes (which practice in many Instances of even great Bishops, and Archbishops both of Canterbury and York, and of the Kings also of England sending sometimes their own Embassadours to plead against such Bishops and Arch∣bishops, and sometimes to help or plead for them, you may see at large ever•• in Matthew Parkers own Antiquitates Britannicae) evicts manifestly it was nei∣ther treason by law or by reason, or by the nature of such Appeals. And the practice of other Kingdoms of Christendome, till this day continued shews no

less, that it might have been, and may be (duly circumstantiated) with∣out any lessening of the Majesty of the Crown, danger to the safety of the people, or without prejudice to any. Besides who sees not, that it is against the very law of God, as delivered to us from the beginnings of Christianity, that Lay-men, as such, may fit in judgment on, or give sentence for the ta∣king away the Spirituals of a Bishop? As such they can neither give nor take away any spiritual Power, Jurisdiction or Authority (purely such) from the very meanest Clerk whatsoever. Indeed if a King be made the Popes Le∣gat in his own Kingdomes, as Henry the first of England was (you may read it in Houeden, in whom also you may see that Henry the Second wrought all he could to get the same power from Rome for himself) then such a lay per∣son, but not as a meer lay person, may give sentence in such causes, accor∣ding to the extent of his commission. And who sees not moreover, that the Bishops of England who sate in the Council, and as sitting there, proceeded most uncanonically against their own Primat? If they would proceed canoni∣cally against him with any colour as much as of the ancient canons of the Church, it should have been in a canonical Convocation or Council of Bishops alone, and of such other Clergymen as by the canons ought to vote: and the Primat should have a fair tryal, and be tryed by the canons only. Those Bi∣shops failed in all this. And therefore Thomas had reason to appeal to the Pope from their sentence. For ever since the general Council of Sardica, there was at least in the Occidental Church an appeal allowed Bishops even from their equals, and even too from their superiours, to the supream Bishop, or him of Rome: as the Fathers of Sardica, at the desire of H••sius their Pre∣sident, to honour the memory of St. Peter, ordained by an an express Ca∣non. Though I confess, that for what concern'd the temporals of his Arch∣bishoprick, which he held only from the King and municipal laws of the land, he could not appeal to the Pope (understand you, otherwise then as to an ho∣nourable Arbiter by consent) by vertue of any canon only, or at all against the said municipal Laws or Customs of the Land, if they had been against him in the case of his said Temporals, as I have shewed they were not; or at least I am sure were not so against him (not even I mean, in such an appeal concerning his meer Temporals) as to render him guilty of treason for ap∣pealing so, o•• in such the meer temporal concerns of his Bishoprick. And yet I add, that Histories make no mention of any such kind of Appeal as this last made by him then when he appealed from the Council of No••thampton; though he had reason after to labour in all just, meer, and pure Ecclesiastical ways to recover the very temporals also of his Church to the same Church.

Tis true moreover, that immediatly after his appeal, he departed the Council or Parliament, the Court and Kingdom, and departed the King∣dom incognito in a secular weed. But neither was this any treason, nor even disobedience or mis-demeanour in him. There was no writ of ne exeat Regno against him. There was no law of God or man prohibiting him to depart so, nor any reason indeed, as the case stood with him. The King had stabled his own horses in his lodgings to affront him. He challeng'd him for thirty thousand pounds which he had administred formerly during his Chancellorship; and challeng'd him of so great a sum of purpose to pick a quarrel to him: for the Saint had given him an account of all when he was Chancellor, and was by the Barons of the Exchequer, and Richardus de Luci, Lord chief Justice, and by the young King himself acquit of all these and whatsoever other accounts, before he was consecrated. He was notwithstanding his Ap∣peal sentenc'd by the Barons, at the Kings desire, to be seized on and put in prison. The Archbishops of York and London laugh'd him to scorn in his own presence. London would have with his own hands forc'd his Archiepis∣copal Cross out of his hands; for the Saint himself carried his own Cross in his own hands that day to Court, or to that Parliament. Some came to him there and then, and told him that his death was sworn by his adversaries à

Regalibus as Houeden, ad an. 1164. relates it.) The Earls of Cornwal and Leister came to him where he sate to bid him hear the sentence they came to pronounce against him from the Barons, notwithstanding his appeal. And Thomas being in such a stress, commanded them on pain of excommunicati∣on to pronounce no sentence against him that day, because he had appeal'd to the Popes presence. And while they return'd with this answer of his to the King, slipt out alone, got a Horseback: and one of his Servants, who was there and saw the gate shut, and the Guards astonish'd, and a bunch of Keyes hanging hard by, lighted by chance on the right key, open'd the gate, no man opposing, and he rode peaceably to the Chanons Regular, chang'd at night his habit, and took a boat privatly for Flanders, to save his life? What treason was this? None by nature of such flight in it self; nor any by any law that was then; nor indeed by any binding law of man that could be in the case. The law of nature gives leave to even the greatest criminal to save his life by flight, when he makes no other opposition, or any by force of arms, or forcible resistance. And Christ himself said to his own Apostles, and by them to Thomas of Canterbury and such others, in such cases as went against their conscience, Cum persecuti fuerint vos in una civitate fugite in aliam. And if King Henry refused to give leave to Thomas of Canterbury, when a little be∣fore his Appeal he demanded it, to leave the Kingdom: and that after his Appeal he departed without any more asking or obtaining such leave; that matters nothing to render him guilty of treason, for the reasons before given; or even to render him guilty of any other misdemeanour, or even of as much as any culpable disobedience, for he had leave in the case from the King of Kings, and from his general law for all Christians, and no positive law of man, much less personal precept of man, can take away that liberty among Christians, because there is no law nor precept amongst Christians understood to bind against the law of God, or to bereave a man of that liberty and po∣wer which he hath from the law of God and nature, at least in such a case which concerns the preservation of his life, when it is in such evident hazard. Nor will it be to any purpose to alledge the law or custom of England since the raign of William Rufus, who begun it by his bare Edict (as Polydore Virgil sayes, l. x. Hystor. Anglic.) and upon a wicked occasion, which the said Rufus's general expilation of all sorts and estates of people both of the Layery and Clergie, and for an unmerciful end also, to wit, least they should elsewhere find any redress or remedy of their evils (being that, as Cicero sayes, those evils are more tollerable which we hear then which we feel) which Edict was, that none should depart the Kingdom without his Pass; for it is answered, that the Law or Custom of England ever since, and in pursuance of that Edict of Rufus, either is not at all that none shall depart England without the Kings Pass (as we see by daily experience it is not) but only that none shall depart when he is served with a Writ ne exeas regno; or were it so even in Henry the Second's dayes, and in order to the very Clergie (as I say it could could not be then when they were restored to all their former liberty, and this too by the very Laws of Henry the First, and laws and practice also at least as to this point and many others of King Stephen) and yet I say were it so even at the time of our Saints Controversie at Northampton with Henry the Second (as I am sure it was not) the law of nature and law of Christ dispen∣sed with our Saint for his flight against the letter, but not against the rational sense of such a law of the Land, or of such a Custom, or whatever else you call it. And it will be also to as little purpose to alledge here against St. Tho∣mas what Houeden tells us, ad an. 1165. how all cryed after him upon his going out of the Room and getting to Horse, whether do you go Traytor. For so Houeden tells it in express tearms: Dum autem (sayes he) praedicti Comites redirent ad Regem cum responso illo, Archiepiscopus exiuit à thalamo, & progredi∣ens per medium illorum uenit ad Paiefridum suum, & ascendit, & exivit ab aula, omnibus clamantibus post eum, & dicentibus, Quo progrederis proditor? Expecta

& audi judicium tuum. This, I say, will be to as little, nay less purpose to be alleadg'd. For Hoveden there doth but relate barely matter of fact, and the cry of the igno∣rant flattering multitude. And we know such a cry makes no man a Traytor in∣deed. And we know his very Judges, how unconscientious or incompetent, how malicious or ill affected, or how fearful soever they were not to comply in all things with their King against Thomas, gave no such sentence against him: as indeed they could not with any kind of colour, being the said King had no other pretence to get him sentenc••d by them, but that Thomas refused to give a second account for the ad∣ministration of which, and of the accounts of which he had been long before legally acquitted, both by the Judges and by the young King himself, & ideo amplius nolo inde placitare, said our Saint. Quod cum Regi constaret (sayes Hoveden) dixit Ba∣ronibus suis, cito facite mihi judicium de illo qui hono meus ligius est. As for Hoveden's own judgement, its clear enough all along for the Saint, where he of purpose and at large writes his life, and death, and martyrdome, and miracles, inserts his Epistles at length, accounts him a most holy man in his life, and a most glorious martyr and Saint in his death, and after his death.

4. But after his flight to Flanders, a Country in peace at that time with England, he went to France and to King Lewis, which was but a back friend to England, and he went to the Pope and incensed him against the King of England. And yet here was no treason committed, nor hostility raised by the Saint against his own King, nor (for ought appears out of History) intended at all by him. He went to France, and to the King of France and to the Pope also; partly to excuse himself, and shew the cause why he denyed to comply with his own King (for his own King sent Embassadors, both to Lewis of France and to the Pope, to accuse him, and pray them, especially the King of France not to harbour him at all) and partly also to be recommended by them, or either of them, to some pious refuge, where he might serve God in a retired life, and in safety from the power of his own incensed King, and might not want necessary sustenance, being he had nothing left him of his own to live upon. Was there or could there be any treason in this?

He represented the quarrel so, and those 16 Heads or customes controverted 'twixt his King and himself, so that the Pope and Cardinals with one voyce con∣demnd them, and consequently his King for contriving and forcing them on him and on the rest of England for municipal Laws and Customes. But so did Henry also, by his own Letters and Embassadours to the same Pope and Cardinals, endeavour to get those Customes approved, and Thomas in the same manner indirectly condem∣ned for opposing them. And as such application to the Pope and Cardinals by the Kings of England at that time was not unlawful, not even, I mean, by the very Laws of England, so neither was it as much as by the same Laws unlawful, much less treasona∣ble for the Archbishop of Canterbury to declare his Conscience before the Pope, and in matter of such or other whatsoever pretended or intruded or forced Laws or Customes whatsoever, or either treasonable or unlawful for him to be with the Pope and his Cardinals the cause or primary Instrument of such a condemnation as is proper to the Pope and Cardinals, by a meer spiritual sentence or judgment, or reprobation, or not allowance (for as much as belong'd to them, or as their such opinion or sentence was desired) of such Laws. Besides, we know that Histories make no mention at all of any Brief or Bull, or other authentick Declaration, set out by that Pope of his Cardinals, or by any other Pope, either procured by Thomas, or not procured by him, against those pretended Customes, or against that King, for them only and meerly. Moreover, we know it is no treason for any Bishop, Subject to any Prince whatsoever, to declare his own Conscience against whatsoever Laws, which are desired by the Prince to be establisht for Laws, and received, especially when the Bishop sees there were no former Laws of the Land obliging him under pain of treason not to oppose such other Laws or Customes, or pretended Customes as the Prince would establish for Laws. Nay, it is plain there could be, nor can be in any Common-wealth or Kingdome such former Laws so obliging Bishops, or in∣deed any other Subjects: because such would be against the Law of God and Na∣ture, and would oblige men to consent to the making even of the most wicked and

impious Laws imaginable, or at least would oblige those who are in Parliament concern'd to oppose wicked Laws, not to oppose them.

5. He took a Legatine power from the Pope over England and the Kings person too, even in the time of his exile or proscription. We find no proscription of him, but a voluntary, yet for himself necessary exile; though we find Edicts and Sanctions against those in England, who would receive any Mandats from him, or even from the Pope in his cause during that time of his exile. And we know it was neither treasonable, nor otherwise unlawful, by any even Law of England at that time, for an English Bishop, especially the Archbishop of Canterbury, to receive a Legatine power from the Pope over England. The Archbishops of Canterbury were both before St. Thomas, and after him, some of them Legati nati, and others Legati dati, and other Bishops too in England were sometimes Legati dati, and both those and these sometimes at the Kings desire made, or with his knowledge and consent, and sometimes also without the Kings previous knowledge or desire at all. The Laws indeed of Provisors, or Premunire, obstructed the Custome of procuring or receiving such Legatine Commissions without the Kings permission and ap∣probation. But these Laws were made long after, i. e. in the Reigns of Edward the Third, and Richard the Second. We know also the Legatine power was not of its own nature but in meer Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things, or in such as the Law and Customes of the Land then did allow it to be, and to be without any derogation to the Kings Majesty or Peoples safety. And that if at any time other∣wise exercised, it was the fault of the Legat, and neglect of the Prince, to suffer such exercise. For so the very ordinary Episcopal power of even inferiour English Bishops might be abused by the Bishops. Yet the Law did allow their power; though not the abuse of it. Nor was it treasonable nor otherwise unlawful, not even by the laws of England then, that a Commission of meer Spiritual or Ecclesiastical power and cognizance extending to the Kings own very Person, should be recei∣ved without his consent, nay, or against his consent, from Rome (however perhaps it might be imprudential in a subject to receive it so:) For the very ordinary pow∣er of a Bishop, where-ever the King resides in his Diocess, extends so also to the Kings own Person, that (laying aside some particular priviledge or exemption given by a superiour Church-power to the King from the spiritual cognizance or jurisdiction of such a Bishop) he may, if just cause be, proceed spiritually against the King himself by name, and so proceed, that, in case of necessity and expediency, he may either interdict him from the Church, or even also excommunicate him Evan∣gelically, that is, declare him separated from the spiritual Communion of all the Faithful: and may do all this without any treason at all. For a pure Evangelical excommunication, or such I mean as is grounded in the Gospel (whatever be said of Papal excommunication, or of excommunication taken with all its rigour, extention, or effects, according to some Papal Canons or Constitutions) entrenches not upon the temporal rights of any, nor separates any from such civil Communion of the faithful, as the same faithful, or any, or some of them, are other∣wise bound by the law of God, or man, or nature, to pay to another. And conse∣quently pronounced by a Bishop against his Kings own Person by name, cannot be any way a diminution of Royal Majesty: being this requires not to be exempt from the power, or even effect of such an excommunication, which hath no temporal effect, nor bereaves of any temporal power at all; nor consequently can by any just law amongst Christians, be made treasonable, not even in an Ordinary Bishop, who is the Ordinary of the Diocess, and hath not his Episcopal power restrained by any Cannon, or any command of a superiour Bishop. But whether it can or no, I am sure there was no Law then in England making it treason in a Bishop, as I have stated the case; much less in a Canterbury Archbishop Legat.

6. He threatned and prepared also to interdict the Kings Dominions. Let it be so, as indeed Historians confess it was so. And let it be so too, that he prepared to publish both a local and personal interdict; and which is more yet, to excommuni∣cate the Kings own Person, for I confess also, this very last of preparing to excommu∣nicate the King; though nothing out of History of what quality the interdict was to

be, or whether not only local, but also personal? And though reason tells us (and we are not without reason or History to presume otherwise then that) if personal also, it was only to be against such persons as gave cause for such interdict; how∣ever, it was not reason, either by the law of the Land, at least then, or by the nature of e∣ven such interdict the most general could be. Not by the Law: because none such is alledged; nor indeed can be, being it is very certain, that Ecclesiastical Disci∣pline, Jurisdiction and censures, were allowed then by the Law or Custome of Eng∣land to be exercised in all the formality of the Canons. Nor by its own nature, because it is a pure spiritual penalty, depriving only of Divine Offices and Ecclesi∣astical Burial, and of some Sacraments, viz. Eucharist, Order, Matrimony, and in some cases of that of Pennance too. As for the Saints preparing to excommuni∣cate the King. I have said enough of that already, or of the nature and effects of the excommunication which he was resolved to pronounce, had the peace not been made. And I am sure we have example enough in St. Ambrose interdicting the great Roman and Christian Emperor of the World Theodosius from entring his Church at Millan, that Ecclesiastical censures, as such, pronounced against a King by his Bishop (however otherwise in temporals his own subject) render not the Bishop a traytor against his King or Countrey. And if you say, that such general interdicts of a Kingdom, are sometime causes or occasions of the peoples rising in armes against the Prince; what then? they are not so by their own nature: nor common∣ly so as much as by accident, or by the mallice, or folly, or impatience of such as abuse them. The pure preaching of the Gospel hath been, sometimes through the malice of men, an occasion of armes, and wars, and slaughter of subjects and of Princes too. And the holiest things, and best means, and wholsomest Physick may be abused. Must this hinder the right use of them? or must it render Christian remedies treasonable among Christians, that even some Popes, or some Prelates, or some other Clerks, or some people have either actually made evil use of them, or intended to do so? But for such intention it cannot be fix'd on St. Thomas of Canterbury: and I shall give presently sufficient arguments that it could not be so fixed on him, nay, that really he had not any such. And yet in the mean time I confess I am not my self, in my own judgement, nor ever was since I understood any thing in Theology, for the practice (nay or Theory) of such general interdicts of a Kingdome, either lo∣cal or personal, much less of any mixt of both, nor even of a Province, Diocess, City. or University. But this is not my work now, whether my own private o∣pinion or judgement herein be right or not; as I do not absolutely averr that it is right: nor is it requisite I should here give my self or others the trouble of discus∣sing the grounds Pro or Con.

7. But Pope Alexander threatned by his last Embassadours or Legats, and bitter express Letters to King Henry the Second, that if he did not receive Thomas to peace, and without prosecution of the 16 Customes, he would proceed against him as he had lately against the Emperour Frederick, that is, to a sentential depositi∣on of him from his Crown and Kingdome, or to the actual raising in War of both his own Subjects, and of those were not his own Subjects, against him. Thomas of Canterbury had no hand in contriving such an Embassy, or in procuring such Letters, as to these particulars. He solicited indeed by his own Letters from France to Alexander at Rome, and so did the King of France, and some of the Bi∣shops of France most earnestly, that the Pope would be pleased to recall his own late Papal suspension of the Legatine Commission, and his own late Papal exemption given to King Henry the Second (at the same Henry's earnest suit by his Embassa∣dour) from Thomas's both extraordinary power of a Legat, and Ordinary of the Archbishop of Canterbury over King Henry, and licence him to proceed Ecclesiasti∣cally against this King. And no more appears out of History that Thomas solicited the Pope in, if not peradventure, that the Pope himself would immediately by him∣self proceed against Henry in the same manner was uncontroulably allowed by all the Christian Church then, and all the Christian Common-wealth; that is, to a pure spiritual excommunication, and pure spiritual interdict. If the Pope exceeded both the desires of Thomas, and power of Alexander, what was that to Thomas? For I

confess, that if Henry the Second did not acknowledge himself Alexanders vassal in temporals, or his Kingdome tributary, or to hold it in fee from Rome, or that it was so then indeed by some kind of true humane right, then certainly it must fol∣low, that Alexanders threats were not well grounded, nor just, but very injurious and very erroneous too; though not treasonable in him, because he was no Sub∣ject of Henry's. I say if, because I do not certainly know what the conscience of Henry, or well or ill grounded opinion of English men generally was at that time. I see that this very same Henry a little before took such a Bull for the invasion of Ireland, from Adrian the fourth Pope of that name an English man, (who sate immediately before this Alexander,) that gives much ground to think, that either he was perswaded the Pope had a supream, even (I mean) temporal right to all the Christian Islands, at least in the West, or that he would make use of any the most improbable and ridiculous title what soever to invade and possess other mens rights. And I see that he trembled at the very mention of the Popes interposition. But how∣ever this matter be, nothing appears out of History or ancient Records of the Saints Letters (and whence should we know or should Henry the 8th. after 300 years know, but from History or such Records) that our Saint had any kind of hand direct∣ly or indirectly in procuring or intending such a message from Alexander the III. to Henry the II. And we know Alexander was his own Master, and that being setled at Rome, and having humbled Frederick (whether by lawful or unlawful means) he little cared for Henry, whereever the controversies touched or concerned his own (whether true or only pretended) supream Pontificial power in the exemption of Clergy-men from secular powers, or in any other such whatsoever. Though in other matters wherein his own interest was not so neerly concerned, he could not but retain still kindness enough for Henry; albeit the King of France, as nearer him, and of greater use, could not but sometime cross that very kindness.

8. But the former Cardinal-Legats come the first time from Rome to compose the difference 'twixt Henry and Thomas, where they had a conference with him be∣twixt Gisortium and Trie, amongst other things objected to him (in the behalf of Henry and after they had been with Henry) that he had perswaded the King of France to war upon him. Adjecerunt etiam querelas (sayes Hoveden ad an. 1169.) & injurias, quibus Rex Angliae se ab ipso lasum esse conquestus est; imponens ei etiam, inter caetera, quod ei excitaverat guerram Regis Francorum. But in these words you see Hoveden sayes, that this was an imposture, or that Henry imposed on Thomas in this particular. And immediately after, the same Author tells, that Thomas re∣futed this, and all other objections, by true and probable reasons. Cantuariensis au∣tem (sayes he) in omni humilitate & mansuetudine spiritus, post gratiarum actionem Domino Papae & illis debitam, respondit ad singula, rationibus veris & probabilibus, querelas Regis evacuans, & injurias Ecclesiae & damna intollerabilia patenter exponens.

You will say, that however this be of such actual treason, or treason in fact a∣gainst his Prince, by setting on the King of France, it cannot be denyed that he held treasonable Principles, that is, such Principles as were suitable to such practise or such treason in fact, because such as lessen the Majesty of the King and Kingdome, if not wholly subject it to others: forasmuch as his opinion and judgment was that Kings re∣ceive their power from the Church, as himself declared in his own words to the King at Chinun. Is there any man would think so, but would also think at the same time, that the Church might take away again, or transfer the power of Kings? But I say, that as he cannot in act or fact be accused of treason, so neither in habitude, or ap∣titude, or inclination, or true meaning, or natural sequele of that word, saying, opinion or judgement of his at Chinun, may he be charged with any as much as specula∣tive treasonable Principles, however otherwise abstracting wholly, not only from fact, but even from intention, or even also from being rendred any kind of way or fra∣med into practical dictates.

1. Because it is one thing to say, that Christian Kings receive their power from the Church; and another, to say, that after they have once received their power so, the Church may either revoke it again wholly, or any way lessen it. As it is one thing to say, that from the people, as a civil society of men (and not

from them as a Church) Kings (especially in elective Kingdomes) receive their pow∣er; and an other, that the people having once conferr'd it, and so transferr'd the Majesty from themselves, may revoke it againe, either at their pleasure, or in any case whatsoever, without the King's own consent. And because the first, or the assertion of receiving such power either from Church or people, is no way treaso∣nable, either by the nature of such reception or such assertion (in it self considered) or by any positive law in any Country (for ought we have heard) not even in England, nor certainly was treasonable in the days of Thomas of Canterbury. How∣ever perhaps it be an errour against the truth of things in themselves, to say that Kings in hereditary Kingdomes receive their politick royal power, either from the Church, or from the people, or even in elective Kingdomes, otherwise from either then as from bare instrumental or conditional causes, or such as Philosophers call conditiones sine quibus non, &c. not at all from either, as from the true proper efficient cause of the power. For this efficient is (according to the sounder do∣ctrine in Christian Religion, and in reason too) God alone. As (even according to the Doctrine of Bellarmine) God alone is the onely true, proper, immediate effi∣cient of the Papal power; albeit he had not been Pope, if he had not first been elected by the Church, or by their Representative now, the Colledg of Cardinals; or formerly, by the Emperours; or before that, by the Roman Clergy; or before that also, by the Clergy and people of Rome, both joynd together.

2. Because that although we find this entire passage, Et quia certum est Reges potestatem suam ab Ecclesia accipere, & non ipsam ab illis, sed a Christo, (salva pace vestra loquor) non haberetis Episcopis praecipere absolvere aliquem, vel excommunicare, trahere Clericos ad secularia examina, judicare de decimis, de Ecclesiis, interdicere Episcepis ne tractent de transgressione fidei, vel juramenti, & multa alia quae in hunc modum scripta sunt inter consuetudines vestras, quas dicitis avitas. I say, that al∣though we find this entire passage amongst those which are called in Hoveden, Verba Beati Thoma Cant. Archiep. ad Henricum Regem Angliae in Concilio suo apud Chinun; nay, although we did admit it as truly such, and admit all the rest of that Speech in Hoveden as words spoke by St. Thomas himself (whereof yet I have this ground to doubt, that I find not in the whole series of the History of matter of Fact, either in Hoveden himself, or any other, when, or how, or that at all St. Thomas ever met that King, during his banishment, but twice; once in Paris, and in presence of the King of France; and another time in the fields abroad, when they were at last reconciled by the mediation of the last Legates. Where then was Chinun here, or any such words? However admitting those Words, and that entire passage of, or amongst those Words, as really spoke by St. Thomas, and at such a place and Councel) I see nevertheless, partly in some former passa∣ges of that very speech at Chinun, and partly also, and more fully perhaps in his long and second Letter (which no man doubts to be his own true letter) to Gilbert Bishop of London, and see in both ground enough to answer and say, that in this passage I have already given, the Saint mean't not at all, that from the Church, Kings receive so their true civil or politick Royal power, or their power of the material sword, at least, as to the essentials, or even as to the necessa∣ry appendages of it in pure civil or temporal matters, that without such reception as he mean't of it from the Church, they had had none at all; or that without such reception as he mean't, neither their birth-right in hereditary Kingdomes, nor election of the people in elective Kingdomes, nor any other Title what∣soever in either, could be sufficient to give them (as man can give) true, civil, and politick Royal Power, or to give this, I mean, antecedently to their receiving what they use to receive in order to the Ceremonial, or significative, and whatever other additional complement of it, from the Church. For thus he discourseth, a little before, in the same speech at Chinun, speaking to his King: Nosse debetis, vos Dei gratia Regem esse primò, quia vos ipsum (or ipsos) regere debetis, vitamque vestram optimis informare moribus, ut vestri exemplo caeteri provocentur ad melius, juxta illud sapientis, Componitur orbis regis ad exemplum. Secundariò, alios demul∣cend••, alios puniendo, potestatis authoritate quam accepistis ab Ecclesia cum sacra∣mento

unctionis, tum gladii officio, quem gestatis ad malefactores Ecclesiae conteren∣dos. Injunguntur enim Reges in tribus locis, in capite, in pectore, & brachiis: quod significat gloriam, scientiam, & fortitudinem. And thus also after he discourseth in that Letter to the Bishop of London, and about the end of that Letter. Sciat ergo & intelligat, te intimante, Dominus meus (to wit, the King) quod qui domina∣tur in regno hominum, sed & Angelorum, du••ts sub se potestates ordinavit, Princi∣pes & Sacerdotes: unam terrenam, alteram spiritualem: unam ministrantem, al∣teram praeeminentem: unam cui potentiam concessit, alteram cui reverentiam exhiberi voluit. Out of both which passages, and not only jointly, but severally taken, and much more if jointly, as they ought, the more fully to undestand the Saints meaning, I am very much deceived if it appear not sufficiently, 1. That he ac∣knowledges the Royal Power as such in Kings to be no less from God than the Sa∣cerdotal in Priests. 2. That to Kings he gave the Temporal power of this World, and Carnal power of the material Sword: To Priests a spiritual Authority, and no more in order to the Temporal power, and Carnal sword, but a Mandat only from him to such as have that Power and Sword, to revere those who onely have the Word. 3. That where he intimates, they received, or do receive the Authority of power from the Church, he declares plainly enough, that he means no more by this phrase, but that they received, or do receive it Ceremoniously, and significatively, and in some-wise completively from the Church, when they were, or are anoint∣ed by Sacred Oyle, by Her, in three places, in their Head, Breast, and Shoulders; which (sayes he) signifies Glory, Knowledge, and Fortitude, qualities necessary to a King, and of right flowing from the power which he had antecedently to their unction, but now signified both to the King himself, and to others, and signifi∣ed by such unction that they ought to flow from it: and qualities also not seldome by the prayers of the Church at that time impetrated from God, to flow from it thenceforth more abundantly and conspicuously. Or that, if besides this cere∣monious and significative reception of power from the Church, he mean any other real reception, it must be of another Authority than that which is essential and proper in all times, and all places, to the Supreme, Civil, or Politick Ma∣gistrate, as such; and must be onely of some kind of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical ca∣pacity, power, authority, or enablement for some spiritual Functions, either within the Church, and in order to the very mystical Sacrifice, or Preparatories, or Ante∣cedents, or Concomitants of it; or certainly without and over the Church, and in relation to its proper Government Ecclesiastical, and to its Benefices and Offices. For such a double Authority given by the Church to Christian Emperours and Kings, especially in and by, or together with their Unction and Consecration (at least as Church affairs stood a long time before that of St. Thomas of Canterbury, and long after too) he might have very well averr'd, and rationally have objected to Henry the Second, whereby to move him not to be so ungrateful to the Church which had so obliged him. And such a double Authority given by her to them, is apparent, 1. In their Clerical Offices performed sometime within the very Churches, and at the very Altars: For so we find that Sigismund, that good and zealous Em∣perour, who was the chief Instrument for gathering the General Council of Con∣stance, to end the great Schism of Three Anti-Popes, and assisted at it, when it sate, and the Pope John the XXIII. celebrated the solemn Mass on Christmas, day, in the Cathedral of the City, did serve at the high Altar clad in the Vest of a Dea∣con, and doing the Office, did read also, and sing publickly the Gospel, Exiit Edictum a Caesare Augusto ut describeretur universus, &c. which was the Gospel of that Mass which the Pope then celebrated. 2. In the Canonical and positive right of Patronage, and Nomination of Church Officers, and Beneficiaries, as of Bishops, Abbots, Priors, &c. which they have, and which at least, many, or most, or they all had at least in most parts before the dayes of Thomas of Canterbury, and had verily either from the express Donation made to them by the Church (as that of naming the very Pope himself, and all Archbishops and Bishops in the West made to Caro∣lus Magnus, and his Successors) or by the tacite permission and approbation of the same Church, partly for their Merits, and partly for the bindring of Schisms

amongst the Clergy, or Lay-people, or both, which happen'd before in popular, or Clerical, or joint Elections, or in such as were made by the Communities. I say, Canonical and positive Right, or Patronage, or Nomination, &c. because I confess, That all Supreme Lawful Princes and States whatsoever, as well Heretick, as Catho∣lick, as well not Christian, as Christian, have a natural right of Patronage over the very Christian Church, and a negative Suffrage in the Election of such Christian Church Officers as live within their Dominions, forasmuch as the safety of their people may be concern'd in such: that is, have a right from the Law of Nature, and a right essential to their Kingly Office, not to suffer any Disturber of the pub∣lick Peace to be nominated, or to enjoy any Church Livings, or Church Office within their own Dominions. And that such natural Right, and negative Suffrage, is not derived or given to them by the Church. But the former double Authority is by or together with their Sacred Unction. And that St. Thomas of Canterbury meant only this by the Authority which, he sayes, they received from the Church (if indeed at all he meant any more by this saying of his, than their receiving their politick Kingly power either significatively and completively, as to the outward Ceremonies before the people, or at most in some measure and degree, and as to the perfect establishment of it instrumentally, and by their mediation, or at least by their making no opposition) sufficiently appears, First, out of his manner of speak∣ing, or couching these words, Secundario, alios demulcendo, alios puniendo, potestatis authoritate quam accepistis ab Ecclesia, tum gladii officio, quem gestatis ad male∣factores Ecclesiae conterendos. Where, though he insinuate some Authority of power received also from the Church, to allure some by fair and sweet means, others by sowr severity; yet after he tells the King, That besides that Authority, he hath the Office of the Sword also (gladii officio) and carries it for the crushing and cutting off Malefactors; but sayes not that he received this Sword, or the Office, or Power, or Authority of it, from the Church, nay, sufficiently insinuates, by the placing of his words, That Kings receive not this at all from the Church. And therefore also insinuates clearly enough, that they receive not at all (at least otherwise than I said) their true, civil, or politick Royal power, or the true Essentials, or necessary Appendages of it from the Church: for this is the same with the office of the Sword. And secondly, out of that whole passage of his to the Bishop of London, where he makes the whole Regal power to be the immediate institution of God, and derived from Him alone; and no less immediately than the Sacerdotal is: and in the perclose, most significantly shews the difference 'twixt them, by saying, That God ordained the one Authority to which he gave the power, but the other to which he would have reverence done: Ʋnam cui potentiam concessit, alteram cui reverentiam exhiberi voluit: as meaning earthly power, and signifying that no such was given by God to the Church (and consequently that the Church could not give it to any other; for nemo dat quod non habet) but onely and wholly to earthly Princes. Therefore from first to last, the natural and genuine meaning of St. Thomas of Can∣terbury, in that passage of his at Chinun, which I alledgd against my self out of Hoveden, must be, that whereas it is certain it was from the Church your Ma∣jesty received that extraordinary power you have in some Church affairs; and that she hath her own proper, supreme, purely spiritual, and properly Ecclesiastical, from Christ alone, and not from you, or any other Prince: and whereas either she hath never given you that power you challenge in so many other Church affairs; or if she hath to any of your Predecessors, she hath again upon rational grounds re∣voked it: therefore (pace vestra loquor) you ought not to command Bishops to absolve whom you will, and when you will; or to excommunicate whom, and when you please; or draw or send Clerks to Secular Courts, both against the Laws of the Land, and her Canons; nor ought you to interdict Bishops, or command them, that in their own Ecclesiastical Courts, and Ecclesiastick manner, they handle not the breach of Oath, or transgressions against Faith, &c. For albeit that in some other matters which St. Thomas objected here to the King, the Church peradven∣ture had nothing to do with the cognizance of them, as to the determination of Right, but what she had from humane Laws, and the very municipal Laws of the

Land, I mean; yet once she had that Right given her by such Law, there is no question but that until such Law were legally again Repealed by an Authority equal to that which made it, she might proceed by her own spiritual Authority (Supreme and Independent from any but Christ alone) and in a pure spiritual way proceed against any Prince whatsoever that invaded even such her Rights, however acquired humanely, or by humane Laws, as all other Temporal Rights are by all sorts of people acquired. For even to preserve the only humane Rights of meer Lay-men to their Goods or Lands, &c, She may use her spiritual power when it is necessary and seasonable, against any Invader or Usurper. And consequently St. Thomas having the Law of the Land on his side, where there was nothing positively deter∣mined pro or con in the Laws of God or Nature, he might even as to such matters very justly have said to Henry the second, Pace vestra loquor, non haberetis Episcopis praecipere, &c. And might have said so, and all the rest, either consequent, or ante∣cedent, of the Authority received from the Church, and said all without any kind, not only not of Treason, but of as much as the least Treasonable principle in pure specu∣lation, abstracting from all fact and intention of fact which could entrench upon the Majesty of the Prince, or safety of the people. And I am sure, there can be neither Treason in fact, nor in habitude, either by the nature of things, or interpre∣tation of Laws, but against either. As I confess, that all Treason, properly such, as Treason is taken here (i. e. Legally, and not Etymologically) or as it is taken for that which we call (in Latin) Crimen laesae Majestatis, must be only against the person or persons in which or in whom only the Supreme civil power is, or in which only or whom that we call Majesty is. And therefore, that in an absolute Monarchy, where we know that Majestas non est in populo, there can be no such crime as this Treason committed against the people, but only against the Prince. Whereof Bodinus may be read in his Books de Republica.

3. Because it is no Treasonable principle (by it's own Nature, or by Law) at least in Speculation or Theory, That such Authority as is not essential, or necessarily annexed to the Supreme civil or temporal power, but accidental, and accidentally annexed or permitted to it, by or at the pleasure of another or others not subject at all to such Supreme power civil, or at least not subject in such matters, especially if such Authority be not in its own Nature purely politick or civil at all; that, I say, such Authority (so hitherto accidentally annexed or permitted) may even (at least in some cases) be either suspended or prohibited, or lessened, or altered, or even totally revoked, and even also totally transferred by those which so annexed or permitted it formerly to the Supreme civil Magistrate. And the reason is, because it can be no Treasonable principle which dictates not, nor inclines not to actual Treason, that is, to an unlawful or injurious hurting or lessening, or endangering of Majesty, or of that which is the essential or necessary Appendages of Majesty in this one or in these more persons wherein it is placed, according to the several Forms of Government. And this principle neither dictates nor enclines to any such un∣lawful, or injurious hurting, lessening, &c. Now if this principle be not Treaso∣nable, which sayes, That such Authority so given by the Church to the King, may be again Revoked from the King, at least, in some cases: how can that other be Treasonable, which only sayes, That he received sometime such Authority from the Church? Nay (and I add now) or how can that be Treasonable, which only sayes, That Christian Kings originally, or some-time past, received whatever Authority you please, or even their whole very politick, or civil and temporal Authority from the Church, in whatever wise the Church was able to give, and they to receive it from Her? But sayes not, That the Church may by her own power, or at her plea∣sure, or in any case Revoke that Authority again, or hurt, lessen, or endanger it; but wholly abstracts from this, whether it be so or not, according to the truth of things in themselves.

4. Because the Querie made after the Objection (or that which ask't thus, Is there any man would think so, but would also think at the same time, that the Church might take away again, or transfer the power of Kings?) is soon and ra∣tionally answer'd in the affirmative. For so do very famous Catholick Doctors,

(both Divines, Civilians, and Canonists, and they all of strict communion with the Roman Church and Pope) maintain, and maintain also (I mean too) concern∣ing such authority and power as without any question they had at first originally from the Church, and could not have but from her, but hath been, time out of mind, annexed to their Crowns, or hath been originally, or at some time granted them per modum contractus vel concordati vel transitionis. And that you may not have my saying so for proof, you may be pleased to run over this Latin inser∣tion, extracted out of that very learned School Divine, and English Father, and Doctor of St. Francis's Order (who was lately, and three several times, Minister Provincial of his said Order in England, and, for ought I know, lives yet) Father Francis Davenport, alias a Sancta Clara. And I give it wholly in his own words, as it lies in his Paraphrase on the XXXVII Article of those XXXIX of the Protestant Church of England. And give it so at length, not only that you may see in it Catholick Doctors and Writers enough confirming what I have so answer••d in the Affirmative to this Query; but for to clear your judgment in some other matters also relating to the Subject in hand here, or at least to that of my whole Dis∣course of Ecclesiastical Exemption, if not to some other questions, in this my present Book. And yet give it not, as meaning to tye my self in all things to his judgment, or at least to his too fearful or scrupulous expressing, and tying of himself in meer words to some other late Schoolmen; especially where he rather follows their opinion, or their expression, who deny Jurisdiction to Kings ex jure Regio, & de jure Divino & naturali, over the persons, and in the causes of Ecclesiasticks, and only attribute to them nudam potestatem civilem & temporalem, &c. over such per∣sons, and in such causes, than theirs who on the contrary attribute to Kings the thing and word Jurisdiction over the same persons and things, and this too per se, and by the Law of God and Nature. Hic articulus (sayes he, meaning the foresaid XXXVII Article of the Protestant Church of England) subministrat materi∣am examinandi Quaestionem longe gravissimam. An scil. laici sint capaces jurisdictio∣nis spiritualis? Primo advertendum, ex omnium sententia illos non esse capaces cla∣vium, quia tunc etiam remissionis seu absolutionis a peccatis. Secundo advertendum, jurisdictionem spiritualem, seu potestatem jurisdictionis, non esse immediate ipsam po∣testatem clavium, immo separabiles, nec actu semper conjungi, vel jure divino, vel positivo. Tertio supponendum, summum Pontificem in omni sententia, secundum abso∣lutam potentiam suam, posse jurisdictionem talem laicis concedere, quia non expresse contra jus divinum, ut recte Soto 4. dist. 20. quaest. 1. art. 4.* 34.1 sic etiam Miranda in Manuali, quaest. 3. art. 2. & hoc non solum respectu virorum, sed foeminarum. Addit tamen Miranda, hoc respectu foeminarum nusquam adhuc concessum. Quod tamen negat D. Alvin. c. 3. de Episcopis, Abbatibus & Abbatissis c. 22. & citat multa jura, ex quibus actu conceditur Abbatissis potestas jurisdictionis, non quidem excommunicandi per se, sed praecipiendi suis subditis Sacerdotibus, ut excommunicent rebelles & contumaces moniales: & hoc valere vel ex jure communi, vel consuetudi∣ne, vel saltem ex privilegio; vel strictius loquendo, dicendum cum Laimanno lib. 1.* 34.2 tract. 5. p. 1. cap. 3. num. 3. & 4. quod non habent jurisdictionem spiritualem proprie, sed usuram quandam jurisdictionis. Et hinc conferre possunt beneficia, & instituere clericos in Ecclesiis ad Monasterium suum pertinentibus, &c.

Ʋt sensum meum in re tam gravi aperiam; Dicendum putem, nullo quidem jure, ut praetactum est, eis competere potestatem seu jus spirituale, ut loquitur Joannes de Pa∣risiis de potestate Papae c. 21. quo gratia spiritualis causatur, id est,* 34.3 potestas ad∣ministrandi Sacramenta. Et idem est judicium de potestate quae consequitur ex priori, ut est inflictio poenae spiritualis, scripturarum expositio, Ministrorum Ecclesiae institutio, confirmatio vel examen, & alia id genus multa. Quodvis enim horum de jure divino restringitur praecise ad homines spirituales sen Deo sacros, ut olim defi∣nitum est a Joan. 22. contra Marsilium de Padua, ut videre est apud Turrecrem. l. 4. Summae, sub finem.* 34.4 Caeterum quoad potestatem seu jus antecedens non de per se & necessario annexum spiritualibus officiis, bene potest in laicis subinde residere: sicut praesentatio, collatio beneficiorum, punitio temporalis clericorum, & alia id genus multa, ut dixi de Abbatissis, praecipue ex concessione Ecclesia, vel longa consuetudine

praescripta, convenientibus Praelatis Ecclesiae. Dixi, & merito, etiam ex consuetudine, quia non solum concessio,* 34.5 sed consuetudo ipsa tribuit jurisdictionem, etiam in spiri∣tualibus, ut docet Innocent. in cap. Novit. de judic. & multi. praesertion, quando con∣suetudinis exercitium a tempore immemoriali probatur, ut declarant Juristae. de quare vide Salgado p. 1. c. 1. Praelud. 3. n. 122, & deinceps.

Dices, hic non solum concedi Principibus nostris potestatem ex consuetudine, seu concessione, sed supremam, ut ibi asseritur, quod no•• potest eis competere in spiritu∣alibus, ut omnes Doctores tenent. Respondeo, quod Doctores praedicti asserant Papa•• non posse auferre jurisdictionem Principum ex consu••tudine vel concessione firma, valide & licite introductam:* 34.6 sicut satis insinuat Navar. c. 27. in Enchir. n. 70. agens de Gallis. Sic etiam Salzedo in Scholiis ad praxim crimin••lem Bernardi Diaz. § Apud Gallos. Qui hinc putat Bullam Coenae non intelligi contra privilegia remuneratoria, vel quae su••t firmata consuetudine immemoriali, prout eti∣am Nav. Tandem Duvallius de dis. Eccles. p. 3. fol. 405. dicit, quod Papa, quando dat privilegium Principibus secularibus in materia jurisdictionis humano jure (id est, non contra jus divinum) introductae, non potest revocare, si concessum sit per modum contractus vel concordati vel transitionis. Et sine dubio sufficit ad intentum hu∣jus Articuli, quod ideo dicatur, suprema potestas, non simpliciter, sed quia non per superiorem auferibilis. Regibus autem nostris fuisse sic concessum jus norinandi & providendi de beneficiis,* 34.7 testatur post alios Harpf. saeculo 14. fuisse etiam aliam consuetudinem immemorialem ex privilegio ortam,* 34.8 causas clericorum cognoscendi, patet ex decis. Rotae. 804. ut communiter citatur. Quod si dixeris, non constare de hoc privilegio,* 34.9 ut etiam Suarez lib. 4. de immunitate Eccles. c. 34. num. 12. Responderent, quod consuetudo notoria, licet non constiterit, est melius, quia in hoc casu magis operatur tacitum sen praesumptum privilegium, quia supponit concessionem irrevocabilem, secus si constaret de privilegio, quia ••on reciperet interpretationem; sed observandum erat,* 34.10 prout sonat, & plus operatur in hoc fama privilegii cum immemo∣riali consuetudine, ut in terminis tradit Fulvius Pacian. cons. fi. num. 124. ne pro∣pter difficultatem probandi rem antiquam, pereat jus partis. sic Camillus Borell. de Praestantia Regis Catholici c. 305. n. 26. & 27.

Dices, non solum in Articulo competere hanc potestatem Principibus nostris ex pri∣vilegio vel consuetudine, sed jure divino. Respondeo, quod valde multi Doctores de hoc consulti, tenent, quod Quoad commune bonum Reipubl. Principes habent juris∣dictionem etiam in multis causis foro Ecclesiastico alias per se subjiciendis. Et hoc non solum de jure divino positivo, sed naturali. Sed rectius Doctores in Bullam Coena, negant Principibus jurisdictionem in Clericos & eorum causas ex jure Regio, sed nudam potestatem civilem & temporalem, ob protectionem & desensionem Reipub∣licae, justitiae & pacis communis: & hoc de jure divino & naturali ipsis competit, nec hic Articulus plus exigit:* 34.11 & ratio quam tetigit Suarez lib. 3. de Primatu Summi Pontificis c. 1. num. 4. in fine optime hanc partem probat. Quia humana natura non potest esse destituta remediis ad suam conservationem necessariis: accedit etiam Morl. in Empor. jur. 1. p. tit. 2. de legibus num. 20. vers. Quia cum Regnum: ••bi dicit, quod cui conceditur regnum necessario omnia censentur concessa, sine quibus Regnum gubernari non potest: Regnum vero gubernari non posset, nisi Principes hac potestate potirentur, etiam in Clericos, &c. ergo. Sic illi. In hunc igitur fi∣nem, & in hoc sensu, magna sine dubio est potestas Regum jure divino & naturali se∣cundum illos, in personas & causas Ecclesiasticas in multis casibus per accidens & in∣directe, ut loquuntur Doctores, secundum partem directivam, seu imperativam: verbi gratia, possunt civiliter mandare Clericis etiam Episcopis, ut spiritualia sua ad pacem Reipublica disponant, ut dyscolos ex officiis amoveant, immo innocentes Clericos ab injustis oppressionibus judicum Ecclesiasticorum authoritate Regia defendere possunt. Et alia hujusmodi. Totum hoc confirmatur a Parsonio in Richardo II. Henrico IV. & Edvardo IV. & miratur, si aliquis negaret Regibus in suis regnis. Hic vide modestiam Navarri in Manuali, cap. 27. num. 69. ubi non dubitat de hoc dicto, modo sint verae oppressiones & violentiae:* 34.12 vide etiam nu. 27. Nec quoad substanti∣am rei multum discrepat Cajetanus, ubi inferius, nec Victoria de Potestate Ecclesiasti∣ca. Et ratio convincit: nam Clerici omnes, non obstante Clericatu, sunt cives Rei¦publ.

& subditi Regis ratione domicilii, & consequenter ad leges Principum quatenus pertinent ad communem vivendi in Regno societatem, & ad justitiam exequendam quae maxime pacem & tranquillitatem fovet, non possunt non astringi, nec ab illorum obe∣dientia, vel in personis, vel causis praedictis, modo explicato eximi possunt, quantum ad pacem Reipublicae necessarium est; nec putem ullum Doctorem Cathol: huic refragari:* 34.13 unde Caret. dicit Apol. de potestate Papae cap. 27. quod Principibus competat illa tyrannidi resistendi potestas, quam jure naturali & gentium habent, etiam in rebus Ecclesiasticis. Et in hoc sensu ubivis terrarum Reges Christianissimi & Catholici hodie factitant, ut fusissime ostendere possum; nec plus hic asseritur. Praesertim si attendanus ad expositiones eorum in hunc Articulum, nullam utique jurisdictionem spiritualem Regibus nostris concedunt, sed gubernium civile & temporale indirecte & per accidens ob pacem Reipubl. in personas & causas praedictas Ecclesiasticas extensum: sic D. Raynoldus licet Puritanus, D. Montacutius contra Heigham,* 34.14 & alii eorum doctissimi, quibuscum de hoc egi. Gavisus sum etiam valde de illo quod his diebus factum est Cantabrigiae, in Comitiis pro actu doctorali, ubi Summo Pontifici, ut Maxi∣mo Patri (sic enim eum appellitabant) designata est cura spiritualium, Regi tempora∣lu••, licet sub sinem subjiciebant, Regun esse omnes regere. Quod intelligi debet civiliter, non spiritualiter, modo a nobis explicato. Tandem, ut summatim dicam, pu∣tem abunde sufficere huic Articulo, quod hodie a Gallis & Parlamento Parisiensi salva communione Ecclesiae usurpatur.

Non ago partes corum qui summa violentia trabi volunt hunc Articulum in disensionem jurisdictionis purae spiritualis in Regibus, quod certissime haereticum es••.

Hae liberius dixi, quia ut optime Cano l. 5. qu. 5. Sect. Nunc illud breviter: Qui summi Pontificis omne, de re quamcumque, judicium temere ac sine delectu de∣fendunt, eos sedis Apostolicae authoritatem labefactare, non fovere, non firmare, Quid enim tandem adversum haereticos disputando ille proficiet, quem viderint non judicio, sed affectu patrocinium authoritatis Pontificiae suscipere; nec id agere; ut disputationis suae vi, lucem ac veritatem eliciat, sed ut se ad alterius sensum vo∣luntatemque convertat? non eget Petrus mendacio nostro, nostra adulatione non eget. Haec ille. Ego ingenue dico, libentissime, ne dicam avidissime, ob justam defen∣sionem Sedis Apostolicae (divina gratia assistente) mortem subirem: non enim ani∣mam meam me preciosiorem facio. Nec tamen quod justum est Principibus dene∣gandur. Eousque solum processi; licet alii longe ulterius, etiam Hispani, in hac ips•• materia processerunt, ut, si opus foret, ostendere possum, sed forte Anglis non li∣cet, quod aliis licebit.

••aragraphis sequens (intellige hunc, Romanus Pontifex nullam habet jurisdictio∣nem in hoc Regno Angliae) ma••ori indiget glossa. Forte tangit illam pervetustam quaestionem, An Anglia sit feudataria Papae. Joan. Rex Angliae, ut testantur Mat∣thaeus Paris,* 34.15 & Matthaeus Westmonast. de regione libera per chartam lugubrem an∣cillam fecit & feudatariam Summo Pontifici. Henricus tamen ejus filius in Concil. Lugd. huic reclamavit, & praecipue Episcopus Cant. ut testatur Walsing. ad annum 1245. & postea Cancellarius Angliae Episcopus Eliensis in publicis Regni Comitiis, consentientibus tribus Ordinibus Patriae, reclamavit,* 34.16 non obstante privata sponsione Jo∣•••• ut tescatur Harps. ad saec. 14. c. 5. immo & armis se a temporali jurisdictione Papa defensuros protestabantur. Sed quia hic inanis titulus S. Pontif. (ut eum re∣putabat olim Illust. Tho. Morus, & hodie omnes Catholici) saepius obtrudebatur,* 34.17 prae∣sertim in principio Elizabethae, a Paulo 4. ut aliqui dicunt, quae occupabat regnum, non requisito consensu Papae, hinc forte hic Articulus conditus est. Multum enim inter fortunam privatam Principis, & Regale culmen interest, ut Zeno lib. ult. cap. de quadr. praescript. Quod si ille fuerit sensus hujus paragraphi, nempe praecludere so∣lum jurisdictionem temporalem summi Pontificis, nec ipse Pontifex sapientissimus in in hoc se difficilem praebebit, & omnes Catholici, juris regii zelosissimi, cum decesso∣ribus nostris conspirabunt. Fuse profecto & facile nullitatem illius donationis (si donatio fuit) ex decisionibus jurium comprobarem, adhibitis testimoniis Baldi in c. in generali; si de feud. controv. sit. int. dom. & agn. in usib. feud. ubi in terminis hoc oscendit, & adducit Hostiensem in c. dilecti. de major. & obed. & ibi Johan. Andre.

in novella, & aliqua alia. Jason. Bartholus l. ult. sol. mat. Cynus l. 1. C. de novat. Faber. de asissignand. l. n. 4. Instit. Et Philippus Francus in rubr. de testamentis. l. 6. decretalium, &c. legendi sunt hac de re Doctores & Jurisperiti Galli, de du∣catibus Britanniae & Aquitaniae in tempore Philippi. 4. Invariabile vero maneat & inconcussum illud Veritatis,* 34.18 Reddite ergo quae sunt Caesaris, Caesari, & quae sunt Dei, Deo.

Vel si haec glossa minus placeat, tunc potest dici, adhuc haec verba multiplicem ferre sensum. Ʋnus est, quod omnimodo negatur subjectio & communio cum sede Apostolica: quod est plane derelinquere Augustinum, Ambrosium, Hieronymum, &c. Alius sensus potest esse, quod insinuetur substractio ab obedientia, non sedis Apostolicae, seu authoritatis illi Sedi annexae, quantum est ad actum primum seu signatum, sed solum quantum ad actum exercitum (liceat parum extendere hos terminos Schola∣rum) id est, in quantum exercetur a tali persona, cui pro tempore commissa est Sedes illa. Primus sensus, est quaestio juris, an scil. Sedi illi competat jurisdictio, seu di∣cendi jus in totam Ecclesiam,* 34.19 saltem secundum formam a Canonibus praescriptam. (quod addo propter aliquos recentiores.) Secundus sensus videtur reduci posse ad duas quaestiones, unam etiam juris, alteram mixtam, scilicet tam juris, quam facti. Prima, an hic & nunc liceat Regno alicui se subtrahere ab obedientia alicujus Pon∣tificis ad tempus: de qua re scio quid resolvat Gerson, quaestione, Quomodo & an liceat in causis fidei a summo Pontifice appellare,* 34.20 & ejus judicium declinare. (cui multum innituntur Nostrates) Verba ejus sunt §. Sequeretur sexto. Hoc etiam practicatum est per quoscumque Reges & Principes qui se subtraxerunt ab obedien∣tia illorum, quos isti vel isti judicabant esse Summos Pontifices, quae tamen subtra∣ctiones approbatae sunt per sacrum Constantiense Concil. quaedam expresse,* 34.21 quae∣dam implicite vel aequivalenter. Et sic resolutum dicunt in Conventu quodam E∣piscoponum Turonensi in Gallia, quod etiam vidi in hac forma, Conclusum est per Concilium, Principem posse ab obedientia Papae se subducere ac subtrahere: (ni∣mirum ob causas gravissimas ibi assignatas) non tamen in totum & indistincte, sed pro tuitione tantum ac defensione jurium suorum temporalium.* 34.22 Cyprianus etiam Crousers examinans primum articulum Bullae Coenae, quaerit, Utrum possit esse quis schismaticus, ex eo solum, quod noluit obedire Papae? & resolvens dicit, Re∣spondeo non videri ex hoc tantum posse dici schismaticum, nisi cum inobedientia se segreget a communione cum Papa vel corpore Ecclesiae. Potest enim quis inobe∣diens esse Papae, vel quia probabiliter credit ipsum non esse legitimum Papam, vel quia id quod judicat, aut praecipit, aliquis aversatur, agnoscens tamen eum pro ca∣pite Ecclesiae, cui alioquin subjici non renuit: vel est inobediens, quia ejus perso∣nam sibi suspectam aut infestam credit: vel solum obedire recusat, tanquam Domi∣no in temporalibus; quicunque aliquo ex praefatis modis Papae inobediens est, schis∣maticus non est. De his eorum sententiis judicent doctiores, ego nihil definio, tolerari tamen video.

Hitherto Franciscus a Sancta Clara; though, I confess, more fearfully and wa∣rily,* 34.23 i.e. of set purpose more ambiguously and obscurely in some things, and more nicely in some words, than became his reading or judgment. However, you have in him here enough to the Point controverted, or to that, I mean, alledged be∣fore in my fourth Reason. As for the latter part of his Paraphrase or Gloss in∣serted here, I gave it not purposely for any such end, unto which I know it both improper and forreign; but gave it occasionally, and only to shew the Reader, that neither am I single in some other matters, particularly or signally in that of the Oath of Supremacy, wheresoever in this Work, or elsewhere, I reflect thereon mildly, and interpret or expound it more benignly (though withall more truly and groundedly) than furious Zealots would.

But to strengthen S. Clara's Testimony, and elucidate my own foresaid Answer in my fourth Reason, the learned Reader may be pleased to consult Bruno Chais∣saing, a French Recollect of the same Franciscan Order, Penitentiary to, and under Gregory the XV, and Ʋrban the VIII, in the First or chief Church of Eu∣rope, St. John Laterane at Rome; and consult, and read him in his Work, intituled, Privilegia Regularium, printed at Paris with approbation, Anno M.DC.LIII.

In which Work, besides this Proposition,* 34.24 Possunt Reges & Supremi Senatus licite retinere Bullas Apostolicas, in casu vel magni scandali, aut perturbationis, aut prae∣judicii tertii, aut aliorum similium, which is his Tenth Proposition in order, Tract. 1. cap. 1. You may also find his former Ninth Proposition to be this other, viz. Potest legitime appellari de abusu ad Principem Saecularem, seu Senatum Supremum, quotiescunque potestas Ecclesiastica pronunciat aut agit contra Canones & Privile∣gia: potestque Princeps & Senatus Supremus appellationem suscipere, & appellantes a violenta suorum Praelatorum vexatione eripere. And you may see him there pur∣posely, and at large, by several Arguments, proving this Ninth Proposition. But you shall no where see him mincing, or using any kind of nicety about the word or term Appeal, nor quitting it for that other of Recourse; but a fair and clear As∣sertion in express terms, That it's lawful for all sorts of Ecclesiasticks, even the strictest Regulars, to Appeal to the Secular and Supreme Lay-Power, from the unjust or uncanonical Pressures of their own Ecclesiastical Powers or Prelates; and this also, as often as the said Ecclesiastical Powers or Prelates pronounce, or do any thing contrary to the Canons of the Church, or Priviledges of their Order. And conse∣quently, you shall not in this Author, Bruno Chassaing, meet with Franciscus a Sancta Claras Nudam potestatem civilem, but with Jurisdictionem proprie dictam; in the Majesties or Persons of Kings, and other Lay Supreme States, over all Clergy men whatsoever living under them. Otherwise, how might it (according to the said Bruno's Doctrine in the place above quoted) be lawful for Clergymen to Ap∣peal (I mean, in the proper and strict sense of this word Appeal) from their own Ecclesiastick Superiors to the King, or State? Or, how might it be lawful for the King or State to receive such Appeals? For Appeals, properly or simply such, argue Jurisdiction, no less properly and simply such, in the Judge of such Ap∣peals.

Further, and although it be not so much to my present purpose, yet if to what St. Clare hath of the power of meer Lay Princes or States in general, and in particular of that of our Kings of England, to collate, or to nominate and present for Ecclesiastical Dignities and Benefices, I add also the Doctrine of another very late Roman Catholick Writer, and Doctor of Divinity, Joannes Baptista Verius, in his Book, intituled, Pastorale Missionariorum (Tract. 4. Art. xi.* 34.25) I hold it not amiss. For, in the place thereof now quoted, this Doctor Verius not only teaches with Lessius and Sanchez (Two Jesuits whom he quotes) but, out of the Ex∣travagant Ad evitandum, &c. of Martin the V. in the Council of Constance, expresly proveth, That even all Heretick Lay Patrons whatsoever, not yet by name denounced, enjoy still their former right of Canonical Patronage; and that con∣sequently all such do (notwithstanding their Heresie) both validly, and as to all effects bindingly, nominate or present fit persons to all kind of Ecclesiastical Dig∣nities and Benefices, whereof they, or their legal Predecessors, at any former time were the acknowledged Patrons.

Now from such (whether necessary, or unnecessary) digressions, to return to the series of my proofs for my main purpose here, viz. that of St. Thomas of Can∣terbury's not having at any time (for ought appears) been guilty as much as of any Treasonable Principles or Doctrines, My fifth Reason is,

5. Because that a pure speculative judgment of either the probability or cer∣tainty of such or such a power to be, or to remain as yet, or to be naturally still inherent in the Church, not only to give Royal Authority at first to these or these persons, but also to take it away again (from them, or others deriving from them) in some extraordinary case of grand demerit or grand incapacity, must not infer a practical dictate, or any at all, for the lawfulness of taking it so away. And because both Reason and Experience tell us, That no such pure Speculation, while it re∣mains such, and comes not to be practical, or to have a practical or other dictate flowing from, or annex'd to it; either assuring us of the lawfulness of putting such power in execution, or prompting us accordingly to execute, can at all annoy, hurt, or in any wise lessen, either in fact or intention, the Majesty of Temporal Princes or States: as it is clear enough to any rational man, without further Dis∣course.

But that such a pure speculative judgment of such a power in actu pri∣mo in the Church, doth not infer a practical judgment prompting so, or any other judgment practical or speculative of the lawfulness of such execution in actu se∣cundo of such a power, we have also Theological reason, and Humane Experi∣ence. Theological Reason, which approves that Maxim of both Civilians and Canonists, and of natural Reason too, where the Plea is not clear against the De∣fendant who is in possession, Melior est conditio possidentis: And which tells us al∣so, Quod ubi partium jura sunt obscura favendum sit Reo magis quam Actori: And tells us moreover, That none is, by a probable Title only, to be deprived of that which he holds by as probable a Title. Have not Kings at least as probable a Title for their own civil and temporal Power to be even originally independent from the Church, as the Church or any Churchman, Divine, Civilian or Cano∣nist hath ever yet alledged, That it is dependent from the Church either in the first Institution, or after Conservation of it? Or is it possible, That any knowing man, or at least such a great and excellently, and Divinely knowing Church Pre∣late, and Lawyer, as Thomas of Canterbury was (suppose him never so much pre∣possessed with the opinion or practice of the Roman Court then growing, or alrea∣dy grown over-mightily) should but know and confess this in his own Consci∣ence, and both before God and man confess it, when he reflected on so many Texts of Holy Scripture, especially on that of St. Paul, 13 Rom. and on the Do∣ctrine and Expositions of all the Holy Fathers; and on the practice not only of the Primitive Church, but of all ensuing Churches throughout the World, and of both Laity and Clergy, until Gregory the VII. time, some Ten entire Ages after Christ; and all for the independency of the civil Power of Princes from the Church, as also for the subjection of the Church in civil matters to earthly Prin∣ces? Humane, nay and daily humane Experience also, forasmuch as we see it Taught by so many famous Divines, and read in their Books, That it is not alwayes safe, in point of Conscience, to follow that opinion in practice, which in pure spe∣culation seems probable to us, nay, or even that which so seems the more probable (whereof I could instance a variety of Examples) and see it taught and read in them consequently, That some may have a pure speculative opinion as probable, nay, as the more probable to them for such or such a power to be in the Church in actu primo, and yet not this other annexed, consideratis omnibus, That it is lawful for the Church to proceed at any time to the execution of it. And forasmuch also as all Ghostly Fathers, or the Judicious, and who are of a timorous Conscience, nay, and others too besides Ghostly Fathers, daily find it so in themselves, at least in such cases wherein they know, that if possibly they should err and transgress against the objective Truth of Things and Laws, by following in practice such a spe∣culation, as upon some ground or other seems to them to be probable, or even the more probable, they may run a great hazard to undergo the punishment due in the justice of God for such breach; whereas they are absolutely certain, that whether their such speculation be true or false, yet if they in practice follow the contrary opinion or speculation, there is no Law at all (as much as objectively taken) which may be transgressed by them. As for Example, in case of such a pure speculative opinion of a power in ones self to force away his Horse, or Purse, or House, or Lands, or Lordship, or Principality from another, who both himself, and Predeces∣sors was, and were ever till then bona fide, in peaceable possession, and were so, if it was a Lordship or Lands, &c. for a Thousand years. For in such a case there can be no sin, no breach of any Law, in not Conforming in practice to the speculation; but there may be in Conforming. And consequently, common experience also, in the daily regulation of our own Conscience tells us, there must not of necessity be such a connexion of dictates. Besides, who sees not, that, whether so or no, there was not in England, at least in the dayes of Thomas of Canterbury, any Law ma∣king it Treason to hold, That the Christian Church, in some extraordinary case, might transfer the Right of that Crown from Henry the Second? As, for Exam∣ple, in case he had really Apostatized, and not only from the true Papacy, or from Pope Alexander to the Anti-Pope Victor, but even from Christianity it self (as some

of his Ambassadors to Rome, and the Bishop of London in some of his Letters extant in Hoveden, seemed to Threaten either the one or the other.) Tis true, I am against the Doctrine which attributes any such power to the Church as a Church (or to it at all de jure divino) and much more against the lawfulness of putting such pretence in execution. But hence it doth not follow, That as much as in my judgment the Doctrine of such power, or of such practick lawfulness is Treasonable at least in all Times and all Countries. For the Church may some time, and in some Countrey, have such a power by meer humane Right. And whe∣ther she have or no, where the Law of the Countrey doth not make the practice Treason, or the Doctrine or Dictate Treasonable, neither can be so. Each or both may be unconscientious, erroneous, injurious and wicked, at least according to the objective Truth of Things and Laws of God in themselves; but to be Treason, or Treasonable, is another thing. I said, That in the dayes of Thomas, there was no such Law in England: for I leave it to the Learned and Reverend Judges of Eng∣land to determine, Whether, after the Laws of Praemunire by Edward the Third, and Richard the Second were made, and that Declaration (in this of Richard the Second) made by joint consent of the Bishops too, That the Crown of England is subject to none but God, it be Treasonable Doctrine in England to teach the con∣trary? I am sure the like in France, and of France, though extremely and most justly too censured by all the Universities of France, and the Abettors or Teachers of such degraded lately in Schools, and otherwise punished; yet Cardinal Peron's interposition in the time of Henry the Third of France, by his fine speech in the Assembly of Estates, hinder••d it from being then declared Treason, or Treasonable, or Heresie, or Heretical, and ever since from being accounted, or punished as Trea∣son, or Treasonable, though of late severely, and I think justly proceeded against as at least false, erroneous, scandalous, dangerous, against the Word of God, &c. And yet I am sure also, That whether it be so or no at this time either in France or England, St. Thomas of Canterbury cannot be said to have been, or to be concern'd. You will say again perhaps (objecting your very last and strongest reserve) That whatever may be said to excuse his principles of Judgment or Doctrine from be∣ing Treasonable, for that I mean which appears in any of his Epistles, or in that Speech of his at Chinun, or other extant, nothing can be said to excuse him from actual Treason, which is more and worse. For, you will say, That the Archbishop of York, and Bishop of London, and Salisbury, did so charge him, when after his return he refused to absolve them, but on such a condition as they would not lie under, without the Kings consent; and when therefore they having cross'd the Sea to the old King the Father to Normandy, they sent an Express back to England, and to the young King, to persuade the said young King, That Thomas had sought and endeavoured to depose him, Qui ei persuaderent (sayes Spondanus out of Baroni∣us, and Baronius out of the Saints own 73 Epist. which was his last to Pope Alexan∣der) Thomam quaesivisse cum deponere. But I answer, That such a charge of his such publick and profess'd Enemies, was not, is not to be at all believed without o∣ther proof, than their own such private suggestion of it by their own Messenger to the young timorous King. That no Relation or History makes mention not only not of any proof, but not as much as of any credit given to this ungodly suggesti∣on; or of any kind of proceedings after in pursuance thereof by the same young King against Thomas. That the ground or colour of this suggestion was no other, but that Thomas held those Bishops for excommunicated, who did use Pontificals, contrary to the Popes command, and custom of the Church, and of England also, in the Consecration of the said young King, and use them so in the Diocess of an∣other Bishop without his Licence. That no man is so blind, or was then so blind, as to hold that the young Kings being King, depended of his being Consecrated at all by any Bishops, whether excommunicated, or not excommunicated. And therefore that albeit I grant (as I do verily grant) That St. Thomas had been guilty of Actual Treason, if he had sought in any wise, or at any time, against the Law of the Land, to depose either of both Kings, the young or old, the Father or the Son; yet nothing material is alledged to prove that ever he did so.

Besides, I answer, That on the other side there are so many, and so strong Argu∣ments and Presumptions in Law, and in Reason, to persuade us of the greatest un∣likelihood may be of any such matter to have been, whereas no kind of proof hath been, or hath been offer'd, That I see not how any rational indifferent person may, or might have ever entertained any such thought of St. Thomas of Canterbury. First Argument: His wonderful austere, holy, devout life, with so perfect a con∣tempt of all that was pleasant, gay, or glorious in the world, immediately upon his Election, and ever after to the hour of his death; and this life so devoted wholly to God, attested even by the confession of Parker himself, but seen particularly and exactly in all the contemporary Writers of the Saints own time, as Hoveden, and others, whom I have before quoted. Second Argument: His having lived the most retired contemplative life could be in three several Monasteries in Flanders and France, even all the time of his Exile; first in St. Bertins at St. Omers in Flan∣ders; next, at Pontiniacum in France; and lastly, in the Abby of St. Columb, in another part of France, when and after he was forc'd from Pontiniacum by the Threats of Henry the Second, to the Abbot of this place, to banish out of the Dominions of England, all the Monks of his Order, if he did any longer entertain or relieve Thomas. In which Abby of St. Columb, he for the four whole last years of his Banishment, and until his Return to England, led that life which merited, as he was in prayer, and after he was reconciled to his King, to hear a voyce from Hea∣ven, saying to him, Surge velociter, & abi in sedem tuam, & glorificabis Ecclesiam meam sanguine tuo, & tu gloriaberis in me; Hoveden ad An. 1170. Third Ar∣gument: That notwithstanding Henry the Second had Legates favourable enough to him, and a Pope also, yet neither before them, nor in his Letters or Messages to the Pope himself, he ever did for so many years of the Saints Banishment, or af∣ter his Return, during the Saints life, as much as once insist upon any Treasonable practice of his against himself, or Son, or Crown, or Kingdom; nor even as much as once lightly charge him with any (for ought appears out of History:) and that Histories tell how when the former Legates once lightly objected his raising the King of France, &c. whoever put that into their mouths, The Saint answered so clearly and convincingly, That there was not a word of proof, or even as much as reply against him. Fourth Argument: That not even after the Saints death, not even then when all Christendom, with horrour and amazement, looked upon, and cryed against Henry the Second, as a most impious Murtherer, and execrable Ty∣rant, thinking the Saint was murthered by his command or consent, not even then when he was therefore taken for an excommunicated person, and the worst of those excommunicated, against whom, as Actors any way, or Authors of the Saints death, Pope Alexander so formidably Thundered Curses and Anathems from Rome, and this too, at the passionate instance of both the King and Clergy of France: That, I say, not even then, or at any time after, nor then, when at his own earnest solicitation, special entraordinary Legates came along from Rome, to hear him plead his own excuse, or what he could alledge for himself, to extenuate the horrour of his guilt, he or his Son did, or the Bishops of their way did, or any other for them, or either of them did as much as once pretend any Treason, or any other Misdemeanor at all of the Saint, whereby as much as to extenuate the heinousness and hideousness of the Murther committed on him; but only made it their work to justifie themselves by Oath, That they never consented to, nor as much as suspected his death upon any account whatsoever. Fifth Argument: That Henry the Second himself, so great a King as he was, and so passionately bent against the Saint in his life-time, did (for having been only unknown to himself, or without design, the occasion of the Saints death) undergo such Pennance, and perform'd it so devoutly and unfeignedly, in∣vocating the Saint at his shrine, that 'tis not any way probable the Saint was ever guilty of the least Treason, or that the King ever entertained any such Thought of the Saint. For what rational man (much less so Royal and interested a person) would have in such manner invoked a Traytor? Sixth Argument: That God shew∣ed, by so many prodigious signs and wonders, incontinently and continually after the Saints death wrought above all the power of nature, That he was no Traytor. A∣mongst

which, though I do not rank those extraordinary temporal blessings poured from Heaven upon this penitent King, and on that very day wherein he ended so devoutly his Pilgrimage, and his Fasts and Watch, and other corporal Afflictions, endured first by coming in a penitent Weed, and Bare-foot for Three whole Miles, (that is, from the place where he first saw the Church of Canterbury where the Martyr was Enterr'd) leaving the very print of his steps all bloody behind him, the keen stones cutting his tender feet, so that much blood ran from them all along con∣tinually; and next, in the Church of Canterbury, by receiving there, and on his na∣ked shoulders, so many sharp lashes (of Disciplines, as they call them) from the hands of all the Bishops, Priests and Monks present; yet being those extraordinary temporal blessings were so signal, as the overthrow of the whole Scottish power on that day, and as the taking also of their King prisoner on that very same day too, by his Armies in the North of England, I cannot say, but the Catholick Writers of that Time, had Reason to attribute, even these earthly favours of God, to the Kings so exemplary and satisfactory Humiliation, and to the Saints benign, propitious and powerful intercession with God for him. As there can be no Reason at all to think that true Miracles, true Prodigies and Wonders, above the power of Nature, should be wrought by the invocation of God (and by his condescension) at the Tomb, and in the name of a Traytor. Seventh Argument: The Saints voluntary coming in∣to England (against the advice of his Friends) and in pursuance of the foresaid Visi∣on, his offering himself to the slaughter, and suffering indeed consequently so like an innocent Lamb (so like Christ himself, the great Bishop of our Souls) without any reluctance at all, when he might otherwise choose. For he had warnings enough (for the whole Month before his death after his coming into England) and signs enough, That his Martyrdom was near at hand. And he could not want opportunities enough, and Friends enough, to shift him out of the way, and return to France, or Flanders, if he pleased; and if he had found himself guilty of Trea∣son, sure it would have pleased him to go out of the way. Nor could he want wayes and Friends to save himself even on the very day of his slaughter, after he had the evening before known, by the faces and discourses of the Murtherers, that his death was sworn. But he would not as much as keep himself from them within his own Palace, where yet he might be safe enough: nor when they came to mur∣ther him in the Church at Evening prayer, would he suffer the Sextons to shut the Church-doors against them, when the Sextons would. Non est Ecclesia Dei (sayes he, so unlike a Traytor against, or an Usurper on the temporal power) castrorum more custodienda. Whereof, and of so many other particulars, both of his holy preparation for this glorious death, and that for a whole Month before it, and of his own so many Predictions (during that time) of it, and of all the circumstantials of his death, when, and immediately before it happen'd, after that the bloody Mur∣therers rush'd in to the Church, with their Swords drawn, and the Bishop came out of the Quire to meet them, not answering at all, when they cryed, Ʋbi est Proditor ille? Where is that Traytor? But when they asked, Where is the Archbishop? answering, Ecce, ad sum. Behold, I am here. Knowing very well (sayes Hoveden) that he was unjustly and falsly called by the former name of Traytor: of all such matters, I say, the same excellent contemporary Historian, Roger Hoveden, may be read, partly in the life of the Saint, which he inserts ad an. 1170. and partly, where he treats of his death, ad an. 1171. In both which places, he so de∣scribes his life and death, as no indifferent man reading him, can be persuaded, That a Traytor could live so Holily, and dye so Gloriously; or live so Angelically, and dye so Divinely; that is, so desirously, meekly, contentedly, confidently, and, in a word, Christianly, as beholding Heaven it self opening it self, and all its Glories, to receive his Soul on the instant of her separation from his body. Could a Traytor live or dye so? Eighth, and last Argument, is, That form of Henry the Second's Purgation of himself before the Popes Legates, from the death of St. Thomas; and of his tye of satisfaction, forasmuch as he could not find the Murtherers, as he said, to be seized on; and because he feared, they committed that execrable Fact, by oc∣casion of the sudden passion of anger they saw him fall into against the Archbi∣shop:

And that form also of his Absolution by the said Legates, in a great Coun∣cil of all the Archbishops, Bishops and Abbots of Normandy, at Abrinca, in the year 1172. as Hoveden hath both Forms, and as I give here the former of the two out of him; the Title of the said former in him being this: Purgatio Henrici Re∣gis pro morte Beati Thomae; which after proceeds thus. Henricus Rex Angliae Pa∣ter, & Henricus Rex filius ejus, & Rotrodus Roth••nagensis Archiepiscopus, & omnes Episcopi & Abbates Normaniae convenerunt apud Abrincam Civitatem, in praesentia Theodini & Alberti Cardinalium. In quorum audientia Rex Angliae Pater, quinto Calendarum Octobris, feria quarta, festo Sanctorum Cosmae & Damiani Martyrum, in Ecclesia Sancti Andreae Apostoli purgavit innocentiam suam, coram pradictis Car∣dinalibus & onni Clero & Populo, praestito Sacramento, super Sanctorum reliquias, & super Sacro-sancta Evangelia, quod ipse nec praecepit nec voluit quod Archiepiscopus Cantuariensis occideretur: & quando audivit vehementer doluit. Sed quia Male∣factores illos, qui sanctae memoriae Thomam Cantuariensem Archiepiscopum occiderunt, habere non poterat, & quia timebat ipsos illud profanum opus perpetrasse causa animi motus & turbationis quam in eo viderant, de satisfactione tale praestitit Sacramen∣tum. Juravit itaque imprimis, quod ab Alexandro summo Pontifice, & Catholicis Successoribus ejus, non recederet, quamdiu ipsum sicut Regem Catholicum habuerint. Juravit etiam, quod neque appellationes impediret, neque impedire permitteret, quin libere fierent in regno suo ad Romanum Pontificem, in Ecclesiasticis causis; ita tamen, ut si ei suspecti fuerint aliqui, securitatem faciant, quod malum suum vel Regni sui non quaerant. Juravit etiam, quod ab instante Nativitatis Domini, usque in Trien∣nium Crucem accipiet, & in proxima sequenti aestate in propria persona Hierosolymam iturus, nisi remanserit per Alexandrum summum Pontificem, vel per Catholicos Suc∣cessores ejus. Sed si interim pro urgente necessitate in Hispaniam super Saracenos profectus fuisset, quantum temporis in illo itinere consummaret, tantundem Hierosolimi∣tanae spatium profectionis posset prolongare. Praeterea juravit, quod interim tantum pecuniae dabit Templariis, quantum ad arbitrium fratrum Templi possit sufficere ad retinendum ducentos milites, ad defensionem terrae Hierosolimitanae per spacium unius anni. Praeterea perdonavit iram & malevolentiam suam omnibus tam Clericis quam Laicis, qui pro sancto Thoma erant in exilio. Et concessit eis libere & in pace ad propria redire. Juravit etiam, quod possessiones Cantuariensis Ecclesiae, si qua ab∣latae sunt, in integrum restituet, sicut habuit uno anno antequam ab Anglia egrede∣retur beatus Thomas Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus. Juravit etiam, quod Consuetudi∣nes, quae inductae sunt contra Ecclesias terrae suae in tempore suo penitus dimittet. Et haec omnia juravit se fore observaturam bona fide & sine malo ingenio. Fecit etiam Henricum filium suum haec omnia Capitula jurare tenenda: praeter illa quae propriam ejus personam contingebant. Et ut haec in memoria Romanae Ecclesiae ha∣berentur, Rex pater fecit apponi Sigillum suum scripto illi, in quo supradicta Ca∣pitula continebantur, una cum Sigillis praedictorum Cardinalium. And the second form, or that of the Kings Absolution by the Cardinals, having this Title, Charta Absolutionis Domini Regis: and beginning thus. Henrico Dei gratia illustri Regi Anglorum, Albertus tituli sancti Laurentii in Lucinia, & Theodinus tituli sancti Vitalis Presbyteri Cardinales, Apostolicae Sedis Legati, salutem in eo qui dat sa∣lutem Regibus. Ne in dubium veniant quae geruntur, &c. And so proceeds to signifie his said Purgation, and their own Absolution given to him upon the fame conditions. Now I demand, Whether there be any kind of likelihood, that so knowing, and so great a King as Henry the Second was then (for he had Con∣quered Ireland that very year, and thence it was that he Sail'd immediately to Normandy, of purpose to purge himself, and be absolved so, as soon as he heard those Legates were come thither from Rome: And he had the whole Sea-side of France, and far in to the Land, all along to Navarre in Spain, under his dominion, and in actual possession, and had Scotland also Tributary, though it was Two years after before he took the King of Scots) should have made so wonderful a submis∣sion, and in such words, and received Absolution on such terms, if he could have alledg'd any thing or matter of Treason against Thomas of Canterbury? And that he also perform••d all, and more than all this, for appeasing God's wrath against

himself, for having only given without further design the unfortunate occasion of the Saint's death, we have seen already, and in part before, in his extraordinary Pil∣grimage to, and Humiliation at the Saint's Monument. And we may in part also gather hence, That by actual instance he quitted the requiring of that Oath of the Clergy for the observation of the sixteen customs. For so doth Matthew Parker himself confess in express terms, and in his life of Richard a Monk of St. Bene∣dicts Order, Prior of the Monastery of Dover, who was the next succeeded Thomas Becket in the Archbishoprick, and Primacy of Canterbury, and in a Legatine power Apostolick also, being fix'd upon by this very King Henry the Second, to succeed so, and confirm'd and consecrated so by the same often mentioned Pope Alexander the Third, at Anagnia in Italy. Et paulo post (sayes Parker) Archiepiscopus Pri∣mas, & Romanae Sedis Legatus cum Pallio in Angliam rediit. Hic electus Regi fi∣delitatem juravit, salvo ordine suo, nulla prorsus facta mentione de prioribus regni consuetudinibus observandis.

Behold eight several Arguments, which, if at least taken all together, and espe∣cially if they be also taken together with all I have said before in this second Ap∣pendix, to answer such Objections as my self framed against my self, I must confess I cannot for my own part but judge them to be so many, and so strong Arguments and Presumptions in Law and Reason, to persuade us of the greatest unlikelihood may be of any such matter as Treason, possible to have been truly charged at any time on St. Thomas of Canterbury, that I see not how any rational indifferent per∣son may, or might have ever entertained any such thought of him.

And so I conclude this second Appendix against the unweigh'd Relation, and very inconsiderate Censure of Parker, and much more yet against the barbarous and impious judgment of those Judges, who under Henry the VIII. above Three hundred years after the death of the Martyr, condemn'd him for a Traytor: re∣peating here again what I said before against the grand Atheistical Counsellor of the said King Henry the VIII. in this matter, who ever he was, That it was nei∣ther Treason, nor even any other less or real and certain misdemeanor he saw or he read in the life or death of Thomas of Canterbury, put him on so execrable an En∣terprize; Sed avaritia illa quae ca••tivavit discipulum comitem Christi, captivavit & militem custodem Sepulchri; as St. Austin said of Judas who betrayed Christ, and of the Souldiery that kept the Sepulchre of Christ.

And so also I conclude whatever I intended to say principally or incidentally, (against the tacite Objection of the Divines of Louain) of this glorious Martyrs Contests with Henry the Second, and of his opinion or judgment in such Contests, in relation to the Doctrine of Ecclesiastical Exemption from the supreme, civil, co∣ercive power of temporal Princes, or to my own Doctrine (which I am sure is the Catholick Doctrine) and whatever else I intended to say principally or occasio∣nally of the sanctity of his life, and glory of his martyrdom, and of the consistency of both with some humane invincible errors of his side (speaking according to the objective verity or being of things in themselves; as we see that other great and undoubted Saints, and even the very Princes of the Apostles, have fallen into such humane errors, without prejudice to the sanctity of their lives, or glory of their martyrdoms; that Peter erred so out of zeal, to gain both Jewes and Gentiles, in Judaizing among the Jews, &c. and who reprehended him in that, did no less himself err so, in another occasion, in making himself a Nazar••te, and in circum∣cising Timothy so much against his own Doctrine there, Si circumcidamini Christus vobis nihil proderit, and elsewhere) And finally, whatever I intended to say directly and of purpose, to shew that indeed St. Thomas of Canterbury did not, in any part of all his Contests with Henry the Second, as much as err so; that is, not err at all as much as inculpably or invincibly, or at all against the very objective Truth of Things or Laws in themselves.

And yet I must tell my Reader, that if Augustinus the first Archbishop of Canterbury, had contested so, or Reginaldus Polus the last Catholick in that See, or many others af∣ter Austin for some Ages, and before Cardinal Pool in other Ages, intervening 'twixt his and that wherein Thomas Becket was Archbishop of that same See, I could not justi∣fie

any of them for contesting so, but plainly condemn them. Because in their Times, the municipal Laws of the Land were quite contrary in many points, as they are at this day, and have been so (as to the punishment of criminal Clergymen in cases of Treason, Murther, Felony, &c.) a long time, and perhaps several Ages in England, as well in those immediately after Henry the Second's dayes (and not∣withstanding the conditions of his Purgation, Absolution, and Satisfaction) and then almost uninterruptedly, till the change, and after the change by Henry the VIII. until this present; as in those before the dayes of that Christian King of the Saxons, who ever he was, that first gave Clergymen those priviledges of Exem∣ption in Criminal Causes from Lay Judicatories, which I quoted before, and proved to have not been repealed at any time after, until Henry the Second's Reign. And because they were the municipal Laws of the Land which only could warrant the grand Contest of St. Thomas of Canterbury, at least in relation to the exemption of Criminal Clerks, &c. and such other heads wherein he had not the Laws of God or nature positively and clearly for himself in the point. And so finally, I put a final period to this very long Section, and to all those Objections which I cal∣led remaining, for the reason given in the beginning of this same LXXVI Section.

LXXVII.

OUT of which whole last Section, as likewise out of the other three or four immediately going before it, and which proceed in a positive or affirmative way, to prove by invincible Arguments, the subjection of all Clergymen whatso∣ever de jure divino (abstracting from humane civil Laws) to the Supreme Civil Magistrate in all meer Temporal Causes, even those which are Criminal: and out also of those other eight or nine Sections (immediately going before these five last) which proceed in a negative way of denying rationally, and solving most clearly all whatever hath been objected to the contrary, or hath been said for the exemption of Clergymen as much as in Criminal causes (either de jure divino, or de jure humano Ecclesiastico, or even by any other Law of man, or that which is called Civil) from the Supreme, Civil, Coercive power of Temporal, even meer Lay Princes, within their own respective Dominions: out of all these and those Sections I say, (in all, Thirteen or Fourteen, or thereabouts) which Treat of this Subject of Ecclesiastical either exemption or subjection, and Treat of it by occasion, and directly too against the fourth ground of the Louain Divines, for censuring our often mention'd Remonstrance: now in this present Section (and according to my promise in my LXXI Section, and to my purpose also all along in so long and continual a Discourse of Ecclesiastical exemption from my LX Se∣ction, to this present LXXVI.) I am to infer my final Conclusion, I mean, the Procurator's second answer to this same fourth ground of the Louain Divines.

For that very second answer which you read before in my LXII, and in the very beginning too of that same LXXII Section, is the final conclusion of all, as being it, for the inferring of which, and the well and sure grounding of which to the satisfaction of all judicious persons, I have taken so much pains in so long a Discourse, even this very answer which I now repeat here, viz. That granting our said Remonstrance had either in its perclose (the Petitionary address) or in some other part, even formally, and by express words declared against all pretences what∣soever of any such thing as Ecclesiastical Immunity or Exemption of the persons of Clergymen from the Supreme, Civil or Temporal Coercive power of the Prince or Ma∣gistrate (provided still it did not declare, as verily it does not, against that which is indeed the real, true, and well-grounded exemption of Clergymen from inferiour civil Judicatories, according to the respective civil Laws or Customs of several King∣doms, and as far as the respective Laws or Customs do allow such exemption from such inferior Judicatories:) yet neither the Divines of Louain, nor any other could just∣ly censure it therefore; even this, I say, is that final Conclusion I would and do,

(and I think) most clearly and necessarily too, infer out of my whole Discourse of Ecclesiastical Exemption, in so many long Sections, from the very beginning of it, Sect. lxiii.

And so, at last, I have ended all my Answers, not only to the fourth ground of the Louain Divines, but even to all their four, and consequently also, to all their at least chief grounds universally; if the Agent Father John Brady, who procu∣red as well their long Censure (which they still conceal from us) as brought with him their short one, hath told the Truth in this matter. For being we could not hitherto, by any art or means, get a sight of their said first and long Censure, wherein they give their grounds: it is upon his credit and relation of so many particular grounds, as being their onely, at least chief grounds; and his relation also, that he remembred no more such, nor other at all which they had: and upon the credit likewise and relation of the very Reverend and Learned Father Brian Barry, who saw, and read, and considered attentively the whole tenour of that very first Original and long Censure, as who had been then himself at Louain when it was done, and been there then chief Superiour of the Irish Franciscan Colledges both of Louain and Prague: It is I say, upon the Credit or Account of these Two Gentlemen (both of them Religious persons of St. Francis's Order) and Credit also of the relation they themselves gave my self in this matter, that I have disputed hitherto against the said four, as against the onely (at least chief) grounds of the said Louain Ʋniversity. And yet I must confess, That whether I had known, or not known certainly, that the Divines of Louain did specifie these for their own grounds, I had nevertheless, when occasion was offered to treat of their Cen∣sure, both alledged these very grounds for it, and cleared these self-same grounds, as I have done: because I knew, and know the Divines of Louain could pretend no other, especially being they declined the alledging or pretending for it any di∣vine immediate right (or rather, ungrounded pretence of such right, as Bellar∣mine is for) in the Pope to dispose either directly, or indirectly, of the Tempo∣ral power of all (at least Christian) Princes: and being they declined this of pur∣pose, for that reason, I gave in the very perclose of my liii. Section, viz. least if they had given it as the ground, or as any part of the grounds of their Censure, against our Remonstrance, and against that indispensable Obedience we acknow∣ledge therein due to our King, They should bring on themselves a more dangerous Censure of their own King, and raise the power and just indignation of all Kings, States, and People, even of their own communion, to punish their temerity. For who sees not, that on the same ground, they would or might challenge a power to the Pope, to depose when it listed him, all, even the most Christian and Catholick Kings in the world, as well as any Hereticks or Heathens? Or, who understands not, how easily this may be demonstrated in their principles, who challenge such a jus divinum to the Popes?

And yet also, I must give my Reader this Advertisement here, That in my Dis∣putes against those very grounds, whereon (as is said) the Divines of Louain in∣sisted, without pretending any such jus divinum over the Temporals of Kings (and insisted, partly at least, for that reason I now gave. But whether they had any other reason more divine or conscientious, I know not; I hope they had, though having such, they would very inconsequently proceed to their Censure.) That, I say, in my Disputes hitherto against those very four grounds (I mean, where I particular∣ly, though briefly, Sect. liv. dispute against the second, viz. That of the Popes binding and loosing power divine, as made a ground of their Censure: and where in the last place, I dispute from Sect. lxi. to this present lxxvi. so clearly and prolixly against their fourth) I have subverted, by a most evident consequence, all the very Fundamentals, and not only the Superstructures of such a jus divinum in the Pope, and not in the Pope only, but in the universal Church as a Church, (which is yet far more, than to subvert it in the Pope) to depose Kings from their meer Temporal power. And, that whatever may be thought of my Disputes, Sect. liv. against their said second pretence of the binding and loosing power, &c. That is, whether or no I have long, and largely enough treated that matter in that

place, to clear all kind of Objections might be made in order to such a jus divi∣num in Pope or Church (though I acknowledge none could be made with any reason:) yet I am sure, if there was any such defect there, I have elsewhere abun∣dantly, in effect, compensated it in my prolix Disputes (for sixteen Sections, viz. from lxi. to lxxvi.) against their fourth ground. Where, by so many unanswerable Arguments, especially in Sect. lxxii. and lxxiii, I demonstrate the subjection de jure divino, of all Clergymen whatsoever, or whosoever, and of the very Apo∣stles themselves, and, by consequence, of both Pope and universal Church, as a pure Church, to the Supreme Temporal power in Temporal matters. For, if de jure divino, they were all both Pope and Church, as such subjected entirely (as at least to passive obedience) in all Temporal matters, to the Temporal powers re∣spectively, in the several Kingdoms, or States Politick, whether Christian, or not Christian, Catholick, or not Catholick, must it not follow evidently, That there is no power de jure divino, in either Pope, or Church, as purely such, to depose Tem∣poral Princes from their Temporal power? Surely the inferiour, wherein he is in∣feriour, hath not power over his Superiour. And if the very first glimmers of na∣tural Reason doth not evidence this, I know not what natural Reason is. And if also the Arguments I have given (Treating against the said fourth ground) at large for the Affirmative, that is, for the subjection of Pope and Church, as such, in meer Temporals, to the Supreme Temporal power of earthly and Lay Princes (when and where the Princes are Lay-men) or if the Solutions I have likewise given so at large to the Arguments for the contrary, where I proceeded in a negative way, de∣nying the positions of Bellarmine; if, I say, both my said Arguments and Answers be not clear and strong enough in the principles of both Reason and Christianity, to maintain and prove all along, That my very main purpose of a jus divinum to be for the subjection of both Pope and Church, as such, in meer Temporal matters to the Supreme Temporal Princes or States, in the respective Kingdoms or Common∣wealths of the world, I confess my own ignorance of what is Reason or Christi∣anity in any such, or other matter soever.

Having so put a final period to all my Answers to the said four grounds of the Louain Censure of our Remonstrance, what more (according to my further pro∣mise or purpose in my lxxi. Section) must be the Subject of this present Section, is first (what ought to be consequent) some brief reflections on the Censure it self: and next, the Conclusion which naturally must follow such reflections.

Concerning the former, and seeing the Censure is in these words (as you al∣so may see by reading it over again, Sect. xlvii. or in page 102. of this same first Treatise, and first part) Quamvis Serenissimo, &c. quia tamen supradicta formula complectitur amplioris obedientiae promissionem, quam possint Principes Seculares a Subditis suis Catholicis exigere, ant Subditi ipsis praestare; & nonnulla insuper con∣tinet sincerae professioni Catholicae religionis repugnantia; idcirco pro illicita prorsus ac detestabili habenda est. Quapropter quicumque praefatam professionis formulam nondum signarunt, cohibere se a signatura obligantur sub sacrilegii reatu; quicum∣que autem signarunt, refigere signaturas obstringuntur sub consimili reatu; incauta namque definitio salubriter dissolvenda est: nec ea dissolutio reputanda est praevari∣catio, sed temeritatis emendatio. Ita post maturam deliberationem, &c. In English thus:

Albeit to the most Serene King of Britain and Ireland, &c. Yet foras∣much as the foresaid Form, involves a promise of a more ample Obedience, than Secular Princes can exact from their Catholick Subjects, or their Subjects make unto them; and that moreover it contains some things repugnant to the sincere profes∣sion of Catholick Religion, therefore it must be held for wholly unlawful and de∣testable. Which is the Reason, That who ever have not yet subscribed the fore∣said Form, are, under guilt of Sacriledge, obliged to hold themselves from sub∣scribing; and that such as have already signed, are bound, under the same guilt, to Revoke their signatures: for an unwary definition must be wholsomely dissol∣ved: nor must such a dissolution be accounted any prevarication, but an amend∣ment of Rashness. Thus have we, after mature and frequent deliberation, deter∣mined and decided at Louain, &c.

Seeing, I say, the Censure is in this tenour

now repeated, and that although if we separate the precise or strict essentials on∣ly of this Censure from both the antecedent Suppositions, and consequent Inferen∣ces, altogether express'd, as you see, in those few lines, we shall find the said precise and strict essentials of it to consist in these words only, It must be held for wholly unlawful and detestable: Yet forasmuch as the Faculty Theological of Louain, who delivered their judgment so in this their short and second form of Censure, would have us regard the whole tenour of their Paper, or as well the premises which they suppose and express, and the consequences which they infer, as the said bare essen∣tials of their absolute position:

Therefore you are to consider first, That if we take altogether what they judge of it either formally or virtually, and consequentially, they judge our Remon∣strance to be unlawful, detestable, sacrilegious: and further yet, to be either He∣retical, or Schismatical, or both. And that they judge it to be such, for two Rea∣sons (which albeit they express, yet they do not as much as attempt to prove, but only suppose here:) The one is, because it contains a promise of a more ample Obedience, than Secular Princes can require from their Catholick Subjects, or their Subjects make unto them. And the other is, because moreover it contains some things repugnant to the sincere profession of the Catholick Religion. And truly that they judge it formally to be unlawful, detestable, and sacrilegious, we see their own formal expressions for so much; being that, besides their formal adjectives unlawful, and detestable, as to the adjective or epithet sacrilegious, we find it in their own formal substantive word Sacriledge, where they judge, that such as have already sign'd, are bound under the guilt of Sacriledge, to refix their signatures: which can be no less even formally, than to say, That the Remonstrance in it self is sacri∣legious. But that virtually, and consequentially, they judge it also to be either He∣retical, or Schismatical; no other proof is requisite besides that where they say, That moreover it contains some things repugnant to the sincere profession of the Catholick Religion. For whoever sayes so of any form, must virtually and conse∣quentially say, the same form is either Heretical, or Schismatical, or both: because all judicious learned persons know very well, That no things are repugnant to the sincere profession of Catholick Religion, but such things as imply Heresie or Schism, or both.

Secondly, You are to consider, That in their first and long original unpublish'd Censure, the Louain Divines gave these four chief grounds, which I have hitherto impugned in well nigh a Hundred sheets, and gave them, I say, for their own grounds of alledging those two pretended Causes or Reasons, and of their conse∣quent Censure (so as above) of our Remonstrance, as unlawful, detestable, sa∣crilegious, &c.

And consequently, you are to consider, That being those four chief grounds of theirs are so clearly and utterly, and universally ruined by me hitherto, their said two pretended Causes or Reasons which had no subsistence but in those grounds, must also be no less universally, clearly, and utterly ruined; and (by further consequence) so likewise no less universally, clearly, and utterly, must their said Censure be, being this depends wholly on those two Reasons or Causes, and these on the four grounds.

Thirdly, You are to consider yet more particularly the grand Temerity against Prudence, Falsity against Truth, Injury against Justice, and Scandal against Chari∣ty of this Censure, by reflecting first, on those Reasons or Causes given in and for it; and secondly, on the sense of each of those words, adjectives, or epithets of it, and by comparing both these epithets and those causes to the several parts, clauses or propositions of the Remonstrance it self, analyzed into propositions, or even to the whole Remonstrance, as comprising all together without any such Analysts; un∣derstanding now by the Remonstrance, that part of it which only is in dispute, the Act of Recognition, with the Declarations, Renunciations, &c. therein contained, and the Petitionary address thereunto annexed.

To which purpose, I desire the judicious learned Reader to look back to the 7, 8, and 9th page of this First Part, and read there once more attentively, that our

Remonstrance from first to last, and then analyse or resolve it, I mean, resolve those Recognitions, Declarations, Renunciations, Promises, &c. and Petitionary addresses, all therein contained, and analyse or resolve all into so many particular distinct pro∣positions as they are fit, or may be resolved into: and after this, to apply those two Reasons or Causes, and each and all those adjectives or epithets of the above Louain Censure to each proposition severally, nay, and to all at last jointly taken.

And to the same purpose I desire him to consider, that in no part of the Remon∣strance, nor in the whole taken together, any obedience is promised or acknowledg∣ed, or confessed to be due to our Sovereign Charles the Second, or any other Tem∣poral Prince, but that which is in Civil and Temporal Affairs only, and none at all in spiritual things, nor in any kind of spiritual thing. For so is the obedience it promises, acknowledges or confesseth as due to our gracious King in His own Do∣minions by all his own Subjects, whether Protestants or Catholicks, and as due to all other absolute Princes and Supreme Governors, within their own respective Do∣minions also, and by their own respective Subjects; so, I say, is that obedience most signally expressed and determined in formal words, and in two several passages of this Remonstrance, to all Civil and Temporal Affairs; adding further yet, and in signal formal words too, that it be in such meer Civil and Temporal Affairs, not universally or absolutely in all cases, according to the arbitrary will or pleasure of the Prince Charles the Second; but as the Laws and Rules of Government (in such things) in this Kingdom do require at our hands; and to other such Supreme independent Princes or Magistrates, according to the Laws of each Commonwealth respectively. Whence any judicious Reader may conclude (at least if he have read what I have hitherto so diffusely writ of the subjection of all, even Clergy∣men, to the Supreme Temporal Magistrate in Temporal things) That the Divines of Louain did most rashly, falsly, injuriously and scandalously suppose their first Cause or Reason of their Censure, viz. That our Remonstrance contains a promise of a more ample Obedience, than Secular Princes can exact from their Catholick Subjects, or their Subjects make unto them. For I have demonstrated at large be∣fore, that by the Law of God and Nature, and by the Laws of man, as well these are Ecclesiastical as Civil, all men are bound to pay such obedience to their respective Kings, or Supreme Magistrates. And if they are so bound to pay it, sure the Prince may (especially when he sees Reason for it) require a promise, or an ac∣knowledgment, or confession, or declaration of it from them, and they make such promise, acknowledgment, &c. And I am sure too, that our Prince had much Reason then, when that Remonstrance was made, and hath yet still, to expect such, even a most formal promise and declaration from the Romish Clergy of Ireland, and they no less to make it to Him.

To the same purpose yet of seeing further into the Temerity, Falsity, Injury, and Scandal of the said Louain Censure, the Reader may be pleased to reflect again once more, and no less particularly on their abovesaid second Supposition, Cause or Reason of it, as you have seen that Louain Faculty (in this their short Censure, (which we now handle) express that second Cause, viz. That moreover it contains some things repugnant to the sincere profession of Catholick Religion, and I desire the good Reader to apply this, and compare it either to all the propositions joint∣ly taken, or to every one severally of our Remonstrance, and then judge whether I have not just Reason to complain of them, and tax them, as I do, that this which they suppose in the second place, is most rashly, falsly, injuriously, and scandalously supposed or alledged by them, as a Cause or Reason of their Censure. For what can be more rash, false, injurious, and scandalous, than to condemn or censure a pure and meer Acknowledgment, Confession, Declaration or promise of Loyalty, or of Allegiance, Fidelity, and Obedience to our Rightful and Supreme Lord and Sove∣reign, and a promise of such in meer Temporal things, made to Him by His own natural Catholick Subjects, and made in a publick Remonstrance, wherein those of England, as well (nay antecedently to) as those of Ireland joyn'd, than, I say, to con∣demn or censure such a publick Instrument of such a great Body, containing of the

Catholicks of those two Nations, containing only such matter, and to alledge as the cause, or as a cause of such condemnation and censure, and alledge it also in plain terms, That it (the said Instrument) contain'd some things repugnant to the sin∣cere profession of Catholick Religion: What can, I say, be more rash, false, injurious, and scandalous, than to say so of such a matter, if it be not so at all, if there be no kind of true ground for saying that it is so?

And that it is not so at all, or that the Remonstrance contains not, either formal∣ly, or virtually, and consequentially as much as any one thing, or part of a thing, (if such part may be) repugnant to the sincere profession of Catholick Religion, appears hence evidently, That neither in its Acknowledgments, Confessions, Pro∣mises, Disclaimings, Renouncings, Declarations, Professions, Protestations, Abhor∣rencies, Detestations, nor in its final resignation in the Petitionary Address, nor in any other clause or word (if there be any other, as indeed there is not, but what belongs to these heads now repeated) there is not as much as a syllable, which by any kind of true, either Grammatical or Theological, or as much as seeming or likely construction, imports any more in effect, than first a bare Acknowledgment of the Supreme Temporal power of these Dominions of England, Ireland, Scot∣land, &c. and of all persons whatsoever, Laymen, or Clergymen, living within them, to be in our gracious Sovereign Charles the Second, to have been in His law∣ful Predecessors, and hereafter to be a so in His lawful Successors; as likewise a bare acknowledgment of the like Supreme power, under God, to be in other Prin∣ces, and Supreme Magistrates, within their own respective Dominions. And next, an express or tacite promise, to observe and obey, and continue Loyal or Faithful in all Civil and Temporal matters, to that self-same Supreme Temporal power of our gracious King, yea, notwithstanding any Doctrine to the contrary, or even any Attempt by any other power whatsoever, Temporal or Spiritual, to force them, or draw them from their Allegiance or Obedience to King Charles, in meer Civil and Temporal Affairs. For I have already, and abundantly too, demonstrated where I before Treated against the four grounds of the Louain Divines, and more especi∣ally where I Treated against their fourth, That it is so far from being against the sincere profession of Catholick Religion to assert or promise any such thing, that it is on the contrary even revealed and declared positively, and expresly, and clearly, by God himself, in several places of Holy Scripture, and yet more particularly in St. Paul's Epistle, and by the mouth and pen of this great Apostle, That all Su∣preme Temporal power, is in the Supreme Temporal Princes and States, over all their own respective Subjects, as well Ecclesiasticks as Laicks. And consequently, that in all Temporal matters, Allegiance and Faith, and Obedience, is due to such their power, and ought to be paid and performed to them, not only for fear of their Anger and Sword, but for Conscience, and fear of Damnation, as St. Paul most expresly declares in formal words, 13 ad Rom. And moreover, that all this Doctrine hath been so (as here) delivered by universal Tradition, for almost eleven entire Ages of Christian Religion all along, till Gregory the Seventh usurped unto himself the Temporal power of the Empire, as belonging to him by Divine Right.

All which being so, as certainly it is so, I frame thus my Argument Syllogistical∣ly against both the said Causes or Reasons supposed, and expresly inserted in this second or short Censure of the Louain Faculty Theological, as the only Reasons given therein wherefore they censure our Remonstrance, and censure it so heavily and grievously, or with such odious epithets as these, unlawful, detestable, sacrilegi∣ous, &c.

Whatsoever Ʋniversity, or other Censure, taxes, judges, or condemns any Remon∣strance, that contains only in effect, or both in word and sense a bare Acknow∣ledgment of such meer Supreme Temporal, Natural, Civil and Political power of the Sword, as is hitherto said, in the Supreme Lay Magistrate, Prince, or State, and withall a promise only of such obedience, as before is said, in meer Civil and Tem∣poral Affairs, to that Power, or that Magistrate, according to the Laws of the Land; I say, that whatever Censure taxes, judges or condemns such a Remon∣strance

to be utterly unlawful, detestable, and sacrilegious, viz. upon account, sup∣position, or pretence, That it contains a promise of a more ample Obedience, than Secular Princes can exact from their Catholick Subjects, or their Subjects make to them; and that moreover it contains some things repugnant to the sincere profession of Catholick Religion: Every such University, or other Censure whatsoever, I say, must be rash against Prudence, false against Truth, injurious against Justice, and scandalous in the highest degree against Charity.

But the second or short Censure given by the Louain Divines against the Irish Remonstrance of 61. & 62. is such, or is a University Censure of a Remonstrance that contains only in effect, or both in word and sense, a bare Acknowledgment of such meer Supreme Temporal, Natural, Civil and Political power, &c. and with∣all a promise only of such obedience, &c. and yet taxes, judges, and condemns such a Remonstrance to be unlawful, &c. viz. upon account, supposition, &c.

Ergo the second or short Censure given by the Louain Divines against the Irish Remonstrance of 1661. and 1662. must be rash against Prudence, false against Truth, injurious against Justice, and scandalous, in the highest degree, against Charity.

And indeed the Major of this Syllogism ought (at least among such Christian Divines as are men of Reason) to be reputed of the nature of those Propositions which are called Propositiones per se notae, if, or as far as any such may be in Chri∣stian Philosophy, or Divine Science of Christians. For this tells us manifestly and evidently (according to that evidence which Christian Religion is capable of) That all such Censures as are against other, at least Christian men, and so great also and numerous a Body of other Christian men, and are against them upon such an account only, that is, for maintaining such a power in the Supreme Civil Magistrate, and such obedience due from the Subjects, as are both revealed in the very written Word of God himself in holy Scripture, and so constantly and universally delive∣red by Tradition, and no less approved and confirmed even by pure natural Rea∣son; and so, I mean, revealed, delivered, approved, and confirmed, as I have already in my Disputes against the fourth ground of the Louain Divines proved that power and that obedience to have been; I say, that Christian Philosophy tells us manifestly and evidently, that all such Censures must be so as I have said (and even notoriously too) rash, false, injurious, and scandalous. Rash, against Prudence; because heady, foolishly bold, and wholly inconsiderate against the Rules of that even humane Providence, or of that right Reason which should govern or direct their particular Actions, as well in order to themselves, as to others, and should fore∣see what might be objected. False, against Truth; because so manifestly against both the Divine revealed Truths of Christian Religion, and against those evidences also of natural Reason, given by me before against the fourth ground of the same Louain Divines. Injurious against Justice; because against the most considerable right can be of all Princes, States, and People, and even of the Clergy too, if con∣sidered aright. And, in the highest degree, may be Scandalous, against Charity; because in the highest degree may be harming the name and same of their Christian Catholick Neighbours, and of so vast a multitude of them: and because also, not only of endangering in the highest degree (inasmuch as in them lay) even the very Temporal safety of so great a number of all the poor Catholicks in the British Monarchy, and the peace of the King of Englands Dominions, but further yet, of raising against, and casting, and continuing on the Roman Religion it self in gene∣ral, or wheresoever professed, the greatest hatred and blackness, and hideousness, and horrour may be; and because too consequently of continuing still the chief cause of the grand Schism in Europe, by keeping still that Block of stumbling, and Rock of Scandal, in the way of all Sects whatsoever, which, above any other, hin∣ders them from thinking of a Return to their Mother Church, whereby to save their Souls in the Unity and Truth of the Catholick Church. Than which, I am sure nothing can be either more highly, or more properly and strictly scanda∣lous.

As for the Minor of the Syllogism (being the last part of it which sayes, that the second or short Censure of Louain, judges our Remonstrance to be unlawful, detestable, sacrilegious, &c. is so manifest, that it cannot be disputed, since you read it so in that very Censure it self) the former part only (which sayes also, and where it sayes, That our Remonstrance contains only in effect, word and sense, an Acknowledgment only of a meer Supreme Temporal power in the Supreme Poli∣tick Magistrate, and a promise of Obedience and Fidelity in meer Temporal things to the same Power and Magistrate) remains to be made here no less manifest; and to be made so manifest, by analysing, resolving and taking in pieces the whole frame of the Act of Recognition, and all the Appendages of it (whereof the dis∣pute is or may be, whether it contains any things besides such Temporal power in the Magistrate, and such Obedience and Faith (in Temporal things) in the Sub∣jects:) or by considering every clause of it, one after another, apart, and the relati∣ons of one to another, and to the whole, and of the whole to each. For there can be no other way to demonstrate this former part of the Minor. And this is an easie way ad oculum, and will save the Reader some labour of turning to the 7, 8, and 9 pages, where the whole Remonstrance is, wherein that Act of Recognition, and those other Appendages of it, are inserted. Yet before I come to an issue on this point, the Reader is to be Advertised

First, That in that publick Instrument which hath these six or seven years past, occasioned so many Differences or Disputes, or rather renewed them, having for Title, The humble Remonstrance, Acknowledgment, Protestation, and Petition of the Roman Catholick Clergy of Ireland, it which in this distinction of words, and proper strict sense of them as distinct, is and ought to be understood by the word Remonstrance, as in this Title so distinguish'd, is not that which is at all contro∣verted. For that which is so understood, is only the Representation of their then present sad and deplorable condition, or of such grievances, persecution, suspition, calumnies, and odium, under which for their Religion they lay then amongst their Protestant Fellow Subjects in Ireland.

Secondly, That that which is and ought to be understood by the word Acknow∣ledgment, properly and strickly taken, as in this Title, signifying somewhat distinct from the meaning of the former word Remonstrance, is no other than that which in the same Title, is imported also by the word Protestation: with this only dif∣ference, That the whole Act of Recognition, with all its Clauses and Appendages, may be, and is properly and truly an acknowledgment and confession, both of the Supreme civil or Temporal power, and of that obedience, as above. And that the very same whole Act of Recognition or Acknowledgment is in the Title called a Protestation; partly because the Remonstrants or Subscribers, do about the end of the same Act of Recognition, formally, or in formal express words, Protest against all Doctrine and Authority to the contrary of that which they acknowledge, con∣fess, &c. in that very Act of Recognition; and partly too, because that having done (in the former part of that publick Instrument) with the Representation of their Grievances in general, then and immediately before they begin their said Re∣cognition, they speak thus, We know what odium all the Catholick Clergy lies un∣der, by reason of the Calumnies with which our Tenents in Religion, and our de∣pendance upon the Popes Authority are aspersed, and we humbly beg Your Majesties pardon to vindicate both, by the ensuing Protestation, which we make in the sight of Heaven, and in the presence of Your Majesty, sincerely and truly, without equivoca∣tion, or mental reservation; and partly also, because by the word Protestation, any publick Testimony (whether it be by an Oath or not) may be truly and proper∣ly understood. And therefore I confess ingenuously, that within the whole Act of Recognition, separately taken from the rest of that Instrument, there is no Protesta∣tion at all; understanding by the word Protestation, that kind of Testimony which is by oath. For indeed there is no oath at all, either formal or virtual, in the whole Act so taken separately, or in any Clause or Appendage of it so taken. And yet I confess too, that is, or may well be understood to be either a formal, or at least a virtual oath, which is in the passage immediately antecedent, or going before that

Act. But this oath imports no more, then that the Remonstrants or Sub∣scribers do so antecedently swear or protest in the sight of Heaven, that they do sincerely and truly, without equivocation, or mental reservation acknow∣ledge, confess, disclaim, renounce, declare, promise, profess, protest, hold, abhor, and detest whatever they acknowledge, confess, &c. in their following Declara∣tion, or said Act of Recognition. And therefore by no me•••• imports; that they swear their Acknowledgment, Confession, Renunciation, &c. are made conforma∣bly to the objective truth of Things or Laws in themselves. For Example; They swear not, nor protest at all, in the sight of Heaven, That our Sovereign King Charles the Second is Lawful and Rightful King, Supreme Lord, &c. or (I mean) that He is so according to the verity of Things and Laws in themselves; but only that they do acknowledge and confess Him to be so. So that their said oath (formal or virtual) if an oath at all, immediately going before, or premised to the Act of Recognition, doth not fall upon the verity of Things as in themselves objectively, or upon the conformity of their words, or of their sentiments to the things, Objects, or Laws, as in their true Nature; but only on the conformity of their outward or verbal Acknowledgments, Confessions, Renunciations, Promises, Resolutions, &c. to their own inward thoughts and hearts. Which I thought fit to Note here, for their sake, who pretend for a Reason of not subscribing, that it is not just they should swear that which is controverted, or may be controverted: or that they should swear that which they cannot otherwise know but by probable Arguments: or swear that either formally or virtually, which is in debate twixt great Divines: As for Example, That the Pope cannot de jure dethrone, or de∣pose our King; for this Position must be virtually supposed by the Subscribers of our Remonstrance. For their sake (I say) it is, I give this Advertisement here, That there is no kind of oath, formal or virtual, in that Act of Recognition, or in any Clause or Appendage of it: and that the antecedent Proposition, in the sight of Heaven (or oath (if it be an oath) immediately going before it) falls only on the conformity of their words to their mind, that is, signifies only, That however the Things, Objects, Laws, &c. be in their own nature, yet the Subscribers do sincerely and truly, without equivocation, or mental reservation, acknowledge and confess, renounce, disclaim, protest, detest, abhor, &c. so and so. And yet I con∣fess, they cannot honestly or conscientiously do so, or profess, or subscribe so, un∣less at the same time they persuade themselves of the absolute certainty, or at least of the undoubted probability of all such Positions as are either formally contained in, or virtually supposed by the said Act of Recognition, or in or by all or any of the Clauses and Appendages of the same Act: and unless they resolve also at the same time never to change their opinion in that, or concomitant Resolution to be ever accordingly faithful to the King. For otherwise, by doing so, or professing, or subscribing so, the Subscribers must be guilty before God of most grievous sins against both God and the King: that is, first of Perjury, by calling Heaven to witness their sincere profession of that which either they do not believe, or per∣suade themselves at all that they ought by any means to profess; or if they per∣suade themselves that they ought (or might without sin profess) they do not resolve in their heart to perform what in word they promise (at least virtually) for the future: and in the second place, of Hypocrisie, or of the most horrid, odious, scandalous and dangerous dissimulation and deception may be of the very King Himself, and in a matter of highest concernment to His Majesty, and all His People. And I say yet, that without such persuasion and resolution, the Subscri∣bers must be guilty of such enormous sins, let the Protestation it self, and in it self objectively taken, be admitted by all sides to be in all respects the most Christian, Catholick, and Conscientious hath ever yet been framed. Because that, according to the Rule of the great Apostle Paul (to the Romans, chap. 14. vers. 22.) Om∣ne autem, quod non est ex fide, peccatum est, whatever is done, or professed, or pro∣mised contrary to the dictate of ones own inward conscience must be to him a sin, be it otherwise in it self, and according to the very Law of God himself the most holy action, profession or promise can be. Whereof to give here a further Rea∣son,

is as needless, as it is obvious to all knowing men, That our inward practical dictate is and must be to us the measure, and very next Rule of our Actions, Di∣ctamen practicum regula proxima humanorum actuum. And that although our con∣forming our selves to it, be not sufficient alwayes, or at all times, to render our Actions just, as when it is not just in it self, according to the objective Truth of Things or Laws in themselves; yet our varying from it in our Actions, is abundant∣ly sufficient to render our Actions unjust, evil, and vicious; quia bonum ex inte∣gra causa, malum ex quocunque defectu.

Thirdly, And consequently the Reader is to be Advertised, That to save him the trouble of turning back to the beginning of this Book, I give here word by word all that Act of Recognition (otherwise called the Protestation of our Remon∣strance) and the Petition following it immediately; concerning both which Re∣cognition and Petition, or some passages of both or either, all the Controversie and Censure of Louain is. For without any interjection presently after the last pas∣sage (given before in my second Advertisement) of the Remonstrance of what (or of that odium) the Irish Clergy lay under, that Instrument thereof proceeds thus, and begins, continues, and ends the Act of Recognition thus.

WE do acknowledge and confess Your Majesty to be our true and lawful King, Supreme Lord, and Rightful Sovereign of this Realm of Ireland, and of all other Your Majesties Dominions. And therefore we acknowledge and confess our selves to be obliged, under pain of Sin, to obey Your Majesty in all Civil and Temporal Affairs, as much as any other of Your Majesties Subjects, and as the Laws and Rules of Government in this Kingdom do require at our hands. And that notwithstanding any power or pretension of the Pope, or See of Rome, or any Sentence or Declaration of what kind or quality soever, given, or to be given, by the Pope, his Predecessors, or Successors, or by any Authority Spiritual or Temporal proceeding or derived from him, or his See, against Your Majesty or Royal Authority, we will still acknowledge and perform, to the uttermost of our Abilities, our faithful Loyalty, and true Allegiance to Your Majesty. And we openly disclaim, and renounce all Forreign Power, be it either Papal or Princely, Spiritual or Temporal, inasmuch as it may seem able, or shall pretend to free, dis∣charge or absolve us from this Obligation, or shall any way give us leave, or li∣cence, to raise Tumults, bear Arms, or offer any violence to Your Majesties Person, Royal Authority or to the State or Government. Being all of us ready, not only to discover, and make known to Your Majesty, and to Your Ministers, all the Trea∣sons made against Your Majesty or Them, which shall come to our hearing; but also to lose our Lives in the defence of Your Majesties Person and Royal Autho∣rity; and to resist, with our best endeavours, all Conspiracies and Attempts against Your Majesty be they framed, or sent under what pretence or patronized by what Forreign Power or Authority soever. And further, we profess that all absolute Princes, and Supreme Governors, of what Religion soever they be, are Gods Lieute∣nants on earth, and that Obedience is due to them, according to the Laws of each Commonwealth respectively in all Civil and Temporal Affairs. And therefore we do her•• protest against all Doctrine and Authority to the contrary. And we do hold it ••••••ious, and against the Word of God, to maintain, That any private Subject may ••ill or murther the Anointed of God, his Prince, though of a different Belief and ••••ligion from his. And we abhor and detest the practice thereof, as damna∣ble and wicked.

After which Act of Recognition, and Appendages of it, you have immediately (in the same Instrument) this Petitionary Address.

These being the Tenents of our Religion in point of Loyalty and Submission to Your Majesties Commands, and our dependance of the See of Rome no way intrench∣ing upon that perfect Obedience which by our Birth, by all Laws divine and humane, we are bound to pay to Your Majesty our natural and lawful Sovereign, we humbly beg, prostrate at Your Majesties feet, that you would be pleased to protect us from the severe persecution we suffer meerly for our profession in Religion: leaving

those that are, or hereafter shall be guilty of other Crimes (and there have been such in all Times, as well by their Pens, as by their Actions) to the punishment pre∣scribed by the Law.

Having so given all, I would have the Reader to take notice of here previously, or before I come to an issue on the Point for proving my above Minor (that is, for proving, that in our Remonstrance there is nothing at all contained but a bare ac∣knowledgment, confession, &c. of the Supreme Temporal power to be in the re∣spective Lay Supreme or absolute Princes within their own Dominions, and of obedience to be due to them in all Temporal affairs by all their own respective Sub∣jects) albeit, I confess, that for my present purpose of proving my said Minor, I have not so dilated, as I did in my second Advertisement, but for that other end I there expressed; for whether in the said Act of Recognition there be an Oath virtually or formally contain'd, or not, it matters not to my purpose of shewing or proving that no more, nor ought else, is therein contain'd or acknowledg'd, but the meer Temporal Supreme power of the Prince in Temporal Affairs, and obedi∣ence of the Subjects in the same Temporal Affairs:)

Now therefore to demonstrate clearly, that nothing else but such power, and such obedience, is therein acknowledged, confessed, &c. nor by consequence any other disclaimed, renounced, abhorred, detested, or protested against, but what doth not subsist with that power in the Prince, and that obedience in the Subjects; who sees not first, that there are no more but Nine periods (or clauses with perfect pe∣riods) in the said Act of Recognition, from the first word of it to the last imme∣diately before the Petitionary Address? And that in none at all of all these Nine, ei∣ther separately or jointly taken, there is other power than such meer Temporal or Civil acknowledg'd in the King, or in any other Temporal Prince? or other Obe∣dience, Loyalty, or Fidelity, but such as is in Temporal things only acknowledg'd to be due from Subjects to their Prince? And secondly, or consequently too, who sees not, there is not in any of the said clauses, either separately, or jointly taken, any other power disclaimed in, or renounced, or abhorred, or detested, or protested, or declared against, as being, or as pretended to be in any other, Pope, or Prince, or Church, or People, but that only which is inconsistent with His Majesties Supreme Temporal power only? And that there is not any other obedience likewise de∣clared against, but that obedience only which is inconsistent with the obedience of Subjects in Temporal things to their own respective Supreme Temporal Princes? For taking these Nine periods, or clauses, or parts of the said Act of Recognition, and considering them first each apart separately, what I say will be evident to any man that hath sense and reason.

The first period is in these words: We do acknowledge and confess Your Majesty to be our true and lawful King, Supreme Lord, and rightful Sovereign of this Realm of Ireland, and of all other Your Majesties Dominions. Sure here is no word or words importing, signifying, or attributing to King Charles any power but that which His true and lawful Kingship, Supreme Lordship, and Rightful Sovereignty requires to be in him. And therefore not any power but that which is meerly Tem∣poral; for his said Kingship, Lordship, and Sovereignty, require no other. 'Tis true, the Protestants, or those of the Protestant Church of England, who are not in communion with Rome, or the Roman Bishop, and who take that Oath they call the Oath of Supremacy, do understand the Kings Royal power to extend it self to as well Spiritual, as Temporal things and persons: and consequently by the words, Supreme Lord, if in an Oath framed by themselves, and for themselves, or to be by themselves taken or subscribed, might understand that themselves, I say, by such words and Oath would attribute to the King such a Supreme Lordship, and conse∣quently such a Supreme power as extended to as well Spiritual things and persons, as to meer Temporal things. Yet it is also true, 1. That this hath nothing to do with the signification of the words Supreme Lord, as used by Catholicks in a Re∣monstrance drawn by Catholicks, and only for Catholicks to sign. 2. That these words Supreme Lord, especially as used to a secular Prince, signifie not, either by

their proper native signification, as imposed originally, or used by knowing men, nor by or in even the vulgar acception of them, any other Supreme Lordship but that of a meer temporal, worldly, politick, or Civil Supreme power of the Sword; and not at all any spiritual, of the Word or Sacraments of the Christian Religion. 3. That the Sons of the Protestant Church of England, however by their Oath of Supremacy they attribute to, or acknowledge in the King a Supremacy (that is, a Supreme power) over all, or in all, as well spiritual things, and spiritual per∣sons, as in or over all temporal things and persons; yet by that Supremacy, or Su∣preme power, they understand no spiritual power at all either of the Word, Sa∣craments, or Faith, or of any other matter whatsoever; but a meer Temporal, Civil, or Politick power of the material Sword. And therefore it is plain, That neither in the Catholick or Protestant meaning of the words of this first Period, any other power is or may be understood, but a meer Temporal power Supreme acknowledged in the King. And therefore also it's no less plain, that by the said words, or sense of them, it cannot be said, the Remonstrance, or Subscribers of it, do either formally, or virtually, or any way at all consequentially, ascribe to the King any kind of spiritual Supremacy, or Supremacy of spiritual power; but of meer Temporal and Politick power: or do at all as much as by any kind of ratio∣nal consequence, deny the pure spiritual Supremacy of the Pope, whatever this be which the Catholick Church allows him. For a pure Supreme Temporal in one, and a pure Supreme Spiritual in another, and over the same persons and causes, are very truly, certainly, and evidently consistent.

The second Period or Clause being this, And therefore we acknowledge and con∣fess our selves to be obliged, under pain of Sin, to obey Your Majesty in all Civil and Temporal Affairs, as much as any other of Your Majesties Subjects, and as the Laws and Rules of Government in this Kingdom do require at our hands; and consequently being only and wholly of the obedience due by Catholick Subjects to H••s Majesty; and being it doth in formal express words determine this obedi∣ence to all Civil and Temporal Affairs, as you see it doth; there can be therefore no dispute of this Period.

The third Period also, containing only, in effect, an acknowledgment of their resolution to acknowledge evermore, and perform their Loyalty and true Allegi∣ance to the King, notwithstanding any contradiction by or from the Pope, or by or from any other deriving power from the Pope, or See of Rome; for the words are these: And that notwithstanding any power or pretension of the Pope, or See of Rome, or any sentence or declaration, of what kind or quality soever, given, or to be given, by the Pope, his Predecessors, or Successors, or by any Authority Spiritual or Temporal, proceeding, or derived from him, or his See, against Your Majesty or Royal Authority, we will still acknowledge and perform, to the uttermost of our Abilities, our faithful Loyalty, and true Allegiance to Your Majesty: I say, that being the third Period hath no other words or matter, it's very evident that the whole entire Sub∣ject of it, is nought else but obedience in Temporals: because the Loyalty and true Allegiance of Catholicks to their (at least Protestant) Prince, can be no other but obedience and fidelity towards Him in all Temporal matters: and because that by these words, Our Loyalty and true Allegiance to Your Majesty, neither His Ma∣jesty Himself, nor other Protestant, nor any indifferent and judicious Catholick, ever yet understood, nor indeed ought to understand any other Loyalty or Alle∣giance but that which is in meer Temporals. Nor can it be said upon any ratio∣nal ground, that because the Remonstrants do here acknowledge, That notwith∣standing any power or pretension of the Pope, &c. or any sentence, &c. or by any Authority Spiritual or Temporal, &c. it must follow, That they either deny the true spiritual Authority of the Pope over any Christians, or any part of the world, or even his Temporal within his own temporal Territories, or within those Terri∣tories, I mean, which are His uncontroverredly even also as to the temporal Go∣vernment; or that they are resolved, or that they promise or declare, that they will disobey or oppose any just sentence or declaration of his obliging themselves, or any other. Nothing less then either doth follow by any kind of consequence:

whereas indeed no more, but that they are persuaded, that the Pope hath neither any true Spiritual, nor any true Temporal power from God or man, to devest the King of his Temporals, or to hinder them from being His loyal liege men in such Temporals: and that if he pronounced any sentence, or gave any command to the contrary, though it were even by Excommunication, such sentence, and such command, and even such Excommunication would be as to all effects and purposes null and void, because against the Laws of God, and man, and nature, and not pro∣ceeding from any true power he had from God, or from the Church of God, but only from a vain and false presumption of power or authority in the case, and a clave errante from a Key errant; or (which is the same in effect) at most and at best, from such an abuse of his authority as invalidates and annulls his sentence in all respects whatsoever. They do not therefore at all hereby, or in this Clause (as neither in any other) not even as much as virtually or consequentially, in any manner soever, deny or oppose his true and pure spiritual power of judging or binding, or that which truly and really is in him to judge and bind spiritually, or in a spiritual manner, both King and Subjects, or to pronounce even Excommuni∣cation against either themselves, or the King, if or when there shall happen any just cause thereof. But they only deny, 1. That he hath no kind of Temporal power (acquired either by divine or humane Right) that reaches to the King, or his Crown, People or Dominions. 2. That the spiritual power which he truly and really hath either from God immediately, or from the Church, and which the same Catholick Church acknowledges to be so in him, or which the Subscribers admit to be in him, can have no such effect by Excommunication, or other sentence, or means, as is the bereaving the King of his Temporals, or as is the hindering the Subjects to obey, or making it lawful for them, in point of Conscience and Religion, not to perform to the uttermost of their Abilities, their faithful Loyalty and true Allegiance to His Majesty.

And that this third Period or Clause, or words, or meaning of them, import no more but this: or that such Clause, or Subscribers of it, cannot be rationally said to deny or declare against any true power of the Pope, or any true, or just, or legal, or even as much as only valid sentence of his, I shew evidently thus by two several examples of the like expression used in another matter. For without de∣nying or opposing the Popes true power, or any true, just, or valid, or binding sen∣tence of his, his Sons may declare, that notwithstanding any power or pretension of the Pope, or See of Rome, or any sentence or declaration of what kind or quality soever, given, or to be given by the Pope, his Predecessors, or Successors, or by any Authority Spiritual or Temporal, proceeding or derived from him or his See against their natural Father, or his Fatherly Authority, they will still acknowledge and perform to the uttermost of their Abilities their natural duty, and filial obedience to their said Father. And without denying or opposing the Kings true power, or any true, just, or even any valid or binding sentence of his, the very Subscribers themselves may declare (as I for my part do here declare, and I am sure all the rest are ready to declare) that notwithstanding any power or pretension of the King, or of His Crown or Kingdom, or any sentence or declaration, of what kind or quality soever given, or to be given by His Majesty, His Predecessors, or Successors, or by any Authority Spiritual or Temporal, proceeding, or derived from Him or His Kingdoms, against their spiritual Father the Pope, or his true Papal Authority, they will still acknowledge and perform to the uttermost of their Abi∣lities, their Canonical fidelity, and all that true obedience they are bound unto by the Canons, or Laws of the Catholick Church, viz. fidelity and obedience in spi∣ritual things, and pure spiritual commands which are just, or which are given ac∣cording to the Canons, clave non errante. Now being that both these Declarati∣ons are lawful, just and honest in point of Conscience, because they are both war∣ranted by the Laws of God and Reason; and the latter without any diminution of the true Royal power, or any opposition to His Majesties just Laws or Commands; and the former also, without prejudice to the true Papal power, or just Papal com∣mands: and whereas the very self-same form of expression is observed in them,

which you have seen in the above third Clause of our Remonstrance: it is plain by all consequence of Reason, that for such expression, that Clause, or the Remon∣strance for it, may not justly be censured to signifie at all, or even as much as by any kind of probable consequence (how far fetch'd soever) to signifie any thing against the Popes true power, or against his just sentence, declaration or determina∣tion whatsoever; being indeed it declares for no other power in the King, or faith or obedience in the Subjects to the King, but for such as are at the same time con∣sistent (without any contradiction, contrariety, or opposition) with acknow∣ledging the true Papal power, and obeying all just Papal commands; or being it declares only for a Supreme temporal power in the King, and for the obedience of His Subjects to Him in Temporal things; neither of which (nor both together) oppose a pure and true Supreme spiritual power in the Pope above the same Sub∣jects and King too, nor their obedience to the just commands of the Pope in meer spiritual matters.

Fourth Period, or Clause, is in these words: And we openly disclaim, and re∣nounce all Forreign power, be it either Papal or Princely, Spiritual or Temporal, in∣asmuch as it may seem able, or shall pretend to free, discharge or absolve us from this Obligation, or shall any way give us leave, or licence, to raise Tumults, bear Arms, or offer any violence to Your Majesties Person, Royal Authority, or to the State or Government. In which Clause, or words of it, albeit the Clause, and the words of our Remonstrance, which above any other in it, our Adversaries pretend to be the stumbling Block and Rock of Scandal to the more ignorant Readers; yet even not only our said very Adversaries do confess, but are forced by manifest Rea∣son and Construction of those very words to confess, that herein is neither Block nor Rock, but to such as wilfully frame one to themselves: nor as much as a virtual declaration for any other power in our King, or obedience due by His Subjects, but for the Supreme politick, Civil or Temporal in Him in His own Kingdoms. For no Forreign power, Papal or Princely, Spiritual or Temporal, or other specificatively taken (as Logicians speak) but only reduplicatively taken, is at all openly, or not openly disclaimed or renounced in this Clause, or words, or sense thereof: that is, none at all simply or absolutely taken, or taken without any modifica∣tion or restriction, is disclaimed or renounced; but diminutively, conditio∣nally, and modificatively taken, or taken with that extreme modification and re∣striction imported by the words, Inasmuch as it may seem able, or shall pretend to free, discharge, or absolve us from this Obligation. For who sees not, that these ad∣ditional words are meerly and purely reduplicative, that is, diminutive, modifica∣tive, restraining, and limiting the sense of the former words, Papal, Princely, Spiri∣tual, Temporal, and confining it to that only of such Forreign power pretending, or of such only as pretending to dispense with Subjects in their natural or bounden Duty of Allegiance and Subjection to their Prince? And who sees not, but that the two examples given a little before by me in my explanation of the former third Clause, may as well be made use of here, nay, and many other such, to justifie this expression too of this fourth Clause? As for instance, or example here; If any should say, and subscribe this Proposition, We disclaim and renounce all, either Forreign, or even not Forreign power, Papal or Princely, Spiritual or Temporal, in∣asmuch as it may seem able, or shall pretend to free, discharge, or absolve us from the Obligation we have on us by the Law of God and Nature, to honour our na∣tural Parents, to sanctifie the Lords day, as we are bound by his Law; to worship God alone with divine worship; not to take his Name in vain; not to Kill, Steal, commit Adultery, nor hear false Witness, nor covet our Neighbours Goods, &c. not to do, I mean, any such thing, in any case wherein we are prohibited by the Law of God: I say, That if any should say so, and subscribe this grand complex Propo∣sition, or any one single therein contained: I am sure there is none of our Oppo∣sers, but must notwithstanding confess, That such Subscribers could not therefore be said to disclaim or renounce at all simply or absolutely, or any way indeed, the true either Papal or Royal power. And why so? marrie because (they would say, and truly say) the words, Inasmuch as it may seem able, or shall pretend, both

diminish, restrain, limit and determine the signification of the former words Papal, and Royal Power, to another thing quite different from that which is truly such; and determine it to that which is only such in a false imagination; as the word pictus added to homo in this Oration, or Complex homo pictus, alters the signification of homo, or signifies not a true man, but a painted man only. Besides, who sees not that the words, shall free, discharge, or absolve us from this Obligation, or even these last two words, this Obligation, as in this fourth Clause, import no other kind of Obligation but that of Allegiance and Loyalty, as formerly mention••d in Temporal or Civil Affairs? for the word this must be Relative, and the relation of it, as in this clause and whole form, can be to no other obedience but what is in meer Tem∣poral and Civil Affairs; being no other obedience is expresly or tacitly mention'd before (as neither any where after?) And who sees not moreover, That the fol∣lowing last words, or part of this same fourth Period, to wit these, or shall any way give us leave or licence to raise Tumults, bear Arms, or offer any violence to Your Majesties Person, Royal Authority, or to the State or Government, confirm all what I have said hitherto on this self-same whole fourth Period? That is to say, That they shew manifestly, we disclaim not simply, nor absolutely renounce thereby any other proper, but only secundum quid, or inasmuch as they are falsly pretended powers for such a wicked sinful end. And yet shew manifestly, we do not own or acknowledge other power in the King or State, or other obedience due from our selves to either, but that power in Temporals, which is in all Kings and States over their own respective people, and that obedience also in Temporals, which is in all other Subjects to their own respective Princes and States, or an obedience which tyes them, not to raise Tumults, bear Arms, &c. against the Princes Person, Roy∣al Authority, &c? Lastly, Who sees not, there was very much, both expediency and necessity in these Kingdoms of England, Ireland and Scotland, but more espe∣cially in Ireland, for Catholick Priests, amongst such a world of Sectaries, and under a Protestant King and State, to make such a Remonstrance, or one in such even formal words of disclaiming and renouncing in so much any Forreign pow∣er? being the generality of Romish Priests in these Kingdoms, or at least in Ire∣land, have been these many Years, and are as yet upon so many sufficient grounds suspected to own such a Forreign power both Papal and Princely, Spiritual and Temporal, as (in their opinion at least) may seem, nay, is able, and may even justly pretend to free, discharge and absolve them from all obligation of Loyalty, even in the most Civil and Temporal Affairs whatsoever: and give them leave and licence to raise Tumults, bear Arms, and offer violence to His Majesties Person, Roy∣al Authority, and to the State and Government of both Ireland, Scotland and England. So that from first to last, you see by this Discourse, even the very grand Block of stumbling, and chief Rock of scandal quite removed: or rather see, there hath never been any such at all in the Remonstrance; being this fourth Clause or Period of it is free of any such, and hath neither Block nor Rock in it self at all; the Block and Rock being onely in false, and even wilfully and maliciously false Re∣presentations of it by perverse Interpreters.

Fifth Period or Clause follows: Being all of us ready, not only to discover, and make known to Your Majesty, and to Your Ministers, all the Treasons made against Your Majesty or them, which shall come to our hearing; but also to lose our Lives in the defence of Your Majesties Person, and Royal Authority, and to resist with our best endeavours all Conspiracies and Attempts against Your Majesty, be they fra∣med or sent under what pretence, or patronized by what Forreign Power or Autho∣rity whatsoever. But certainly here is nothing else Remonstrated, but their being ready to perform their Duty in meer Civil or Temporal Affairs, or (which is the same thing I mean) to perform a meer Civil and Temporal Duty, and to perform it in a meer Civil way, as all Subjects ought to their meer Civil or Temporal Prince: To reveal Treason, and defend the Kings Person, Royal Authority and State, even with the hazard of their Lives. Are not both meer Civil and Tempo∣ral Duties? As for that which some either too grosly stupid, or too ridiculously malicious, object 1. That Confessors, who subscribe this Period or Clause of the

Remonstrance, declare, they are ready, and oblige themselves thereby, to reveal in some case Sacramental Confessions, and break the Sacred Seal of such Confessions made to them, forasmuch as they say here, They are ready to reveal all Treasons which shall come to their hearing: And, 2. That all sorts of Catholicks, both Laymen and Clergymen, subscribing this Clause, bind themselves thereby to reveal that also which they cannot in Conscience reveal, forasmuch as this Clause binds them to reveal all Treasons; and we know 'tis Treason by the Law (at least in Eng∣land 'tis so) to Reconcile any man to the Pope or to be Reconciled so; to be made a Priest beyond the Seas by the Popes Authority, and afterwards to return to the Kingdom of England: as it is also Treason to deny, that the King's Majesty of Eng∣land, is Supreme Governor in His Kingdom, even in Ecclesiastical Causes; and yet 'tis plain, they cannot, nor ought not, by any Law of Conscience, as it stands not with the Laws of their Communion or Religion, to reveal such matters: To the first, or that of Confessors, I have already of purpose, and at large answered in my LV Section, where I Treated this Subject, against the Third ground of the Louain Censure. And to the Second, or that of all Catholicks generally, I say in brief here, That Widdrington hath in his Theological Disputation, Cap. 4. Sect. 3. upon the Oath of Allegiance, most learnedly, clearly, and even diffusely answered this very Objection made in his time by some, especially by Antonius Capellus, Con∣trovers. 1. Cap. 2. pag. 30, & seq. against which, or in answer to which, the learn∣ed Widdrington (or whoever was Author of those Works which go under his name) in effect sayes, That neither King James himself, nor His Oath of Alle∣giance, nor the Statute thereupon, by the Clause of that Oath which tyes to the dis∣covery of Treason, did intend to bind, or does indeed any way bind to the discove∣ry of other Treason, or Trayterous Conspiracy, than that which is truly such, by the Laws of God, Nature, and Nations; even that which is truly such in all Catho∣lick Nations against Catholick Princes; but by no means to the discovery of such matters as are only of late, by the peculiar Law of England, called or made Trea∣sons, Treasonable or Trayterous Conspiracies, and are not otherwise in their own nature, against the natural Allegiance, Truth, Fidelity and Obedience of Subjects to their Prince. And I say besides, that neither any indifferent Catholick, or even Protestant, ever yet understood by the word Treason (in such a Clause whereby Catholicks in an Oath or Declaration especially made by themselves, oblige them∣selves to discover all Treasons) any other kind of Treason but that which is such of it's own nature, or by all the Laws of God, Nature and Nations, or that which is such in all Catholick States and Kingdoms; not that which is such by the positive Law of only this or that Kingdom, or is only such by Laws made against even the very profession of the Roman Catholick Religion; for such might be made Treasonable by an unjust Law of men, were it left to the greater vote, at least in some Contingencies, and in some Countries. And I say in the last place, That words bind not against, or besides the intention of such as speak or subscribe them, not are by any Rule of Reason or Law to be construed so to bind, whensoever the obvious and common sense of such words in all Nations, or in the generality of Na∣tions and Religions, require no other intention, but may subsist very well without any other intention, and the Speakers and Subscribers of such words be thought to deal honestly and conscientiously, and to be without fraud, equivocation, or mental reservation in such their speaking and subscribing. Out of all which, jointly taken with what I have said before on the other Clauses, it is apparent enough, That not∣withstanding such capricious and foolish Objections, the fifth Period contains no other than a promise or purpose of the Subscribers of being faithful in performing their natural Duty in Temporal matters, without any kind of obligation to reveal any thing, or to stand by the Prince in any matter which is or may be against any spiritual Duty incumbent on them, or against their Religion or Communion, or against either Justice or Charity. For certainly to reveal such Treason as is such by all the Laws of God and Man, of Nature and Nations, is a Temporal Duty: and to defend the King's Person, Royal Authority, and State and Government, under which we live, and which are acknowledged by our selves to be Legal, or not

Usurped, is no less a Temporal Duty; or both (I mean) are Duties we owe to God, and to the King, and to the Laws, and such Duties as are discharged in meer Temporal things, and in a meer Temporal way too.

Sixth Period: And further, we profess, That all Absolute Princes, and Supreme Governors, of what Religion soever they be, are God's Lieutenants on Earth, and that Obedience is due to them, according to the Laws of each Commonwealth re∣spectively, in all Civil and Temporal Affairs. That no other power is acknow∣ledged here to be even in such Absolute Princes, and Supreme Governors, nor other obedience due to them by Subjects, but in Civil and Temporal things, there needs no further proof than what you see in the very express Letter of this self-same Pe∣riod in the latter part, or that of Obedience, which also, and by all consequence, determines the former part of Power, and consequently and most expresly deter∣mines both to Civil and Temporal Affairs. As for the Title of Gods Lieutenants on Earth, What Catholick can except against it, on other ground, but that of Ig∣norance, or Malice, or both? Our great Nicholaus de Lyra, of the Franciscan Order, that most Famous, and most Learned, and also most Catholick Interpreter of the whole Scripture, hath above 300 Years since in Sapient. 6. called Emperors and Kings, Vicarios Dei in••••terra. And Thomas of Aquin (or whosoever under his name set out the work) de Regim. Princip. l. 2. calls them so; nay, de∣livers this Maxim or Position of Kings and Princes, Regem & Principem toto conatu (sayes he) & sollicitudine divino cultus incumbere teneri, non solum quia homo, sed etiam quia Dominus & Rex est, & Dei vices gerit, a quo maxime pendet. St. Ambrose also, well nigh a Thousand Years before Lyranus and Aquinas, writ thus in Epist. ad Roman. c. 13. Sciant non se esse liberos; sed sub potestate de∣gere quae ex Deo est. Principi enim suo, qui vicem Dei agit, sicut Deo subjiciun∣tur. Nay, and a Roman Pontiff, Anastasius the Second, but a few Ages after Am∣brose's, Ep. vii. writ thus to Anastasius then Emperor of Rome, Pectus Clementiae vestrae Sacrarium est publicae faelicitatis; ut per instantiam vestram, quam velut Vicarian Deus praesidere jussit in terris, &c.

Seventh Period being purely Relative either only to the foresaid six, or certainly to that and all the other foregoing Periods, taking all together (for it is in these words, And therefore we do here protest against all Doctrine and Authority to the contrary:) it is plain this Protestation must be Catholick, and just, if the De∣claration ma••e in that sixth Period, and in the other several foregoing, be such. But I have now sufficiently demonstrated, that all, and each of these Declarations are such. And, 'tis like, no man will be so mad, as to gather out of this Protestation in this seventh Period, That the Subscribers protest simply, absolutely, abstractedly, or specificatively against the Authority of any whosoever, that declares, or holds the contrary, but only secundum quid, or reduplicatively, as holding the contra∣ry; not at all as holding declaring, or commanding other just matters. For the words to the contrary, and what else goes before, and follows after, sufficently de∣clare that Protestation to have only such reduplicative sense. So that no other matter can be said to be in this Period, or this Period to relate to other than to the Supreme Civil power of Princes in pure Temporal affairs, and obedience of Sub∣jects to them in the same Temporal affairs: though I otherwise do my self, and all the Subscribers also do confess passive obedience due to Princes from their Sub∣jects, even in all kinds too of pure spiritual affairs. But what this passive is, as also what active is, I have before explicated, and the judicious Reader cannot but easily understand what both are, without any explication of mine.

Eighth Period: And we do hold it impious, and against the Word of God, to maintain, That any private Subject may kill or murther the Anointed of God, his Prince, though of a different belief and judgment from his. Sure there is no pro∣fessed Christian, but Mariana, Sanctarellus, or some other few impious Scholars of theirs, and those of Calvin's Crue who before lead the way, or after followed them, will quarrel with the Subscribers on this Period, especially when the several determinations of the general Council of Constance, relating to this matter, are duly considered. Nor even those (in this more Pagan Philosophers of some Grae∣cian

Republick, than Christian Divines of an establish'd Monarchy, can justly say (whatever they otherwise say) the Subscribers attribute other, or even re∣late to, or suppose here (in this Period) any other power in the Prince, than a pure Supreme Temporal, or any other obedience in the Subject, but in meer Civil or Temporal affairs. For the corporal life or death of the Prince, as of every other man, is such. Nor certainly, upon any ground whatsoever, can say at all the Subscribers attribute here any kind of spiritual power, nay, nor even a Tem∣poral power in spiritual causes to Princes, or consequently exact here from Sub∣jects an active obedience in spiritual causes. For if any did subscribe this other Proposition relating not to Princes, but private Subjects, We hold it impious, and against the Word of God, to maintain, That any private Subject may kill or mur∣ther another private Subject, though of a different Religion from his: whatever Construction or Exposition this Proposition would, or must be subject unto; yet no man certainly could averr on any rational ground, That the Subscribers of it attri∣buted a spiritual power to every such private Subject whom he so exempts from being lawfully killed or murthered by another private Subject; or that obedience were therefore in spiritual things due to him who could not be so mur∣thered.

Ninth and last Period: And we abhor and detest the practice thereof, as dam∣nable and wicked. Which, because it is Relative only to the eighth, as the word thereof proves, I need say no more than is already said on the said eighth, immedi∣ately preceding.

And these Nine Periods, which I have so given, and considered apart, being the onely Periods, Clauses, or parts of the said Act of Recognition, and no other at all being therein, nor as much as a word more: who sees not, but that the said Act considered even separately as to the several Clauses, and in that manner, and with that either Grammatical, Theological, or any way rational Construction, they can be so considered separately, does in none of all contain ought else but a profession of the Supreme Temporal power in our King for His own Dominions, and in other Supreme politick Magistrates or Princes for their own respective States or Principalities, and of the obedience of Subjects in Civil and Temporal affairs to them also respectively; but by no means a profession of any spiritual power ei∣ther in our own King, or in another Supreme Prince Temporal or Politick as such, or of obedience due by Subjects to them in spiritual matters? Certainly such as consider all I have said hitherto, must be wilfully and maliciously blind, if they pre∣tend to see ought else in any of the said Periods, even separately taken.

As for the Petitionary Address immediately following the said Nine Periods, and closing up the whole Remonstrance, and which only, of all the controverted passages of the said Remonstrance remains yet unconsidered apart, being in these, and no other words: These being the Tenents of our Religion in point of Loyalty and Submission to Your Majesties Commands, and our dependance of the See of Rome no way intrench∣ing upon that perfect Obedience which by our Birth, by all Laws divine and humane, we are bound to pay to Your Majesty our natural and lawful Sovereign, we humbly beg, prostrate at Your Majesties feet, that you would be pleased to protect us from the severe persecution we suffer meerly for our profession in Religion: leaving those that are, or hereafter shall be guilty of other Crimes (and there have been such in all Times, as well by their Pens, as by their Actions) to the punishment pre∣scribed by the Laws: who sees not also, out of what I have at large, and of pur∣pose discoursed thereupon (that is, upon the two last Lines thereof (which only of this whole Petitionary Address were, though unjustly taken by some as a ground of Dispute against the said Petitionary Address, and therefore against the whole Remonstrance) who sees not, I say, out of what I have at large, and of purpose disputed in my lxi, lxii. and upon also the following Sections, on the matter of Ecclesiastical Exemption, in answer to and against the fourth ground of the Louain Divines, That no word or syllable, or any way the whole of the said Petitionary Address, or two last Lines of it, contains either formally, virtually, or consequen∣tially, an acknowledgment of other power in the Prince, but that which is meerly

Temporal, or of other obedience due from his Catholick Subjects to him but in Civil and Temporal affairs? And therefore I will not Repeat here what is so amply given already in the said Sections, where the Reader may see it again, if he please.

Now to consider the whole of the said Act of Recognition, even also jointly taken with that Appendage of the Petitionary Address, or (which is it I mean here) to consider all the parts thereof not separately, but jointly, or not apart each one by it self, but altogether, and every part, as relating to each other, and to what goes before, and comes after: who sees not, but that, being the Subscribers do most signally, and in formal words, and in two several places of the said Act of Re∣cognition, express their own obedience to the Prince onely in Civil and Temporal affairs; and onely in such, and no where in spiritual matters: and being that in the said Petitionary Address, as likewise in the Title, and even very Body of the Remonstrance of their Grievances, they profess still their own Religion and Com∣munion (to wit, in spiritual matters) to be Romish; and, in terms plain enough, profess also their continual dependenc•• of the See of Rome (videlicet, in spiritual matters purely such:) who sees not, I say, but that consequently it must follow, the said Remonstrance considered in this manner, that is, jointly, or one part with an∣other, and with the necessary Relations to what goes before, and comes after, can∣not be said by any judicious person, to contain a profession of other power, than that which is meerly Politick, Civil or Temporal in the Prince, or of other obedi∣ence as due from the Subject, than that which is in meer Civil and Temporal af∣fairs?

And certainly, however the said Remonstrance be taken, either jointly, or sepa∣rately, we know 'tis a Rule of both the Canon and Civil Law, that to understand the full meaning and scope of any Clause apart, or of any single Clause thereof, the whole must be considered; that is, together with such Clause, what goes be∣fore, and what comes after must be jointly considered, if there be any ambiguity, or any pretended to be. For so the Popes themselves determine, where they Treat of the like, or of the meaning or just interpretation of any Author, or any Wri∣ting. And so particularly and expresly Pope Nicholas the Third teaches, Cap. Exiit. de verb. signif. in sexto, in his learned and most ample declaration thereof the Rule of St. Francis. Where, to expound the meaning of the Saint, in a certain passage of the said Rule, this good Pope speaks thus: Cum non sit verisimile ip∣sum factum verbum ab ipso semel, cum quadam modificatione, vel determinatione, seu specificatione prolatum, licet quasi succinctorie repetitum, voluisse in sui repetitio∣ne, data sibi per eum modificatione, seu specificatione, sine certa causa carere. Et utriusque Juris argumenta nos doceant, ea quae in medio ad finem, atque principi∣um, & ea quae in fine ad utrumque vel eorum alterum saepe referri.

Let the Reader now be Judge, whether in this analitical way, or that of resolving the Remonstrance into Propositions, and considering all either separately, or jointly, as they should, where any ambiguity is pretended, I have not evidently proved what I undertook to prove by this way, as indeed the only way to prove it? That is, let him be Judge, whether I have not evidently proved the former part of that Minor of my grand Syllogism before made in this Section against the Louain Censure; or, which is the same thing, let the Reader judge, whether I have not proved that part of my said Minor, which said, That our Remonstrance contained only in ef∣fect, or word and sense, a bare acknowledgment only of such Supreme, meer Tempo∣ral, Civil, Natural, and Politick power of the Sword in the Prince, and a promise onely of such obedience from us, in meer Civil and Temporal things, &c. And let him also further be Judge, whether now that both premises of the said Syllo∣gism, are more than abundantly evidenced, as to all, and each part of them; I do not likewise most evidently conclude the Louain Censure to be rash against Pru∣dence, false against Truth, injurious against Justice, and scandalous in the highest degree against Charity. Which was the Conclusion I before inferr••d out of the said premises.

But, forasmuch as I have hitherto argued only in general against the said Cen∣sure, or on the account only, or by occasion only of those two Suppositions, or

two Causes, or Reasons expressed therein, wherefore the Louain Doctors did so Censure our Remonstrance (as you have seen) or, in formal words, did declare it to be unlawful, detestable, sacrilegious; and wherefore they did also virtually, or consequentially (as you have likewise seen before) Censure, and Declare it fur∣ther, to be Heretical, or Schismatical, or both: and forasmuch as I find it at least no less behoveful to speak yet more directly and particularly against those very Essen∣tials, both formal, and virtual, or consequential, of that Censure: I form these fol∣lowing Arguments against all.

I. No Remonstrance, Declaration, Paper, or Form of Allegiance to the Prince, is unlawful, or can be Censur'd to be unlawful, which contains not some Clause, or some Proposition against some Law divine or humane. (For therefore only any thing can be said to be unlawful, forasmuch as it can be justly said to be against some such true and undoubted Law.) But that Remonstrance, &c. of ours, con∣tains no Clause or Proposition against any Law divine, or humane. Ergo, 'tis not unlawful, nor can be Censur'd to be unlawful. The Conclusion evidently follows out of the premises. And the Minor, which is the only Proposition wants proof, you have already seen proved partly in this very Section, and partly throughout those many other long and large Sections before, wherein I have first proceeded in a negative way, answering all the Laws alledg'd by either Bellarmine, or any other for the Exemption of Clergymen from the Supreme Civil, Coercive power of Lay Princes; and next have also proceeded in a positive or affirmative way, alledging on the contrary all those Laws divine and humane (which you may see there) for the subjection of even all kind of Clergymen to the said Supreme Civil power.

II. No Remonstrance can be justly Censur'd to be detestable, but that which can be justly said to contain some Clause, or some Proposition that is execrable, or worthy to be abhorr'd (for only that which is justly reputed such, can be justly said to be detestable.) Ours contains no Clause or Proposition that is execrable, or worthy to be abhorr'd (because it contains nothing against any Law divine or humane: and the Remonstrance which contains no such thing, contains no Clause or Proposition that is execrable, or worthy to be abhorr'd.) Ergo, our Remon∣strance cannot be justly Censur'd to be detestable.

III. No Remonstrance can be according to any true Theology Censur'd to be sacrilegious, or the Subscribers of it declared to be tyed under the guilt of Sa∣criledge to refix or revoke their Subscriptions, which contains not some Clause, or some Proposition warranting Sacriledge, either taken in the true, proper, and strict sense of this word Sacriledge, or in that at least which is the improper and larger sense of it. But ours is a Remonstrance which contains no such Clause or Proposition, &c. Ergo, &c.

The conclusion follows evidently according to the rules of Logick: and the Major is evident ex terminis, to any that is not a Beetle-head. The Minor, which only of all the Propositions of this Syllogism requires proof, I prove thus no less evidently. Sacriledge, properly and strictly taken, and according to the Etymology of the word (sayes Azorius, Instit. Moral. l. 9. cap. 27.) is the stealing of a Sacred thing. Ʋnde Sacrilegi dicuntur (sayes he, speaking in this proper and strict sense) qui res Sacras surripiunt, aut qui rem non Sacram, in loco tamen Sacro depositam aut commendatam furantur. And Sacriledge, in the improper and lar∣ger sense (sayes the same Author, and with him other Divines and Canonists) as it is often also now, or even more commonly taken, is a sin whereby a Sacred thing is polluted, or unworthily and impiously handled, used, or treated; that is, not with that honour, veneration and respect, which the Laws of God or man com∣mands us under sin to use or treat Sacred things. Appellatione autem rei sacrae (sayes the same Azor) accipitur ea, quae sanctitatem aliquam habet, aut Christi institutione, aut Ecclesia consecratione, unctione, benedictione, ut vocatur, quae est precatio qua Ecclesiae Minister certis ritibus & ceremoniis Ecclesiasticis adhibitis, bona precatur rei quam sacrat. Ea item, quam Ecclesia ad sacros usus, & mini∣steria destinavit. But who sees not, that there is not in our said Remonstrance,

any proposition, or clause, or passage warranting either the stealth of any Sacred thing, according to the first sense, or in the latter, the pollution, violation, injurious force done to, irreverence or dishonour, or any unworthy or impious usage, hand∣ling or treating of any Sacred thing whatsoever, Religion or Faith, Sacrament or Sacramental, Place, Goods, Lands, Rite, Ceremony, &c? For what I have already said at large in this very present Section, and what I have before Treated yet far more largely in so many other preceding Sections, against the four grounds of the Louain Theological Faculty, do, without any possible contradiction (which may as much as seem rational) most evidently demonstrate, That there is not in our said Remonstrance, any such proposition, clause, or passage warranting, &c. First, Because what is so said in both, does most evidently demonstrate, That in the Re∣monstrance there is no power attributed to the King, nor obedience acknowledg'd or promised as due from the Subjects, but meerly Temporal and Civil, or rather in meer Temporal and Civil things, and according to the Laws of God and Nature, and Canons also of the Church; nor any denied to the Pope or Church, not even any, I mean, out of the Popes or Churches own peculiar temporal Territories, but only such power and such obedience as are not spiritual, or in spiritual things: nay, this very present Section, besides other matters, demonstrates also, That there is no∣thing else in the Remonstrance. Secondly, and particularly, because the attribu∣ting such Temporal power to the Prince, and requiring, or warranting such obedi∣ence in Temporal or Civil things, from or in the Subjects, cannot be Sacriledge in either sense: nor the denying of the same Supreme Royal politick power in Tem∣poral matters to the Church or Pope in other Territories, than such as are acknow∣ledged, or indeed are their own peculiarly and independently, as to the Supreme politick power, can be any more Sacriledge in either sense. For who sees not, that here is no violation of any kind of Right due by any Law to either Sacred persons, or other Sacred things whatsoever? And who knows not, it is confessedly true, That Sacriledge in either sense, must be a violation of some such Right? Lastly, Because I have most particularly and professedly demonstrated before these four things: 1. In so many different long Sections, That the Pope hath not either de facto, or de jure, any either divine or humane Right to the temporal or politick Supremacy of England, or Ireland, in temporal things: as indeed, I confess, our said Remonstrance denies him to have any such. 2. That albeit our Remonstrance denies the Pope any kind of power to dispense in our temporal, or civil Allegi∣ance; yet it no way therefore, or even for any cause, or in any other clause what∣soever, denies the Pope that binding or loosing power which is proper to the Church, or which is any way given the Pope, either by Christ himself immediate∣ly, or immediately by the Church. 3. That albeit our Remonstrance also tye even the Priestly Subscribers to reveal all Treasons which come to their knowledge, as to be perpetrated hereafter; yet it touches not on, nor binds to the breach of the Sacramental Seal of Confession. 4. That should it (as indeed it ought not) be expounded so, as to renounce all Ecclesiastical both liberty and immunity of Church persons and places, wherein either is contrary to the Supreme politick power of Princes in temporal matters over all persons and places whatsoever with∣in their own respective Dominions, and inasmuch as such power is necessary for the preservation of the Commonwealth, either spiritual or temporal, and is own'd by the municipal Laws; yet it would not therefore, nor doth for any cause, or in any clause whatsoever, disclaim in, or quit in any wise the true Ecclesiastical Liber∣ty, or true Ecclesiastical Immunity. And these being all the specifical grounds of charging our Remonstrance with Sacriledge in either sense of the word: it must be consequential, that these being overthrown (as they are already, and most clearly, and most diffusely too) the Censure of Sacriledge must be also over∣thrown, as having no subsistence but in these four grounds, or in some one of them. For to ground a Censure of Sacriledge on the bare naming or mentioning at all the special Title of the great Bishop, or on the word Pope expressed in our Remonstrance, or on the words, We disclaim and renounce all Forreign Jurisdicti∣on, be it Papal or Princely, Spiritual or Temporal, inasmuch as it may seem able,

or shall pretend to free, discharge, or absolve us from our faithful Loyalty, and due Allegiance; or to ground it, I say, on those two former words (disclaim, renounce) of this clause, as not Reverential enough, or less Reverential than other words ex∣pressing the same sense, is the greatest vanity and folly, and nonsence can be: Be∣cause Sacriledge, either properly or improperly, strictly or largely taken, must be a sin, and therefore against some true binding Law, divine or humane, and therefore also must be a violation of some Right belonging to divine persons or things, and belonging to them by some Law divine or humane, positive or natural, and conse∣quently too must be an injurious breach of their priviledge or right by some such Law. But herein, or in these bare words, and sense of them, as explained by the other following words, is no sin, because no such violation or breach; being there is no Law to the contrary in the case, nay, being all Laws divine and humane, posi∣tive and natural, are for those words and senses of them as explain'd by the other words following. Besides, there was either an absolute necessity, or at least very much expediency to use those very words Pope, renounce, disclaim, as I have shewed before. Now doth it matter at all, that other words might be found more Re∣verential? For as magis & minus non variant speci••m, or do not make that which is Reverential in the positive, to be Irreverential in the negative: So I am sure no rational man will say, that we are under the sin of Sacriledge, or other whatsoever, bound to use (at least in a doctrinal declaration, and speaking of a third person) the most, or even the more Reverential words, or even also any words at all of Reverence (so we use none of Irreverence;) being there is no Law binding us in such a case to use such words, but only words expressing truly and plainly such meaning as is lawful for us to express. Lastly, who sees not, but that we commit no Irreverence, if speaking of the King as a third person, we call him barely the King. Nor also any Irreverence, if upon a just occasion, we should say that we disclaim, and renounce his Royal power (as certainly we do) inasmuch as it might seem able, or shall pretend to free, discharge, or absolve us from that obliga∣tion which we have on us by the general Canons, or consent of the whole Catho∣lick Church, or at least of the Occidental or Western part of it, to acknowledge and obey them in meer spiritual things, and according to the true undoubted Canons of the same Church, and in that sense wherein the universal Church under∣stands the same Canons: Or if upon a just occasion, and being required, we should renounce and disclaim in the King, or in His Royal power, inasmuch as he or it might seem able, or should pretend to the preaching of the Word, Ministration of Sacraments, or to that spiritual power of binding and loosing sinners, or of shutting and opening the gates of Heaven, or of the Church, which Christ gave to his Apostles, and by his Apostles to the same Church, that is, to the meer spiri∣tual Rectors, and other meer spiritual Ministers of it? And as I am sure this ex∣pression could not be (at least in such case) Irreverential, much less Sacrilegious against the Sacred person of the King, or His Sacred power Royal, or against His Sacred unction: so neither could that of ours in our Remonstrance, and in that case which was really ours, be any way Irreverential, much less Sacrilegious, or any way at all sinful or unlawful.

IV. My fourth and last Argument, and Syllogism, is against the virtual affixion of Schism, or Heresie, or both, to our said Remonstrance, by the often mention'd Louain Theological Faculty and Censure. And I frame it thus.

No Remonstrance is either Schismatical or Heretical, and much less both, which contains not some proposition or some clause, either formally or virtually Schisma∣tical or Heretical (for if it be both, as it must contain both, so consequently it must contain either.) Our said Remonstrance is a Remonstrance which contains nei∣ther, that is, which contains no such proposition, or clause, &c. Ergo, &c.

And because the Major of this last Syllogism is evident, and even per se nota ex terminis amongst Divines, and all men of Reason who understand the terms, and withall consider, that I take here Schismatical and Heretical, or Schism and He∣resie, in the proper sense of the words, or as they import a special sin, distinct from all other sorts of sins: and consequently, because it needs no further

evidence, its own native light abundantly sufficing: I proceed to the proof of the Minor.

And first as to the first branch of it, which is that of our said Remonstrances not being Schismatical. In the deduction of which proof, I will make even St. Thomas of Aquin himself, 2. 2. q. 39. ar. 1. ad 2. and even also his great Expositor Cardinal Cajetan, and consequently too, even all the famous School of Thomists to be Judges. Nam Schysmatici (sayes Thomas ibidem) proprie di∣cuntur qui propria sponte & intentione se ab unitate Ecclesiae separant, & qui sub∣esse renuunt summo Pontifici, & membris Ecclesiae ei subiectis communicare renuunt. Nolle enim pertinaciter obedire summo Pontifici non est Schysma (sayes Cajetan on the same passage of Thomas) sed nolle subesse illi ut capiti totius Ecclesiae est Schysma. Nam adverte diligenter (sayes the same Cajetan, and in the same place) quod recusare praeceptum vel udicium Papae contingat tripliciter. Primo, ex parte rei judicatae sen praeceptae. Secundo, ex parte personae judicantis. ••er∣tio, ex parte officii ipsius Judicis. Si quis enim pertinaciter contemnat sententiam Papae, quia scilicet non vult exequi quae mandavit, puta abstinere a tali bello, re∣stituere talem statum, &c. licet gravissime erret, non tamen est ex hoc Schysmati∣cus. Contingit namque, & saepe, nolle exequi praecepta Superioris, retenta tamen re∣cognitione ipsius in Superiorem. Si quis vero personam Papae suspectam rationabi∣liter habet, & propterea non solum praesentiam ejus, sed etiam immediatum judicium recusat, paratus ad non suspectos Judices ab eodem suscipiendos, nec Schysmatis, nec alterius vitii crimen incurrit. Naturale namque est curare nociva & cavere a periculis. Potestque persona Papae tyrannice gubernare, & tanto facilius quanto potentior est & neminem in terris timet ultorem. Cum quis autem Papae praeceptum vel judicium ex parte sui officii recusato non recognoscens eum ut superiorem, quam∣vis hoc credat, tunc praecipu•• Schysmaticus est. Et juxta hunc sensum sunt intel∣ligenda verba litterae hujus (id est, textus D. Thomae) sayes Cajetan. Inobedi∣entia enim (sayes the same Cajetan going on still, and concluding) quantumcumque pertinax non constituit Schysma, nisi sit rebellio ad officium Papae, vel Ecclesiae, ita ut renuat illi subesse illum recognoscere ut superiorem. &c. Where you see clearly, That according to the sense of even the Angelical Doctor himself, and even of his great Expositor, and consequently of even the whole Thomistical School, our Re∣monstrance cannot be charg'd with any Schismatical proposition or clause, taking this word Schismatical properly, or as it imports that sin of Schism which is di∣stinct both from the sin of pure disobedience, or disobedience only, and from all other sorts too of sin. Because it appears out of St. Thomas and Cajetan here, that no doctrine or proposition is Schismatical in this proper sense of the word, but that which freely, voluntarily, and intentionally separates from other members of the Catholick Church, or spiritual Head of it, the Pope; not by disobedience on∣ly, but also by denying to submit to the very true, proper, and just Office or Head∣ship of the Pope, or to acknowledge it: and it hath already appeard out of the Remonstrance it self, that there is no such doctrine or proposition, formal or virtu∣al, therein. As for Schism improperly taken, so it still imports a sin, either that of pure, or only bare disobedience, or any other whatsoever you please, if it can import in any true sin, any other sin but that of meer disobedience: I have al∣so already and abundantly vindicated the said Remonstrance from such also, or from any such injurious and false aspersion, both all along hitherto, and even in this very Section, but most particularly in my argument against its being unlawful. For as the sin of pure disobedience, so also every other, is dictum, factum, or concupitum contra legem Dei. But if the Divines of Louain will have our Re∣monstrance to be Schismatical, because it separates from their evil doctrine; per me licet, in that sense, because that is a good and vertuous sense of the word; though as too too improper, so no way conducing to their end, nor consisting with their judgment of sub Sacrilegii reatu, &c. and because the doctrine of all the most Ho∣ly, most Catholick and Learned Fathers, and of the Blessed Apostles, and even of Christ our Lord himself, may be truly said to be Schismatical in that sense, being it separated from the wicked Doctrine of Atheists, Deists, Jews, Scribes, Pharisees, He∣reticks and Schismaticks, truly and properly such.

And Secondly, As to the second branch of the said Minor, which second branch is that of our said Remonstrances not being Heretical, I proceed thus. No Remon∣strance is Heretical, which contains not formally or virtually some Proposition, either formally or virtually, against Holy Scripture, or Catholick Tradition. Ours is a Remonstrance which contains no such. Ergo, Of the Major, there can be no controversie: because Heresie is defined to be an errour (and onely that errour which is) against some Doctrine publickly revealed by God to the Church: and because it is confessed of all sides, there is no Doctrine so revealed by God, but that which is either formally or virtually revealed in Canonical Scripture, or Catholick Tradition. And the Minor I have at large already pro∣ved partly in this very Section, and in my first Sillogisme therein, against the two suppositions expressed in the Louaine Censure, and partly also (as also without comparison more amply and irrefragably) in so many other Sections be∣fore; some of which proceeded in a negative way, against the four chief grounds of the same Louaine Censure, and against all the Arguments of Bellarmine and others; and the rest in a positive way no less Demonstratively against the self same grounds and Arguments. Where the Reader may see diffusely, that the Doctrine of a Supreme, even Coercive power of Lay-Princes; over even all sorts whatsoever of Clergymen within their own Dominions, and that of an answer∣able Subjection of all sorts of people, both Clerks and Laicks, to the same Princes, is so far from being such an errour, or being Heresie against either Scripture or Tradition, that it is warranted by both, and the contrary Doctrine likewise manifestly against both. And in this very Section, I have shewed al∣ready, there is neither Clause, or Proposition, in our whole said Remonstrance, but only such as contains no more in effect, but an acknowledgment of the Power in Princes, and of that Subjection and Obedience of Subjects.

Behold (Christian and impartial Reader) four or five Syllogisms against the Epithets, either formal or virtual, of the Louain Censure; which four or five, to∣gether with that other longer Syllogism against the two Suppositions, or Causes, or Reasons expressed therein, compleat the whole number of my Arguments, or of what I intended to say in this last Section, against that abortive Censure.

And now I leave it to thy own serious, indifferent and Christian judgment, wheth∣er, considering all, I may not again most justly repeat, and evidently conclude that which was before the conclusion of my first and grand Syllogism, in this very Secti∣on against the foresaid two suppositions, expressed in the Louain Censure? That is, whether I may not most justly repeat, and most evidently conclude again, that the said second or short Censure of Louain (which was it only came as yet to publick view) against that Remonstrance of ours, or of 1661, or 1662, Must be rash against Prudence, false against Truth, injurious against Justice, and scandalous in the highest degree against Charity? Nay whether indeed it be not it self, (and not our Remonstrance) that which is truly both Ʋnlawfull, Detestable, Sacrilegious, Schys∣matical, and Heretical, being it condems for such, that Protestation which in all respects is Catholick, Peaceable, Religious, Desirable, Dutifull and Lawfull? And whether (this Protestation being really such, and that Censure really such also, as it now appears abundantly to be; the former so Holy, the latter so Wicked) the inference of the Louaine Divines, wherewith they conclude their said Censure, in these words, Quapropter quicunque praefatam professionis formulam nondum ignorant, cohibere se a signatura obligantur sub sacrilegii reatu: quicumque autem signarunt, refigere signaturas obligantur sub consimili reata: adding, (to con∣firm this second part of their Inference and resolution) that saying of the Canons, incauta namque definitio salubriter dissolvenda est, nec ea dissolutio reputanda est praevaricatio, sed temeritatis emendatio: whether I say that Inference as such, or as an Inference, be not deduced from notoriously false Premises and Antecedents? and whether as a Resolution, without any note of Inference, it be not in it self as Wicked, Injurious, Unlawfull, Detestable, Schysmatical, and Heretical, as that must be, which in a manner so solemn determines against, and dehorts from, the most important, and most known, and most necessary Christian Obedience, Fide∣lity,

and Duty of Subjects to their Princes? And more especially of Catholick Subjects to their Protestant Prince? and yet most especially of all where the Catholick Subjects lye under such great, and such rational suspition of their (at least in certain Cases) Fidelity to their Protestant Prince, as the Rebellion of the Catholicks of Ireland in the year 1641. and their several breaches of the two Peaces in the years 1646, and 1648. besides other later Arguments have occasi∣oned to be entertain'd of the greater part of the said Irish Catholicks? Or at least, and without any such relation or comparison at all, but positively and strictly speaking, whether that final Resolve of Louain, be not, and even as to both parts of it, to wit, the first which says, That such as have not yet signed the said Re∣monstrance, are bound under the guilt of Sacriledge to abstain from signing; and the last which says also, That such others who have already signed are under the like guilt bound to retire, that is, to revoke or cancel their Signatures; whether I say that final Resolve of Louaine, and as to both the said parts, be not most Ungodly, False, Unjust, Scandalous, Impious and Rebellious, Resolves? And whether the Catholicks of Ireland practising accordingly, do not thereby strengthen the Arguments of such of the Protestants as would contiue the Laws in force against Papist Recusants? Whether also it appear not by this time most evidently, out of what is said hitherto, both in this present Section, and in all the so many forego∣ing other Sections, against the four grounds of the Louaine Censure; that on the contrary, such of the Catholicks of Ireland, especially those of Ecclesiastical Function, are under the guilt of the highest, and foulest, and most dangerous (at least) Scandal may be cast or continued on their Religion and Communion, bound to add, or to offer their own Subscriptions also to the said Remonstrance; being that by such Subscriptions or Offer, they may ruin the strongest, nay the only Ar∣gument is made use of by their grand Adversaries, to Scandalize their Religion and Communion, and render both odious to King and State, and inconsistent with the safety of at least any Protestant Kingdom or People: and consequently hinder, by so specious and truely strong an Argument, the Repeal of the Laws which are against Papists; as being a People who maintain still, according to the Censure of Louaine, or final Resolve therein contained, that under no less then the guilt of Sacriledge, no Remonstrance, no Declaration, no Testation, or Oath, is to be Subscribed by them, if it disclaim any Power in the Pope to License them at his pleasure, to Rebel against their Protestant King, and Murther both Him and His Protestant Subjects, albeit their own Relations and fellow Subjects too: and who maintain also, according to the same Censure, or some final Resolve therein contained; that even such as have already Subscribed any such Remonstrance, Declaration, Protestation, or Oath, though containing nothing else but a bare acknowledgment of the Kings Supreme or Soveraign Power, in meer Temporals, and the Obedience, and Fidelity of his Catholick Subjects, to him in such Tem∣porals only, are under no less also then the guilt of the like Sacriledge, bound to Refix again their Signatures? And whether such as have already Subscribed, especially those of Ecclesiastical Function, are not yet more strictly bound under the same highest, and foulest, and most dangerous Scandal to their Religion and Communion, not to Refix (i.e. not to retract) their Subscriptions? For if Priests, who have so freely and voluntarily of themselves, without any kind of coaction Subscribed a Lawfull Declaration of their Allegiance to their King, and this only in meer Temporal Affairs; be not bound not to Refix their Subscriptions upon the Judgment of Foraign or Factious Divines, or upon a Letter from Rome against it, or any other account whatsoever: cannot all Protestants rationally conclude, that there is no Trust to be reposed in, no Faith to be given to such men, or to any others lead or indoctrinated by them, no not although they had signed Ten thousand Protestations? Then which I pray, can there be a more dan∣gerous Scandal to the Religion and Communion, and Persons too of Catholick Subjects, under a Protestant Prince and State, and where such severe and severe∣ly Penal, and incapacitating Laws are still in force against Papist Recusants? Be∣sides, and which is very consequentially hear, whether the Faculty Theological of

Louain, or those of it yet alive, who sign'd that most imprudent, rash, injurious, false, wicked, impious, and scandalous Censure? And whether the two late Bruxell Internuncio's, De Vecchiis, and Rospigliosi, and the most eminent Lord Cardinal Francis Barberin, being they all three severally take the pains to write so many strange, or rather bad Letters, some to the Clergy, and others to the Nobility and Gentry of Ireland, giving both these and those caution against, and exhorting all to beware of the often mention'd Remonstrance, as of a dangerous, unlawful, and pernicious Declaration; and as of one moreover, contrived of purpose, by false Brethren, a falsis fratribus: whether, I say, those very illustrious and eminent persons, be not under guilt of most grievous and manifold sins obliged to refix, i. e. to retract and recall what they have in that behalf so inconsiderately, erro∣niously, scandalously, and also injuriously written? And whether I may not here with very much Justice, Reason, and Religion, exhort them all to as publick a Re∣fixion and Satisfaction, as the wrong so done by them to the Catholick Religion and Communion in general, but in particular to those of that Church in Ireland, and yet more particularly to the Subscribers, was, and is, not only publick, but most scandalously publick? And lastly, yea also most consequently, Whether, as I may here pertinently mind them of that common saying borrowed from St. Au∣gustine, Ep. 54. ad Macedonium (and out of him inserted into the very Papal Canons, Cap. si res aliena. 14. q. 6.) Non remittitur peccatum nisi restituatur ablatum: So I may not also here with much reason (and not only to persuade them to that certainly due reparation, by a just Refixion and Recantation of their Er∣rors, i. e. of their foresaid Censures and Letters; but also to put a final period as well to this present Section, as to all the foregoing Sections of this long intervening Controversie, occasioned by the Censure of Louain, and its four grounds, before rehearsed, and hitherto refuted) nay, whether I may not even with far more rea∣son conclude my last Querie of exhortation to those Roman Censures, than the Di∣vines of Louain did their own second short Censure of Decestation to the Sub∣scribers, with that (I mean) other common place of theirs (borrowed likewise out of the Canons 22. q. 4. cap. Diffinitio, ex Eliberit. Conc. cap. 1. though not as such, or as borrowed so, or at all, mention'd by those Divines) Injusta definitio salubriter dissolvenda est, nec ea reputanda est praevaricatio, sed temeritatis emen∣datio; That unjust definitions are to be justly dissolved by contrary Declarations, and that such Revocation is not to be reputed any kind of prevaricating unholi∣ness, but a due correction of ungodly rashness?

All, and every of which Queries, I leave, good Reader, to your impartial judg∣ment, to be answer'd: But, then to be answer'd by you, when and after you have seriously, and with an eye of indifferency perused all I have said hitherto, not only in this present Section, but in all those other preceding it, especially in all from the lxiii, nay, in all from the xlvii, where I gave you verbatim, the Censure of Louain: and after you have also perused the vii, the lxxxii, and lxxxiii Sections of this First Part, in which Sections you find some of those Letters of the late Internuncio Hieronymus de Vecchiis from Bruxels, and of Cardinal Francis Barberin from Rome: and lastly, after you have likewise perused in the Second Part of this First Treatise, that whole Section of it which contains other later Letters of the same Cardinal from Rome, and three or four several more from Bruxels, written and sent by Jacobus Rospigliosi the present Internuncio of Flanders.

LXXVIII.

AND so I have done at last with my long disputes against the no less erroni∣ous, than unlucky Censure of the Theological Faculty of Louain. In the deduction of which disputes, I confess I have been much more diffuse than I intend∣ed, when I writ and printed the Introduction to this First Treatise. In which Introduction, I remember to have warn'd the Reader, only of some Twenty or Thirty sheets of disputes intervening and inserted in my Relation of matter of Fact. Which yet, I think, are by this time amounted to well nigh an Hundred,

taking those few I gave before in answer to the two papers of the Jesuites, together with these many others after, and which I have now ended against the Louain Cen∣sure, and four grounds of it. Which is the reason, that if I were to Reprint this First Treatise, I would alter the Title given it of matter of fact relating to and in the Dublin Congregation. Albeit I may still say, That how prolix soever those Sections of my disputes against the four grounds, and against the arguments of Bellarmine and others have been; yet, as here inserted, they make up the matter of fact also: for all these very Disputes have, by occasion of the said Remon∣strance and Censure, in effect happen'd, as to the substantial parts of them, and happen'd 'twixt the Procurator and others, though not altogether at any one place or time; nay, and all those very Objections and Answers, as to the most material parts of them, have been upon the same occasion made and given, some at one time, and some at another, and the Objections indeed made partly by others against the said Procurator, and partly by himself against himself, but of purpose to clear the matter, as the Answers to them all were likewise given by him, though not in this method you find them here. But however this matter be, or whether these disputes of mine as inserted here, or in any other respect, come under the notion of that matter of fact which should according to the Title of this Treatise be princi∣pally handled in it:

LXXIX.

I Return now to, and proceed with such matter of pure Fact, which no man shall deny to be purely such: intending to insert no more disputes, not only not until I end this First Part, but not even until I put a final period to this First Trea∣tise, or to the Second Part also, which ends it wholly.

I am therefore now to tell thee, good Reader, That, as I have before observed (in the beginning of my Lii. Section, after which immediately (or in the next, which is my Liii. Section) I fell off from the Relation of that bare matter of fact, and fell into these long Scholastical disputes (which continued ever since to this present lxxviii Section) that, as I say, I have in that Lii. Section observed, How the last, and worst of all the effects, or productions of the Louain Censure (as likewise of the Letters of Hieronymus de Vecchiis, and Cardinal Francis Barberin) was, a kind of specious pretence for those more unlearned and more ignorant of the Irish Clergy in all places, both at home in Ireland, and abroad in other Countries, and not for such only but also for the more knowing of the Dissenters or Opposers, to heighten their Animosities, and strengthen their Opposition, and even to except amongst the vulgar thenceforward against the Remonstrance, not as unexpedient only, or un∣necessary, but as unlawful, detestable, sacrilegious, schismatical, and heretical; being it was partly in formal words, and partly in equivalent, or in effect declared such by the Louain Divines: so you shall now see by what, follows, That notwithstanding any or all the most convincing arguments offered them either from Authority or Reason to the contrary, yet their own unpolitick politicks, and mistaken interest, and blind zeal, and unhappy fate never suffered the generality of them to yield, no not to such Authorities as are truly unanswerable, nor to such Reasons as are truly demonstrative, no not then when they had not a word to reply, not even the most learned, and most resolute of them, I mean, and I mean them also too when sate together in the most general Congregation of their Representatives. Behold the cause wherefore several of the more leading and more intriguing of them, and long before the said general Congregation was held, finding upon one side an abso∣lute necessity on themselves to offer at least some kind of Remonstrance of their Loyalty, that they might not seem to disown their being Subjects and on the other intending not to come home to the Contents of that of 1661. so Censured by the Divines of Louain, and by the several Letters of the Internuncio of Flanders, and of Cardinal Francis Bellarmine, most earnestly and manifoldly attempted, and this too by the mediation of several persons of Quality and Honour, both Lords and Ladies of their own Religion, and some too of the Protestant, to persuade his

Grace my LORD LIEUTENANT, to be content with, and accept of such a Remonstrance as they would frame for themselves; being (as they pretend∣ed) they desired this favour, not to decline the substance of Father Walshe's Re∣monstrance (as they call'd it) but to give it in their own Language, for the Rea∣sons elsewhere already given in this Book.

And behold the cause also, why though his GRACE did as often condescend to their desire in that behalf, as they made it by others, or even by themselves; yet having to that purpose received several Papers from them (besides those given be∣fore, as from the Dominicans, and Jesuites) and no two of all agreeing fully either in words or substance, much less any of all coming home in all parts to the sub∣stance of that of 1661. which by all means they declined; his GRACE (con∣sidering also they were but particular persons, or particular Orders at most, and such as could not undertake for other persons, and Orders of the Irish Clergy to con∣cur with them in these Forms offered by them, how short soever of that know For∣mulary, which was still a Bugbear to them all indifferently) answered every of them, They came short of their pretended offers. That he clearly saw, it was not against the words only, but against both words and substance, or sense of Father Walshe's Remonstrance they excepted. And that, being this substance or sense, to the full, and in all parts of it, was necessary from them, he could not but expect their Subscription to that very Remonstrance which His MAJESTY had already and so graciously accepted of, as being sign'd so freely, and affectionately present∣ed by a considerable number both of the Irish Clergy, and of the Irish Nobility and Gentry: because, although perhaps some of them intended in some measure to come near the substance or sense of that His MAJESTY so received; yet there must be some mystery still in varying from it; besides, that there would be no end in giving way to such variety, and that none of those, who perhaps meant well in other words, could or would engage the rest should approve of what they offered in such words, much less subscribe to it.

The Papers so offered and presented to His GRACE (besides those other you have seen already of the Dominicans, pag. 56. and of the Jesuites, pag. 84, 85, and 86.) are these following.

A Paper, given or delivered to the DUKE, by Colonel Gerrot Moore, 27 March, 1664. as (said he) the substance of that which the Romish Clergy were ready to Subscribe and Declare.

(But, I say, it appear'd after in their general Congregation of 1666. at Dublin (as you may see in the Second Part of this First Treatise, and in the Second and Third Treatise of this Book) they were far enough from being ready to Subscribe or Declare any such Thing or Paper, how even short soever, or not home enough to the point.)

I Engage my self to expose my life, if occasion shall require, in Defence of His Majesties Person, and Royal Authority, against any Prince, Person, or Power, Spiritual or Temporal, Forreign or Domestick, that shall invade, or disturb, even by Sedition, or Rebellion, His Majesties Rights, Person, Authority or Government; and hereunto I engage my self to be truly faithful, notwithstanding any sentence of Deposition, Excommunication, Censure, Declaration, Absolution, or Dispensation whatsoever:

I likewise abhor and detest from my very Soul, the Position fathered (without any just grounds) upon Roman Catholicks, That Faith is not to be kept with a Peo∣ple of a different judgment in Religion from them.

Another Paper, or form of a Latin Declaration or Protestation, of∣fered by Patrick Daly, Doctor of the Civil and Canon Law, Vicar General of Armagh, and Judge Delegate of the Province of Ar∣magh, to be Subscribed by himself; as given also by himself to the LORD LIEUTENANT on the 7th of April 1664. the Earl of Clancarty, and Lord Birmingham being present.

GEntem illam nimis barbaram, imo a lege naturae omnino alienam esse opor∣tet, quae non Reges a Deo sibi impositos amant, vereantur, & reverean∣tur, qui Regium nomen & Majestatem, ut rem augustam, & plane divi∣nam, non, secundum ipsum Deum in temporalibus amplectendum esse censeant, & colendum. Hybernis igitur omnibus incumbit, sed iis praecipue qui Altari inserviunt, & aliorum instructionem susceperint, manifestare, quo, quanto∣que gaudio auspicantissimam Serenissimi nostri Monarchae maugurationem, ejusque reditum ad capescendum Majorem Imperium, concelebrent. Hinc ego (ut & ali∣os omnes decet) faelicissimo nostro Principi, qui has Gentes, & prae aliis suam Hyberniam, ex faucibus crudelium Tyrannorum, quorum sub immani jugo hacte∣nus gemuere, eripuit, cur non fausta omnia, & prospeta voveam? cum longe a Christiana pietate absit, aliter vel facere, vel sentire. At cum audierim apud multos suspiciorem suboriri, viros nonnullos nostri ordinis, in hoc Regno esse, qui intestinas Seditiones moliri, imo vires externas ad Rebellandum contra Sa∣cram Regis Majestatem afcistere conentur & aspirent, celare nec possum, nec debeo, qua observantia, quo amore, & animi finceritate in inctissimi mei Regis obedi∣entiam, & prosperitatem, rerar; quomodoque ad id fideliter praestandum vel Sa∣cramento paratus sum me addicere.

Itaque sincere & sine omni aequivocatione, fuco, aut mentis reservatione, San∣ctissime in me recipio, & in verbo Sacerdotis affirmo, Serenissimum Regem nostrum Carolum secundum, vero, legitimo, & haereditario jure, huic Regno Hiberniae, & aliis omnibus suis Regnis, & ditionibus, dominari; meque in omnibus temporalibus, & civilibus illi fidelissime, & merito obtemperaturum, nullamque sub Coelo esse potestatem, quae me ab hoc Sacramento, fidelitatis, plus quam Sub∣ditos meae functionis Principum Germaniae, Hispaniae, aut aliarum Nacionum per universum Christianum orbem absolvere possit. Et propterea, dogma illud quod asserit quemque posse suum Regem, quod sit disparis Religionis, aut fidei Romano Catholicae, contrariae, e medio tollere, aut contra illum arma movere, ut impium, & Sacris Scripturis vetitum detestor, & abhominor. Ac proinde teneo ac profi∣teor esse cuivis boni, & Catholici Subditi officium, omnes Conspirationes, & clandestinas machinationes ad Rebellionem tendentes, Regi, aut sub illo, Magistratui competenti, aut Consiliario, quamprimum aperire, & indicare; neque ita facturum, juro, & profiteor. Ad quod maxime, Divinum illud Oraculum, Reddite Caesari, quae sunt Caesaris, & Deo quae sunt Dei, me invitat, imo firmiter obligat.

In quo∣rum omnium & singulorum fidem, ac robur, his ego proptia manu subscripsi. Pat: Daly. J. V. D.

Octavo Maii, 1663.

THat Nation must be very barbarous, and altogether a stranger to the Law of Nature, which does not love, dread, and reverence Kings see over them by God, which does not esteem the Name and Majesty of a King to be embraced and worshipped in Temporals next to God, as a thing glorious, yea, even divine. Wherefore there is a duty incumbent upon all the Irish, but espe∣cially upon those who serve at the Altar, and have the charge of instructing others, to manifest with what and how great joy they celebrate the most happy Inau∣guration of our Illustrious Monarch, and His Return to possess the Government of His Ancestors. Why should not I therefore (as it becomes all others likewise) wish all happiness and prosperity to our most successful Prince, who has snatch't these Na∣tions,

and above others His Ireland, out of the jaws of cruel Tyrants, under whose barbarous yoke they have hitherto groaned? Since it is far from Christian piety to do or think otherwise. But having heard that many have a suspition, there are several of our Order in this Kingdom, who endeavour to raise intestine Sedition, yea, and aspire to get Forreign Forces to make a Rebellion against the Sacred Ma∣jesty of the King, I cannot, nor ought I to conceal with what observance, love and sincerity of mind, I am ready to yield Obedience, and wish Prosperity to my most victorious King, and how I am ready to bind my self by Oath faithfully to perform the same.

Wherefore I do most Religiously acknowledge and affirm in the word of a Priest, sincerely, and without all equivocation, disguise, or mental reservation, That our most Illustrious King CHARLES the Second, is Lord of this Kingdom of Ire∣land, and of all other His Majesties Realms and Dominions, by a true legitimate and hereditary Right, and that I will obey him in all matters Temporal and Civil, most faithfully, I and deservedly; and that there is no power under Heaven which can absolve me from this Oath of Allegiance, more than those of my Function, who are Subjects of the Princes of Germany, Spain, or other Nations throughout the World. And therefore I detest and abhor the Opinion as impious, and forbidden by the Holy Scriptures, which maintains, That any one may kill His King, or take up Arms against Him, because He is of a different Religion, or of a Belief contrary to the Roman Catholick Faith. Wherefore I assert and profess, That it is the du∣ty of every good and Catholick Subject, forthwith to detect, and discover to the King, or to some competent Magistrate under him, or to a Privy Counsellor, all Conspira∣cies, and clandestine Machinations tending to Rebellion; and I swear and profess, that I my self will so do. Whereunto that Divine Oracle (give unto Caesar, the things that are Caesars; and unto God, the things that are Gods) does chiefly in∣vite and firmly bind me.

To give strength and credit to all and every of these, I have subscribed with mine own hand. Pat: Daly. J. V. D.

10 May, 1663.

Where you see nothing at all home to any purpose, much less to that of the Re∣monstrance of 1661. And indeed this good man alledges now, being the year 1668. it was therefore the general Congregation of the Irish Clergy at Dub∣lin, and in 1666. did not, would not Subscribe the Remonstrance of 1661. be∣cause Father P. Walsh declared publickly in the said Congregation, That Remon∣strance tyed them to stand by the King, against even the very Pope himself in per∣son, invading any of His MAJESTIES Dominions with an Army, and even in case too the pretence, and intent also of such Invasion, were only and purely to Re-establish Catholick Religion, and to restore Catholick Proprietors to those Estates, whereof they have been so lately dispossessed by force of Arms, or which have been more lately yet invested in others by those several Acts of Parliament we have seen pass since the Kings Restauration. But whether or no the said Father Peter Walsh, descended then to such a case expresly and publickly in any of his seve∣ral Speeches to that Congregation; yet I am sure he hath sufficiently demon∣strated in the _____ _____ page of this First Part, and elsewhere often, the lawfulness and justice, and even the necessity also of such engagement and sense of the Remon∣strance, at least as to a promise of passive obedience, even in such very case, to the King. Nay, and also as to active obedience; and positive fighting for the King, and themselves, and for the natural and civil being of all the people of these Domini∣ons, even also in case of such an Invasion, or of any made even with previous manifestoes of such a pure intention: because no mortal man could, without di∣vine, special, and extraordinary Revelation, know certainly that to be the real in∣ward intention, whatever the verbal outward of manifestoes should be: and be∣cause of the nature of Conquest and Wars, wherein a thousand Accidents may in∣tervene, which may wholly change the first intention or design.

A Third Paper, or form of a Declaration, and given the DUKE by the Lord Birmingham, April 8. same Year 1664.

VVE acknowledge and profess, that it's our Tenet and Opinion, That we are by the Laws of God bound, under pain of sin, to observe inviolably, and perform publick Faith with all manner of persons of whatever profession in Religion they be; and to be as true, obe∣dient and loyal to our Sovereign Lord and King CHARLES the Second, King of this Realm of Ireland, and other His Dominions, as any of His Subjects; and that accordingly we will bear Him, during our lives, true Faith and Allegiance, in as dutiful and obedient manner as the Laws of this Kingdom do require from us; And if the Pope of Rome, or any other person, either Ecclesiastical or Temporal, shall either by force of Excommunication, Sentence of Deposition, or by any other wayes or means attempt any thing to His prejudice, That we will in opposition thereunto, and in defence and maintenance of His Person, Crown and Government, expose our Lives and Fortunes (if need be.) All which we Religiously swear to observe; and that no Dispensation, Absolution, or any other pretence or cause, shall alter, or make us recede from the same.

Fourth Paper, and it given the DUKE, by James Dempsy, late Vicar Apostolick of Dublin, and Capitulary of Kildare, April 1. and same Year also 1664. present, Lord Dillon, and Milo Power.

FOrasmuch as we cannot own any Authority whatsoever, that may be pretend∣ed in any wayes, neither Spiritual nor Temporal, derogatory from the right Power and Authority of His now Majesty CHARLES the Second, and His lawful Successors, we do therefore engage our selves to expose our Lives (if, and as often as occasion shall require) in defence of His Majesty, and His lawful Successors, their Persons, Crown, Authority and Dignity, against any Prince, Potentate, or power Spiritual or Temporal whatsoever, who shall by force of Arms, or any other way invade any of His Majesties Rights, or Authority, or Dig∣nity, in any of His Dominions; and particularly, we shall oppose, to the utmost of our power, all Attempts whatsoever tending to the depriving of His Majesty of any of His Rights, Kingdoms, or Dominions, or the lessning of His Dignity, Right, or Au∣thority, in the Government thereof.

A fifth Paper yet, and far more formal and material too, than any of those four, was given the DUKE in the month of May the same Year, and given his GRACE as from, or to be Subscribed by the Clergy, both Secular, and Re∣gular, of the City and Diocess of Dublin, as in order also to, and with promise of their endeavors and hopes it should be Subscribed by all the rest of Ireland, so his GRACE would prevail with His MAJESTY to accept of it, and be content with it in lieu of that subscribed and presented at London in 1661. But forasmuch as this Paper was not sign'd by any (as neither was any of those other four, only Daly's excepted) but in that form wherein it was given the DUKE, was disown'd generally even by the very Dublin Clergy, and no man at all of them would own it as to the most material passages; I say no more of it, nor will trouble the Reader with a Copy here. Yet this much I will advertise the Reader, That if he be taken with the first perusal of any of the said Papers or Formularies, he may be pleased to suspend his judgment, till he first read also not only my obser∣vations on the Franciscan Formulary, which he shall find in the last Section of this First Part of the First Treatise, but also the Second Part of this same First Treatise, which Second Part is of bare matter of Fact in the general Congregation held in 66. and read moreover my Second and Third brief Treatises following, which declare the meaning of the Remonstrance framed and exhibited by that Congregation, and likewise the meaning of the three first Sorbon late Propositions, as applyed, sub∣scribed,

and presented by them also; and lastly, read the fifteen Propositions of the Doctrine of Allegiance, which follow immediately the Fourth Treatise in this same Book. And then let him judge (in Gods Name) according to Reason and Con∣science, and circumstances too of the place and persons, whether any such Formu∣lary, as you see here, be sufficient as from such a Clergy.

LXXX.

ABout this time, being June 1664. the chief opposers of the Remonstrance of 1661. were grown too too insolent; and not insolent only, but extremely injurious to those who had subscribed, and constantly maintain'd it as both expedi∣ent and necessary. To such insolency and injuries they were encouraged by seve∣ral Accidents of the last six or seven Months.

1. That when the DUKE was to send with a Guard of Horse a certain Churchman of their Religion and Combination, Prisoner from Dublin to Car∣rigfergus, and for an Example to the rest (albeit he was not made Prisoner upon account of not subscribing) his GRACE, upon Letters from the QUEEN, or others at Court, in behalf of the said Churchman, did not command him so away as was intended, but permitted him to enjoy all freedom at Dublin.

2. That much about the same time, another certain person (whom I will not here name) and a Churchman too by his calling, as a Gentleman by his birth, and one moreover, who not only had some interest in several persons of Quality at Court, and a power to persuade them, but was ingenious and inventive enough, to find out new pretences for any intrigue, upon and for a promise made to him by some other Irish Churchmen, of Five hundred pounds for his pains, wrought so at Court, and by his specious pretences, that (having to this purpose gone thither from Ireland) he procured a Letter from one of the Secretaries of State, to his Grace the Duke of ORMOND, LORD LIEUTENANT of Ireland, to suspend his farther prosecution of any endeavours for getting that Remonstrance of 1661. sign'd, or pressing any other such on the Irish Clergy. Albeit, I con∣fess, the DUKE, soon after receiving this Letter, having replyed, got it revoked again. And that the Gentleman who procured it, came so short of his expectations of the Five hundred pounds promised him, that, being return'd, those who pro∣mised him that Sum, finding all his endeavours were suddenly thwarted by a later Letter, did not give him as much as Five pounds, nor Five pence of it. For so himself told me, as he told me the particulars of his own Acting, to procure the foresaid Letter; but told me then only when he failed of the money, and not be∣fore.

3. That, notwithstanding the Jesuites, Dr. Daly, and James Dempsy were sent for, appeared, and refused to sign that Remonstrance of 1661. or come home in other words to it; yet they were dismissed again, and both they, and all other, even the most violent opposers of it, were as free, or had as much liberty to exercise their Functions, both in Countrey and City, as any of the most Religious, and most Affectionate Subscribers of it.

4. That some of the Catholick Lawyers, their own Countreymen and Friends, assured them, They could not by Law suffer either Banishment, Imprisonment, or other penalty for not subscribing it; because it was a Declaration which was not yet Enacted by any Law, and therefore they could not by any kind of penalty be forced to it.

5. And lastly, That my LORD LIEUTENANT was then forced to go for England, and consequently none to look much after that business till his return; besides, that his return at any time in the former capacity, was un∣certain.

These five several Accidents of the last six or seven Months, taken all together jointly with the general persuasion (grounded on former experience) that if any of the opposers of that Remonstrance of 1661. should peradventure on that pre∣tence, or other whatsoever warranted by the Laws, chance to be restrain'd or im∣prison'd,

the rest abroad at liberty would get and send them for such their oppo∣sition and constancy (or rather obstinacy) therein, sufficient contributions to maintain them in Prison, and that too, much better than if they were at liberty, and cry them up amongst the People, and amongst all Catholicks, both at home in Ireland, and abroad in Forreign Countries, for Sufferers in the Cause of God, and Catholick Religion, &c: all those, and these Considerations, I say, at least jointly taken, made the opposers come to such an height of Insolencies and Injuries against the Subscribers, that such as were otherwise willing to subscribe, kept back their hands, as having not withall resolution or resignation enough to expose themselves to all the obloquies and calumnies of those fiery, both ignorant and malicious opposing Zelots. And from the last of all the five, viz. my LORD LIEUTENANT's departure, some of these unreasonable men, did as unrea∣sonably derive joy and gladness. But gaudium Hypocritae instar puncti, as Job sayes.

LXXXI.

FOR two other much contrary, and no less unexpected Accidents happen'd in July following the same Year 1664. which, in some measure, altered their Joy, and humbled their Pride. 1. A Proclamation issued on the xi. of July the same Year 1664. against some of the Ringleaders of those factiously dissenting and opposing persons, commanding them upon other Accounts to appear at the Council Table. 2. And soon after, some others of them were (upon some other Information or Suspition seized upon in the County of Cavan) brought Prisoners to Dublin, and committed to the Marshalsea. But for the greater satisfaction of curious Readers, I give here at length that Proclamation.

By the LORD DEPUTY and COUNCIL. A PROCLAMATION, Requiring Denis Magee, Antho∣ny Doghertie, and others, to appear personally at the Council Board.

OSSORY:

WHEREAS Information hath been given unto Vs, by divers Gentlemen, and others, of the Popish Religion, That several pretended Chapters have been, and are to be soon called in several parts of this Kingdom, and Meet∣ings appointed, by Persons disaffected to His MAJESTIES Government, and to the Publick peace and quiet: who take opportunities from those Assemblies, to diffuse and spread abroad amongst the people of that Religion, Seditious Doctrines, to the great dissatis∣faction of all those, who are Peaceably and Loyally inclined; And particularly, that one Denis Magee, doth by colour of a late Commission derived from the Bishop of Rome, call him∣self, and now acts as Commissary Visitor of the Order of the Franciscans in this Kingdom; and by such illegal Authority, doth summon Assemblies to be held suddenly for pernicious ends, contrary to the known Laws of the Land, and to the

Peace and Quiet of the People: And that John O Hairt, who goes under the title of the Prior Provincial of the Domini∣cans; Anthony Doghertie, under the title of Minister Provin∣cial of the Franciscans; Jeoffry Gibbon, as Prior Provincial of the Augustinians; Joseph Sall, under the title of Guardian of the Franciscans in Cashel; Anthony Darcy, Fryer; Andrew Sall, under the title of Superior of the mission of the Iesuits in this Kingdom; and others, under colour also of Authority derived from the Bishop of Rome, go in Circuits, and visit the several Provinces, to the great Trouble and grief of the Well-affected, even of their own Religion: which practises and proceedings of the said persons, are Offences of a high nature, and are an exercising of Forreign Iurisdiction within this Kingdom, and do render the Offenders, and their Orders, Assistants, Comforters, Abettors, Procurers, Maintainers, Fautors, Concealers, and Counsellers, lyable to the Dangers, Penalties, Pains and Forfeitures ordained and provided by the Laws and Statutes of this Kingdom, and may tend, if not seasonably prevented, to the seducing of His Majesties good Subjects, and to the disturbance of that peace and tran∣quillity, which, by the blessing of God upon His Majesties gracious Government, this Kingdom now enjoyes; in the belief whereof, We are further confirmed, by the proceedings of certain Fryers who have been lately Apprehended, and now remain Prisoners at Dublin, namely, Thomas Mackiernan, John Brady, Anthony Gowan, and others the like obstinate Seducers of His Majesties Subjects. And therefore, as it was an Act of Loyalty to His Majesty, in those persons of the Popish Religion, to give Vs the said Information, so it was an Act of Prudence in them, for their own safety and preser∣vation, that they (who are Loyal to His Majesty, a Duty due from them, and from all his Subjects, by the Laws of God and Nature) might not be involved in the guilts of others who fail in that Duty, nor incur the punishments by the Laws of the Land justly due to such Offenders. And whereas We are desirous (in Our tenderness of all His Majesties Subjects of that Religion who are dutifully and peaceably minded) that they may be preserved from that Contagion, and those Dangers, which by the Contrivances and Seducements of the said Denis Magee, John O Hairt, An∣thony Doghertie, Jeoffry Gibbon, Joseph Sall, Anthony Darcy, An∣drew Sall, and others of turbulent spirits are endeavoured; Therefore as a Caution to them, and all others, We judge it fit to give them this Publick forewarning, that so they may avoid the Dangers, which by the Laws of the Land, they may otherwise incut, and do hereby in His Majesties Name; strict∣ly Charge, and Command all persons of what condition so∣ever, That they, or any of them, do not presume to assist, abet, countenance, or conceal any of the said persons, in those unlawful doings; and that they, or any of them, do not ap∣pear,

or come together upon any Summons, Citation or No∣tice whatsoever, from the said Denis Magee, John O Hairt, An∣thony Doghertie, Jeoffry Gibbon, Joseph Sall, Anthony Darcy, An∣drew Sall, or from any of them, or from any other exercising Forreign Iurisdiction in this Kingdom derived from the See of Rome, or make any Collections or Contributions in mo∣ney, or otherwise, for them, or any of them, or obey, or observe any Rules or Orders, or Directions issued, or to be issued by them, or by any of them, as they will answer the contrary at their perils. And these are likewise in His Majesties Name, strictly to Charge, and Command the said Denis Magee, John O Hairt, Anthony Doghertie, Jeoffry Gibbon, Joseph Sall, Anthony Darcy, and Andrew Sall, upon their Duty of Allegiance to His Majesty, to forbear any further proceedings, by virtue of the said Forreign Authority, upon their utmost perils; And also to appear personally before Vs the Lord Deputy (or other chief Governor or Governors of this Kingdom for the time being) and Council, at or before the 27th day of this present July, to answer such matters as are to be objected against them in His Majesties behalf, and not to depart without Our special Licence. And in case they, or any of them, shall fail to ap∣pear, as aforesaid, then all Officers, Civil and Military, and all persons whatsoever whom it may concern, are hereby Au∣thorized and Required, after the said 27th day of this present July, to make diligent search and inquiry for the said Denis Magee, John O Hairt, Anthony Doghertie, Jeoffry Gibbon, Joseph Sall, Anthony Darcy, and Andrew Sall; and wheresoever they, or any of them that shall not appear, as aforesaid, shall be found, to apprehend him or them so not appearing, and to cause him or them so apprehended, to be safely brought before Vs, where∣of they may not fail.

Given at the Council-Chamber in Dublin, the 11th day of Iuly, 1664.

• Ja: Armachanus.
• Mau: Eustace.
• Mich: Dublin.
• Meath.
• Santry.
• Hen: Tichborne.
• Jo: Bysse.
• J: Temple.
• Paul Davys.
• J: Ware.

God Save the King.

The other persons seized in the County of Cavan (upon Account or Informa∣tion to some of the Officers Civil or Military in that County, and this Informa∣tion given by some of the Neighbours) were Thomas Brady, James Gowan, Pa∣trick O Drumma, three Secular Priests; and Thomas Mukiernan, Anthony Gowan, and John Brady, three Franciscans, all leading men amongst the Clergy and Laity in those parts.

The Imprisonment of these six, and Proclamation against those other Church∣men, startled mightily, and cool'd the heat of the opposers of the Remonstrance; because all the persons so either by Proclamation summon••d, or by Surprizal con∣fined, were such.

And the Procurator's kindness and charity to the Prisoners, did also help some∣what to allay their Impetuousness. For though he had been then, and some Months before actually sick; yet, notwithstanding his very great weakness, he visi∣ted them several times, and otherwise also shewed in effect, he was far from enter∣taining any uncharitable disaffection or passion to their persons. Besides, that ha∣ving suddenly after, but during their Imprisonment departed to England, and come to London, he performed his promise to them at his departure, and partly by his endeavours there, and Letters back to Ireland to some persons of quality and power, within a few weeks wrought their Enlargement on Bonds, to appear when called upon. His known successful endeavours also about that time before he left Ireland, as likewise often the three last preceding Years, to hinder the Indictments or Prosecutions of such in several parts of the Countrey, against a great number of poor Catholicks for their Recusancy, did likewise contribute to stop the Ex∣clamations and Forgeries of the Anti-remonstrants.

LXXXII.

FRom London the Procurator (being come thither about the end of August, same Year 1664. next Month after) sent back to Ireland the Reverend Fa∣ther Antony Gearnon, partly to work the Enlargement of the Prisoners, and partly also when so Enlarged, to get the chief Fathers of the Franciscans, or the chief (I mean) in authority or command then amongst them, videlicet, their Definito∣ry, in all seven or eight, to meet in some convenient place, and by Letters, and by the said Gearnon as a Messenger or Agent, to postulate a Visitator of that Province from James de Riddere (a Dutchman, residing in Flanders, and Commissary General then of that Order of the Franciscans; throughout all the Northern and North∣west Kingdoms, amongst which, Ireland, England and Scotland are) and to that purpose, to postulate and present unto him one of those other, of whose faith to the King there was no suspicion. Because otherwise, that Order in Ireland being very numerous and leading, and as to the greater number of them, especially their Superiors, very great Anti-remonstrants, and formerly Nunciotists, it could not be expected to be reduced to reason, their Constitutions not warranting them to change Superiors, before they had a Visitator from the General Superiors, who live still in Forreign parts: and because it would be of some consequence also, to break in time, by their example, the other Regular Orders, and even the Secular Clergy too.

And those Fathers of the Franciscans having met at Multifernan, were by the said Father Gearnon, and Procurator's Letters (but more by that trouble wherein∣to some of them, as above related, were lately fallen) wrought upon to write to Flanders, and to the said de Riddere their Commissary General, desiring him to let them have such an one for their Visitator, as in the point of Loyalty or Fideli∣ty to the King, no exceptions could be taken against him, nay, such an one as should be grateful to His Majesty, and great Ministers. That they would receive none other. And would any such, even Father Redmund Caron himself. For this was their language, and manner of expressing their sense; if I understand their Letters, which, for your satisfaction I give here. They are three several. The first is of Antony O Docharty their President (because then Minister Provincial of

that Order in Ireland) written by him to Father Walsh the Procurator. Second, from the same President, and all the rest of the Definitory, to the self same Procura∣tor. Third also, from them all to the foresaid James de Riddere, the Flemmish or Dutch Commissary General.

The First, as followeth.

SIR,

I Should have esteemed my self ungrateful, had I not returned you many thanks for your Civility in your due Correspondency for the freedom of my Liberty, and for your bountiful Charity, without which, I could neither defray my Lodging at Dublin, nor be able to undertake this Journey. Here we are met, where I have propounded all you desire; and am sorry, F. Valentin hath not appea∣red, I having adjured him by a sure way; and Mr. Knight, by his own way, desi∣ring him not to fail upon any score: his presence would have rendred the business more facile. Mr. Gearnon knows what difficulties we have met withall, as he may inform you. At length we have prevailed so far, that you have these Instruments, which I leave you to peruse: and what is wanting there, I do, as far as in me lieth, supply in mine own Addresses to the Commissary General, which likewise I leave to you unsealed, that you may see the Integrity, and Reality of my Intentions. I send also my obedience to whom you shall fix upon to be employed to his most Reverend Pater∣nity, leaving to you whom you fix upon another grateful to His Majesty, in case of Mr. Caron••s death, or personal inability. Thus assuring you, that I will joyn heart and hand with you in all things that may concern my Loyalty, the good of my Nation, and Order. So I subscribe

SIR,

Your Brother and Servant, Anthony Docharty.

Multifernan 25 Octob. 1664.

The Second thus.

Reverend Father,

WE have received yours of the Third of October, by the Reverend Fa∣ther Anthony Gearnon, to your request in which, we have willingly and heartily condescended, the motive of our meeting being only to do that which is for the Glory of God, Interest of our King, and better Settlement of our Religion and Order: pursuant to which, we send our Address to the Commissary General for our future Commissary and Visitator; and also our Petition to his Grace, though we think not our selves conscious of the least Crime against his mind, or the Laws of the Land; yet as desired, we with as much sub∣missiveness present it, as cordially promise to banish from our hearts and actions, the least thing that should incur the displeasure of His Majesty, or our Lord Lieu∣tenant; to which we would annex our Remonstrance, but that on the instant, we had certain intelligence that the Clergy unanimously do intend to present one very speedily: and my Lord Duke having brought one with him from those of Dublin, we conceive it fit, if not our Duty, yet for better Correspondence, to expect the one, or result of the other; in the mean time, we desire you to plead our excuse (if it be requisite) and to be confident, that we wish you all happiness, and rest, &c.

Donoman 25 of Octob. 1664.

Nomine omnium, ex parte Diffinitorii subscribit. Fr: Jacobus Caius Diffinitor & Secretarius Diffinitorii.

Third and last in Latin, as you see here.

Reverendissime Pater,

PUtabamus, circa medium ultimi elapsi Septembris, posse nos Reverendissi∣mam Paternitatem Vestram de Statu nostrae afflictae & pene extinctae Pro∣vinciae, ac de successu Capituli tunc, ut sperabamus, celebrandi, cum ma∣jori vestra ac nostra satisfactione informare. Sed fefellit nos nostra ex∣pectatio. Nam cum Commissiarius noster, Pater Dionysius Magee, unanimi Pa∣trum consensu, accepta Commissione, Visitationem Provinciae inoffenso pede pene absolcisset, & literae convocatoriae pro celebratione Capituli indies expectaren∣tur, prodiit Edictum praeconis voce, cum ejusdem affixione per omnes Regni ci∣vitates publicatum, quo nonnulli eorum qui Capitulo interesse & praeesse debe∣rent, ad comparendum Dublinii coram Concilio Regio peremptorie citabantur. Parverunt & comparverunt Pater Commissarius, & Pater noster Minister Provincia∣lis. Qui statim nullo praemisso examine custodiae traditi, ac per aliquot menses detenti sunt: ita ut elapso triennio, ac Visitatione ut praemittitur peracta, rati nos ad metam pervenisse, in eadem, seu deteriori conditione, quam ante Visitatio∣nem incaeptam eramus, constitutos nos deprehendimus. Nam noster Commissari∣us aut ingratus, aut saltem suspectus, Excellentissimo nostro Pro-regi videtur, sicuti fuit primus Commissarius Pater Antonius Dalachanus, nec suum exequi munus permittitur. Alium ergo postulant Pater Petrus Valesius & alii, nec non & ipse Prorex. Instant, seu potius urgent, ut alium & nos petamus. Et ad hunc ef∣fectum Pater noster Provincialis & alii ad tempus, cum obligatione iterum intra decem dies comparendi, dimissi sunt, copia facta convocandi Patres Provinciae & Dissinitores, qui huc convenimus consultaturi de oportuno remedio. Ubi, con∣sideratis rerum circumstantiis, & desiderio Excellentissimi Domini Pro-regis satis∣facere cupientes, & majora ex praeteritis conjicientes mala, judicavimus totum ne∣gotium Reverendissimae Paternitatis Vestrae judicio & prudentiae committere. Et quamvis ex concessione Superiorum Generalium, & consuetudine, nostrum esset Commissarium praesentare, & quidem ex eadem Provincia, prout antehac feci∣mus; tamen pro bono pacis & concordiae, nec non ad satisfaciendum Excellentis∣simo Domino nostro Pro-regi, visum est nobis nostro juri, in hac parte, pro hac vice cedere. Et quia ex relatione Venerandi Patris Antonii Gearnoni ad nos Londino destinati, cum instructionibxs praefati, Patris Valesui, habemus quod Rex & Excellentissimus Dominus Pro-rex, velint alium in Commissarium, nempe R.P. Raymundum Caronum: nos volentes morem gerere suae Majestati, roga∣mus Reve endissimam Paternitatem, ut dignetur talem mittere qui suae Majestati & Regimini sit gratus; ingenve profitentes nos non alium, nisi suae Majestati gratum velle, ac spondentes nos acceptaturos quemcunque talem a Reverendissi∣ma Paternitate Vestra mittendum. Dedimus in Conventh nostro Montisfernandi die 24 Octobris 1664.

Reverendissimae Paternitatis Vestrae obsequentissimi filii & servi

• Fr: Petrus Gennor Diffinitor.
• Fr: Antonius de Burgo Diffinitor.
• Fr: Paulus Feranan Diffinitor.
• Fr: Jacobus Cajus Dissinitor.
• Fr: Antonius Docharty Minister Provincialis.
• Fr: Bonaventura Mellaghlin Provinciae Pa∣ter.
• Fr: Jacobus Fitz-Symons Custos.

Besides these Letters from Ireland, Sir Patrick O Moledy, then at London, Resident for the Catholick King, was pleased, by reason not only of his great esteem of, and familiarity with Father Caron; but of his acquaintance likewise, and friendship with the foresaid James de Riddere the Dutch Commissary Gene∣ral, and because also he took the Affairs of his Native Countrey, Ireland, then to heart, was pleased (I say) of himself motu proprio, to write his own Letter al∣so (2d December 1664.) to the same de Riddere, recommending heartily unto him the Institution of Father Caron, and withall giving his Reasons. If I had that Letter, I would insert it here; because, if my memory fail me not, it was most rationally, if not unanswerably urgent. However, we shall see anon de Rid∣dere's Answer to it.

But first I will give you my own Letter also, on the same Subject, and unto the same de Riddere, written in the last place after all the former, as being dated from London the 15th of December same year 1664. And I give it only as it was writ in Latin thus:

Reverendissime Pater,

ETsi a recepta Paternitatis Vestrae Reverendissimae Epistola perbrevi, quam ni fal∣lor dedit Louanio & 6. Aprilis ad me Dublinium, nonnulla acciderint in Hiber∣nica Provincia quae jam dudum significare Paternitati Vestrae animus erat: quia tamen gravi oppressus aegritudine a Septimana Sancta ad finem us∣que mensis Augusti (a qua ne quidem adhuc plene convalui) quodque simul vere∣rer praepossessam ab aliis mentem Paternitatis Vestrae adversus quamcumque relatio∣nem a me solo profecturam, quod denique persuasum habui non visura finem mala istaecce Provinciae nostrae donec aliquis mitteretur, & ab ipso quidem Defi∣nitorio, testis ocularis prudens & integer, qui statum rerum nostrarum probe callerer, coramque adeo significaret Reverendissimae Patrae Vestrae totius Provin∣ciae Fratrum nomine: propterea & calamum & animum cohibui in hunc usque di∣em, quo uti spero salvus jam & incolumis Bruxellae vel Mechliniae comparet ante Pa∣ternitatem vestram Reverendissimam venerandus Pater Antonius Gearnon, a Provin∣ciati ac Definitorio ita, eoque fine missus. Solvit enim ex portu Douerenisi Caletum recta petiturus 12 hujus sub noctem. Itaque modo, ne videar devoti filii obse∣quio aut affectui deesse in communem Patrem Nationis Germano-Belgicae, Bri∣tanicae, annexarumque Provinciarum, Virumque adeo bene meritum de Religione Francisci Universa quacunque per orbem diffusa, scribo: Et, post oscula manu∣um reverendissimarum, benedictionisque apprecationem, scribo cum Patribus re∣liquis conjuncta etiam mea ipsius desideria, vota, preces, imo & (si necessum sit) lachrimas, ut Paternitas Vestra Reverendissima dignetur tandem aliquando misereri Provinciae Vestrae istius in Hibernia, tot retro annis & pene ultra humanam fidem afflictissimae: digneturque tandem ponere finem dissidiis insaelicibus. Eo enim statu modo Provincia ista universa domi est, is nuper concordiae amor ac deside∣rium, ut pacem omnes mutuo ac ultro petant; lassataeque partes utrinque tam diutino ac deplorabili dissidio animos posuerint vindictae punitionisve cujuslibet alterutrorum, inclinatis omnibus omnino, imo paratis juratisque pluribus (veluti sponsoribus) in Amnestiam aeternam, oblivionemve solemni decreto Capituli proxime futuri stabiliendam, idque omnium quorumcunque hactenus ab utravis parte in alteram patratorum. Ita ut neutris unquam possint esse futuris tem∣poribus praejudicio quaevis ante hac patrata. Quo nuncio vix opinor quidquam ex Hibernia posse gratius ad Reverendissimam Paternitatem Vestram scribi. Quapropter oro obnixe Reverendissimam Paternitatem Vestram ut occasionem optimam non pa∣tiatur dilabi, nec tepere, multoque minus frigere sinat calentes impraesentiarum spi∣ritus. Adeoque Patrum desideriis per admodum Reverendum Virum Antonium Gearnon extemplo annuere non gravetur, substituto alio Visitatore idoneo, hoc est, de Religione Seraphica benemerito, Regique, Pro-regique pergrato, qui Ca∣pitulum teneat intra Semestrem (cujus major pars etiam num clapsa est) si com∣mode possit ullatenus; vel quam primum post, aut ubi saltem commode poterit opportunumque Paternitas Vestra judicaverit; facta scilicet illi etiam expressa clausula, seu disertis verbis litterarum patentium, potestate hac extraordinaria; ne videatur alioqui impingere in Statuta Ordinis generalia. Et quoniam Reverendo Patri Gearnon necessum erit Reverendissimam Paternitatem Vestram adhibere fidem, qua saltim parte vir aliquis Majestati Regiae, Pro-regique acceptus postulatur, aequum putavi calculis plurimorum adjicere etiam meum ipsius: praesertim quod plus∣quam caeteris quibuscunque meorum contribulium notiora sunt mihi in hac parte, consilia suae Majestatis, Pro-regisque in Hibernia: sciamque praeterea, & procul omni dubio, ex assensu vel dissensu Paternitatis Vestrae Reverendissimae non solum Ordinis Franciscani in eo Regno libertatem, persecutionemue, sed revera caeterorum om∣nium regularis vitae professorum cujuslibet Instituti, imo Cleri universi Romano-Catholici in eodem Regno plurimam dependere. Adeo videlicet quantum in bel∣lo

Catholicorum seu Consaederatorum Hiberniae nupero valuerint, atque in pre∣senti etiamnum valeant apud Hiberniae Catholicos Franciscani respicit Pro-rex. Adeoque propterea cordi habet, prae omnibus aliis, & primo quidem loco, istius Ordinis pacificam sanamque constitutionem sub ejusmodi Superioribus de quibus Majestati Regiae suspicio nulla possit esse, tranquillitati publicae insidiaturos. Igitur cum nefas existimem dubitare, an cupiat statuatque Paternitas Vestra Reverendissi∣ma ejusmodi Religiosum deputare Visitatorem, seu Commissarium, qui maxime velit ac possit laboranti Religioni succurrere, Catholicam fidem authoritatemque Pontificiam Sedis Apostolicae Romanae, in Hibernia promovere, qui ad pacem fixam & firmam inter fratres conciliandam stabiliendamque sit non solum inclinatissimus, verumetiam prae omnibus aliis usquequaque aptissimus, qui inter Hibernos uni∣versos maxime polleat unus apud utramque partem hactenus dissidentium, & qui de∣nique sit omni exceptione major in doctrina, prudentia, & gravitate morum: non ve∣rebor cum omni qua decet instantia Reverendum Patrem Raymundum Caronum hu∣militer propterea Reverendissimae Paternitati Vestrae obeundo muneri faelicissimo de∣signandum commendare. Quo facto non solum pro futuro cavebit prospiciet{que} autho∣ritati vestrae ipsius prop••iae, hoc est Commissarii Generalis Belgici in Hibernia stabili∣endae, sed Praedecessoris Vestri Reverendissimi Marchantii honorabit memoriam, cineresque & ossa, imo & animam, etsi jam (non dubito) beata requie fruentem inter celicolas, novo quodam gaudio afficiet; si quid ex hac mortali vita defuncto∣rum Spiritus possit afficere. Cujus Reverendissimi Viri audiebatur saepenumero effatum hoc, revera Propheticum, numquam Hiberniae Provinciam restitutum ir•• donec ipsi satisfieret. Satisfiet autem, imo parentabitur Sanctissimi Viri manibus, ac tandem cessabit ira & quassatio, reflorescetque denuo Hibernia, si quem ipse designaverat olim, quemque adeo & absque ulla causa olim oderant nonnulli fi∣liorum, ac temere excusso obedientiae jugo recusaverant, rursum a Reverendissima Paternitate Vestra designetur. Neque enim amplius periculum erit ullius contumaciae in ipsum, ut clare liquet Paternitati Vestrae ex litteris Diffinitorii. Quibus etsi non di∣recte petatur a Patribus, significatur nihilominus & promittitur ab omnibus uni∣versim, recepturos quemcunque talem, hoc est Regi gratum. Neque periculum esse potest: quia jam inter partes conventum est, nihil controversiarum praeteritarum pro tribunali in judicio ventilandum, sed omnia prorsus amicabili compositione finienda. Quamobrem ut a Patre Carono nemini potest esse periculum animad∣versionis ob ejusmodi causas; ita nec modo tergiversationis a quoquam in praestan∣da ipsi obedientia debita. Fortasse nonnulli Patrum Louaniensium, qui statum Pro∣vinciae domi vel ignorant vel non adeo curant, nec Religionis Catholicae, afflicto∣rumque Civium seu damna seu emolumenta ex Commissarii Generalis resolutione pendentia considerant, obstabunt nonnihil, si possint, ipsius designationi. Fortasse etiam unus vel alter ex ipsa Provincia, quorum corda nec dum sunt monitis aut flagellis istis mirabilibus dierum annorumque nuperorum emollita, tentabunt litteris aut nunciis impedire; nequicquam pensata communi utilitate sequutura de∣signationem ejusmodi.

At ubi semel audierint designatum, non audebunt reluctari contra multitudinem destituti patronicio Definitorum & Ministri. Nec enim reperisset Pater Caronus unum in Provincia qui resisteret quando primum delegabatur a Marchantio (etsi non minus tum flagrantibus recenti odio ac vindicta partibus, quam utrimque po∣tentibus & suorum fratrum ipsius nostri instituti numero & civium Laicorum, ar∣matorumque percinacia, furente scilicet universa gente in perniciem mutuam bello plus quam civili) non tamen inquam reperisset unum qui resisteret, si Definitores ac Minister qui tum erant non decepissent fallaciis, imo non compulissent minis ac censuris ad reluctandum caeteros qui a parte ipsorum postea steterant. Modo au∣tem penitus amotum est istud Patrum Definitorii ac Provincialis terriculamentum. Jam a parte Reverendi Caroni ita stant qui successere, ut plures ipsum prae omni∣bus aliis petant, universi autem contenti sint recipere; etsi nonnulli, qui vix nu∣merum faciunt, mallent potius alium. Haec vero non propterea sic diduco & pre∣mo (testis est mihi scrutator cordium Deus) quod mea quidquam intersit Caro∣num potius nominari quam alium quemlibet eorum quorum aliquem delegare ne∣cessum

erit, si Ordinem nolit Reverendissima Paternitas Vestra extinctum in Provin∣cia. Si enim de erigendis tropheis ducendisque hostibus in triumpho; vel si, ut planius loquar, de adversariis fratribus cogitarem subjiciendis, cogendisque ad palino∣diam, & exauthorandis omnino ad satisfaciendum animo vindictae cupido; si de promotione vel mea ipsius, vel eorum qui a parte mea steterant inflexibiliter; si quidquam denique tentationum humanarum me moveret, pro alio potius quam Care∣no interpellanda mihi esset Paternitas Vestra Reverendissima. Quod itaque rem hanc sic diduco, sic urgeo, sola ratio est vel saltem praecipua, quod sciam aliis praese∣rendum esse, in praesentibus rerum circumstantiis; tum quia caeteros omnes excellit prudentia, moderatione, ac scientia, imo & speciali quadam aptitudine ad controver∣sias Hiberniae componendas (ut pote qui non solum apud Patres eos, quos Reve∣rendissimus Marchantius olim obedientes vocaverat, cunctosque novioris prosapiae Hibernos plurimum polleat, sed quietiam apud antiquioris Originis populum, fra∣tresque ejusdem Sanguinis, qui modo longe majorem numerum in Provincia faci∣unt, prae omnibus aliis, qui forent in praesenti conditione rerum nominandi, potentior & gratior est, generaliter loquendo) tum etiam quia Regi, Pro-regique Hiberniae, ut Angliae etiam ipsius Cancellario, non solum notissimus sed gratissimus est. Ac∣cedit quod maximi momenti debet esse, atque ex nunc dictis consectarium est, Re∣gem, Pro-regem, & Cancellarium pessime laturos repulsam Patris Caroni: quod probe sciant aliud non posse ipsius designationi obstare, quam Conscientiae bonae & Catholicae testimonium datum, hoc est fidelitatis Regi proprio in temporalibus ob∣servandae, & a quibuscumque profecto Subditis Catholicis, etiam Ecclesiasticis & Religiosis (quantumvis adversariam Romanae communionem profiteatur Majestas Regia) observandae Professionem factam. Quodque sequitur ulterius, experturos inde Patres diminutionem affectus Regii non modo erga. Ordinem Franciscanum, reliquosque etiam Professores aliorum Ordinum regularium, sed & Glerum uni∣versum, imo populum ipsum Hiberniae Catholicum. Atque utinam hic sisteret ma∣lum: etsi in aliis Imperii Britannici Regnis exignus Catholicorum, si comparentur, numerus est. Aliud non habeo quod annectam nisi vota similiter & preces, ut Re∣verendissima Paternitas Vestra dignetur in casu mortis, infirmitatis, aut alterius for∣tasse impedimenti, si quod aliud possit accidere, Patri Carono alios quosdam tres aut quatuor, unum videlicet ex qualibet istius Insulae Provincia temporali, in ipsis litte∣ris patentibus designare, qui eo ordine quo nominabuntur in iisdem patentibus suc∣cedant, ac possint munia Visitatoris principalis obire, quilibetque in praecedentis defectu, atque adeo Capitulum ipsum indicere & absolvere per confirmationem more solito. Venerandus Pater Antonius Gearnonus referet viva voce qui nam sunt illi alii quibus Majestas Regia & Pro-rex in tali defectu R. P. Caroni permit∣tet libere ac pacifice visitandi, tenendique & absolvendi Provincialis Capituli mu∣nus. Et ne forte sit ullo modo in istorum nominatione cunctabundus idem veneran∣dus Pater Geornonus, dignetur Paternitas Vestra Reverendissima quos ego novi post Caronum acceptabiles fore Pro-regi, advertere. Sunt autem hi: pro Conacia Reverendus Pater Valentinus Browne, ante annos triginta Ministeriatus officio per∣functus, Lector (Jubilatus ni fallor) Sacrae Theologiae, Sanctusque vita & Ser∣mone, ut aetate Septuagenarius ad minimum: pro Lagenia R. P. Jacobus Fitz-Simons, modo Custos Provinciae, & Guardianus Dublinii, vir etiam sane Religiosus ac Doctus: ex Ultonia venerandus Pater Patricius Carr, olim ac diu Londini Con∣fessarius Legati Regis Catholici, nunc vero in Provincia Guardianus in Conventu Carrigfergusiii homo similiter optimae existimationis: ac tandem ex Momonia venerandus Pater Franciscus Coppingerus, item Sacrae Theologiae Lector & Corcagii Guardianus, vir itidem Deo devotus & mundo exemplaris. Fecerit sua Paternitas Re∣verendissima in hac re ac negotio toto quod melius ac prudentius existimaverit statuendum. Ego quod ad me ipsum attinet humillime parebo. Sed quod felici∣ter succedent aliter statuta quae impraesentiarum tractantur nostra, spondere non audeo. Ac propterea non celo, non sileo quidquam sed omnia verissime pando: ne alioqui ex defectu clarae ac indubitatae informationis relationisve rerum nostra∣rum, speique metusque non solum Ordinis Franciscani sed Cleri universi & Catho∣licorum omnium Hiberniae, contingat (quod tamen avertat caelitus numen) im∣pingere

denuo Paternitatem Vestram Reverendam. Hoc solum praeterea addidero, quod pene memoria prorsus excidit, me numquam proposuisse Patribus Hiberniae aut Caronum aut quemvis alium ex nostratibus, seu ex ipsius Provinciae filiis, Natione, aut Religione, sed externum aliquem ex aliena Provincia (neque per∣sonam, neque Provinciarum designando) secundum leges ac praxim Ordinis ubi∣que terrarum, Hibernia sola excepta, semper desideravisse, ursisseque dum spes ulla erat, allegatis in eum finem duabus hisce rationibus. Prima, quod privi∣legii ab ipsis praetensi causa plane impraesentiarum cesset, videlicet persecutio: cum, si velint ipsi, manifestum sit, posse a Regia Majestate Pro-regeque permissionem obtineri qua libere queat obiri Visitatio & Capitulum celebrari. Secunda, quod lite fratrum durante indecisa quomodolibet seu per sententiam Judicis seu per compositionem amicabilem inter partes, non possit aequum videri eundem fore Judicem & partem. Nulli vero dubium esse qui res Hiberniae non ignorat, im∣possibile omnino esse aliquem instituere Hibernorum ipsorum qui alterutrius par∣tis fautor aut assecla non fuerit. His enim rationibus donec inter ipsas partes conventum erat nuper de abolenda omnino (absque alterutrius partis aut cu∣juslibet sequacis praejudicio) memoria praeteritorum omnium, etiam absque in∣terventu Judicis (quod ad controversias istas attinet) militavi contra Patres ad∣versarios. Nec mutavi animum donec Londinum ultimo Septembri & Octobri varias ad me scripsit Epistolas Minister Provincialis ex Hibernia, quibus voluit as∣sentirem pro hac vice Commissario ex ipsa Provincia & consensu partium am∣barum deligendo, petendoque a Reverendissima Paternitate Vestra, signanter autem Patrem Caronum exprimens, omnibusque aliis praeponens. Huic Ministri deside∣rio praeter superius dicta duplex quaedam alia consideratio accessit. Altera plus∣quam abunde mihi nota fratrum Provinciae, si longe majorem numerum spectes, aversio multo maxima ab extraneo quolibet Visitatore. Altera vero, Pro-regis Excellentissimi Ormundi mens mihi paulo post clare & absque ambagibus ullis ab ipsomet declarata: nempe si quisquam externus, hoc est Regi nostro non sub∣ditus adveniret, eundem fore impraesentiarum multo magis obnoxium suspicioni, adeoque non sine pactis quibusdam observandis progressurum nisi periculo capi∣tis. En Pater mi Reverendissime, quibus adductus eram argumentis ut vel Pa∣tribus in Diffinitorio congregatis, vel aliis forte seorsim, sive per Nuncium, sive per Epistolam aliquid judicii mei ipsius de persona postulanda, signanter autem de R. P. Carono intimaverim. In quem quia subito fama erat convenisse Pa∣tres, atque Pro-rex noster audiverat adeo ut cuncta in illo nupero Montisfernandi congressu tractabantur, qualiterque certo convenerant in personam ullam Regiae Majestati gratam, ut Caronum esse omnibus constat: jam non ita liberum sit mihi de alio quoquam cogitare; praesertim cum agnoscatur hic esse talis etiam, contra quem non sit ulla exceptio Canonica vel in Ordine, vel in Ecclesia, ac calis praete∣rea qui maxime omnium qu praesentari possunt obeundo muneri sit idoneus. Caete∣rum quod scribatur, ut intelligo, ad Reverendam Paternitatem Vestram, designatos ante hac nuper Visitatores nec positive gratos aut ingratos esse Pro-regi, nescio plane quo errore scriptum sit. Constat enim ingratissimos esse ac fuisse ambos, & positive quidem. Ac Dalachanum (certe ni ego ipse vehementer interces∣sissem) de expresso & particulari Judicum ordine quaerendum fuisse ad carceres & furcas, utpote Majestatis laesae inter primos eximie reum (ut fatetur ipse idem Dalaghanus) nec tamen ita reum quod Sacerdos, aut Ecclesiasticus, vel etiam Commissarius Fratrum esset, sed quod a multis retroactis annis proditor & per∣duellis, nimirum in captura Regiae arcis Athloniensis, quodque praeterea in con∣fesso esset eundem etiam caetera durante bello Confaederatorum Catholicorum Hiberniae, sequacem fuisse tenacissimum ac promotorem egregium factionis Eu∣genianae, Nuntiatistarunque, uti vocantur. Ac porro constat statutum esse Pro∣regi, neminem ejusmodi hominum permittere seu admittere ad clavum regiminis in Ordine antequam sufficientia praestiterint argumenta fidelitatis in futurum; etiamsi interventu meo velit in privata conditione quiescentibus ita veniam da∣re praeteritorum, ut nec vitae nec libertatis periculum queat esse, modo praestent

Regi posthac juramentum fidelitatis in temporalibus. Atque ita Reverendissi∣me Pater finem facio Epistolae, quam adeo prolixam fecit rei ipsius gravitas, necessitasque, ac difficultas etiam replicandi satis tempestive (ob interjecta nem∣pe spacia terrarumque mariumque) sicubi forte Paternitas Vestra Reverendis∣sima haereret, non intellectis plene circumstantiis. Restat ergo solum repetere vota ac preces, quod identidem facio, qua par est humilitate ac instantia pro R. Carono, manus Reverendissimas deosculans rursum, quoque etiam decet Reve∣rentia, cultu, & affectu benedictionem orans Londini XVIIII. Cal. Jan. M.DC.LXIV.

Reverendissimae Paternitatis Vestrae Humillimus Filius, & Subditus Frater Petrus Valesius.

But notwithstanding all these Letters, even those before from Ireland, and other Reasons whatsoever given by him that delivered them, viz. the above Father Antony Gearnon; yet forasmuch as the terms of the common Letter from the Definitory to the said de Riddere were so couch'd, and the Preamble of it such as you see it, i. e. such as sufficiently intimated they desired no such matter willingly: and forasmuch as some of them, or others of their affections for them, immediately advertising their friends at Rome, had a Petition exhibited to Cardinal Francis Barberin (Pre∣sident of the Congregation de propaganda fide, and Protector too of the Fran∣ciscan Order throughout the World) representing to him indifferently Lyes and Truths in this matter; and wrought with him to send the said Petition, and his own Commands also by Letter to the foresaid Commissary General de Riddere (residing then at Mechlin in Brabant) enjoyning him not to Commission Father Caron, or any of the Remonstrants: And forasmuch lastly, as these Letters of Cardinal Barberin were received by de Riddere some dayes before Father Antony Gearnon was arrived at Mechlin: The said Commissaries Answer to Father Gearnon was, That the Affairs of the Franciscans in Ireland, were by the Minister general (of the whole Order throughout the World) residing at Madrid in Spain, reserved to himself, as to the determination of the grand Controversies amongst them; and therefore nothing could be done by him in Flanders, being his hands were tyed by a superiour power; only that he would give Letters and Licence to him the said Father Gearnon, if he pleased, to go to Spain, and apply himself to the said Minister general.

By which Answer, as the said Commissary General de Riddere politickly decli∣ned the imputation and charge might be otherwise laid at his door for refusing to appoint as Visitor any one of those who were by his Majesty or great Ministers accounted truly Loyal, and as such, might have more permission or connivence than others: and as he warily conceal'd the true cause, which was the said Letter of Cardinal Francis Barberin, and his own fear of losing himself in the Roman Court, if contrary to the said Letter he had appointed, that is, Commissioned any of the known Remonstrants: so also Father Gearnon saw well enough, it was to no pur∣pose for himself to go to Spain, though recommended by the said Commissaries Letters. For, by dealing privately with de Riddere's then Secretary, he under∣stood the true cause, and got a Copy both of that Letter of Cardinal Barberin to the said Commissary, and of the Commissaries Answer thereupon to Barberin; which Answer was, in effect, That he would never Commission any of the Remon∣strants.

Of which Answer and fixed Resolution of de Riddere against those Remon∣strants in general, none at all (of such of them as would not retract) excepted, and even (I say) against them upon that account only of their being such, or having conscientiously signed, and unalterably (till then) adhered to their signa∣ture of that Loyal Formulary: that the Reader may be throughly convinced, I give here at length the now mention'd Letter of Cardinal Barberin, with the Peti∣tion or Memorial presented to him, both sent by himself to de Riddere: and withal give this Gentlemans Answer to his Eminency.

That of Barberin was in Latin, as followeth.

Reverende admodum Pater,

EXponitur mihi ex parte Provinciae Hiberniae confusio magna quam causaret deputatio Patris Raymundi Caroni, sive alicujus alterius ex illa factione in Commissarium, sicuti fusius habetur in memoriali his adjuncto. Quare vivaciter moneo quatenus abstinere sibi complaceat a tali dispositione, cum illa cederet in detrimentum Religionis Catholicae, & ipsiusmet Ordinis detrimen∣tum. Confido quod Paternitas Vestra devotas suas considerationes circa rem hanc habebit. Quapropter illam nolo fortius premere, expectans quidnam factum fue∣rit, dum interea temporis Dominum Deum rogo ut ipsi assistat cum sua sancta gra∣tia. Romae xi. Novembris, 1664.

Franciscus Cardinalis Barberinus.

In a Postscript the Cardinal added with his own proper hand, thus:

Non possum credere quod Paternitas Vestra de tali subjecto cogitaverit. Sed bene mihi persuadeo, quod non deputabit illum, quia sic requirit servitium Dei.

In English, thus.

Very Reverend Father,

WHat great confusion would arise out of the Commissioning Father Red∣mund Caron, or any other of that Faction, is on the behalf of the Pro∣vince of Ireland represented unto me, as may be seen at large in the Memorial hereunto annex'd. Wherefore I do vehemently admonish you to abstain from any such disposition, because it would redound to the detriment not only of Catholick Religion, but of your very Franciscan Order. I do confide much, that your Paternity will devote some of your considerations to this matter. Which is the reason I will not urge more strongly at present, but expect what your self will do herein, while in the interim I beseech the Lord God to assist you with his holy grace. Rome xi. Novemb. 1664.

Postscript also rendred in English, thus:

I cannot believe that your Paternity hath thought of any such subject. But I well enough persuade my self, that you will not depute him (viz. Father Caron) because the service of God requires you should not.

The Memorial in Latin.

Eminentissime ac Reverendissime Domine,

EX parte Provinciae Hiberniae Ordinis Fratrum Minorum strictioris observan∣tiae humiliter exponitur Dominationi Vestrae Eminentissimae Fratrem Pe∣trum Valesium ejusdem Provinciae & instituti Filium, cum suis adhaeren∣tibus conari obtinere a Patre Jacobo Riddere Commissario Nationali Bel∣gico patentes pro Patre Raymundo Carono suo complice, ut tamquam Commissari∣us Visitator visitare possit istam Provinciam, non obstante quod per alium Visitato∣rem legitime institutum Provincia illa jam sit visitata; sed ad instantiam praedicti Patris Valesii ipse legitimus Visitator & Minister Provincialis cum multis aliis Religiosis sit carceri ab Haereticis mancipatus, eo quod Protestationi iniquae a prae∣nominato Valesio & suis consociis, contra authoritatem Pontificiam editae, subscri∣bere non voluerunt. Unde omni qua par est submissione supplicatur Dominationi Vestrae Eminentissimae, ut dignetur praecipere supradicto Commissario Nationali, ut nullatenus similes patentes Patri Raymundo Caron aut ulli alteri ejusdem factio∣nis concedere, aut illis ulla ratione favere audeat, quandoquidem id summopere vergit in Catholicae Fidei detrimentum, quam Deus optimus, &c.

The same Memorial or Petition rendred in English, thus.

Most Eminent and Reverend Lord,

ON the behalf of the Province of Ireland of St. Francis's Order, 'tis hum∣bly shewn to your most Eminent Lordship, That Fr. Peter Walsh, a Son of the same Province and Order, does, with his Adherents, endeavour to obtain from Father James Riddere, the Belgick Commissary National Patents for Father Redmund Caron, his Companion, that he (the said Redmund) as Commissary Visitator, may visit the said Province; notwithstanding, that the same Province be already visited by another Visitor lawfully instituted, and that, at the instance of the said Father Walsh, even this Visitor himself, and Minister Pro∣vincial, with many other Religious, be clap't in Prison by the Hereticks, because they would not subscribe the wicked Protestation, published by the said Walsh, and his Consorts, against the Papal Authority. Wherefore, with all due submission, it is supplicated to your most Eminent Lordship, That you vouchsafe to command the said National Commissary, that by no means he give such Patents either to Father Redmund Caron, or to any other of the same Faction, nor in any other manner dare to favour them, whereas it would mightily harm the Catholick Faith, which the Lord God, &c.

De Riddere the Commissaries Answer in Latin to the Cardinal.

Eminentissime ac Reverendissime Domine, Protector noster,

EXistenti mihi in anxietate magna ad bene resolvendum contra istos Protestan∣tes Hibernos, qui videntur omnino Provinciam suam velle perdere & de∣struere mediis illicitis & irreligiosis utendo in finem ut aliquis ex ista fa∣ctione fiat istius Provinciae Visitator, supervenit paterna Dominationis Ve∣strae Eminentissimae mihi multum consolatoria, quae revera me non parum fortifica∣vit ad concludendum resolutionem meam conceptam, & in Universitate Louaniensi ac in aliis partibus consultatam, Ministroque Generali per litteras communicatam; quae erat, & fixa manebit, quod scilicet nullus istiusmodi Factionis umquam a me alicui rei applicetur, multo minus Commissarius Visitator designaretur, ob detri∣mentum quod exinde Religioni Catholicae, quin & Ordini nostro accidere posset; sicuti ex nunc videmus quam temerarie Visitatorem & Assistentem suum, a me de∣legatos & missos, simul & Patrem Provincialem aliosque timoratos Patres, qui illos

a me requisiverant, incarcerarunt, illosque coeperunt ad petendum & admittendum Patrem Raymundum Caronum Commissarium Visitatorem Provinciae suae, depu∣tandumque aliquem ad me pro hujusmodi approbatione, qui tamen necdum adve∣nit aut comparuit. Ego sane ex parte mea, in hac materia me conformabo pater∣no judicio & consilio Eminentissimae Dominationis Vestrae, cujus benevolentiae & benignitati debitas gratias humiliter refero pro honore quem ex mandatis suis re∣cipio; rogans omnipotentem Deum ut personam Eminentissimae Dominationis Vestrae ad multos annos conservet pro bono publico suae Ecclesiae & Ordinis no∣stri, sicuti omnes indigemus.

Mechliniae, 18. Decembris, 1664.

Eminentissima ac Reverendissimae Dominationis Vestrae Humillimus ac devotissimus Servus Frater James de Riddere.

The same Answer in English.

Most Eminent and Reverend Lord, our Protector,

AT my being in great anxiety how to resolve well against those Irish Prote∣stants, who seem to design the utter ruine and destruction of their Pro∣vince, by using unlawful and irreligious means to get one of their Faction to be made Visitor of that same Province, your most Eminent Lordships Paternal Letter, so comfortable to me, came to my hands. This Letter truly did not a little strengthen me for concluding my preconceived resolution, even that resolu∣tion which was before consulted in the Ʋniversity of Louain, and other places, and withal by Letters communicated to the Minister General; which also was, and shall remain fixed, viz. That none of that Faction shall ever at any time be applied by me to any Function, much less design'd Commissary Visitator, because of the detriment which might thence happen not only to Catholick Religion, but also to our (Fran∣ciscan) Order: as we behold already, how temerariously they have imprisoned the Visitor, and his Assistant (delegated, and sent by me) together with the Minister Provincial, and other obedient Fathers, who desired the said Visitor and Assistant from me; and how also they constrain'd those good Fathers to postulate and admit Father Redmund Caron, for Commissary Visitor of their Province, and likewise to depute one to me for obtaining my approbation; who nevertheless hath not yet ap∣peared, nor arrived. I, for my own part, verily shall in this matter conform my self to the Paternal judgment and counsel of your most Eminent Lordship, humbly rendring all due thanks to your benevolence and benignity, for the Honour I receive from your Commands; and praying the Almighty God to preserve your most Emi∣nent Lordships person for many years, to the publick good of his Church, and our Order, whereof we all stand in need.

Mechlin, the 18th. of December, 1664.

Your most Eminent and Reverend Lordships Most humble and devoted Servant, Fr: James de Riddere.

In which Answer of this Commissary General de Riddere to Cardinal Barberin, you may note,

I. How both to flatter the Cardinal, and render the Remonstrants more hate∣ful, he no less equivocately, than scornfully, stiles them here, Those Irish Protestants; albeit indeed without any other ground, than that the Formulary, or Profession of Allegiance subscribed by them, is, by reason of some parts thereof, intituled also a Protestation, the whole Title of it being, The humble Remonstrance, Acknowledg∣ment, Protestation, and Petition of the Roman-Catholick Clergy of Ireland.

II. What a general consultation was held in so many parts, and so many per∣sons abroad in Europe, concerning that Formulary, as if it struck at the very being of the Papacy.

III. That in speaking of the Louain University, he relates wholly to the Cen∣sure of the Theological Faculty there, given in the year 1662. Decemb. 30. against that same Irish Formulary, or Remonstrance: which Censure you have page 102. of this First Part.

IV. That amongst those other parts (wherein consultations were held about that Formulary) he meant not only Rome and Spain, but Antwerp also, and the National Congregation (as they call it) of the Franciscan Provincials, Low-Coun∣treymen High-Germans, English, Irish, Scots, Danes of that Order and Belgick Nation (for all the said Franciscans are, in their General Statutes, and according to the division of their Order into several Nations and Families, comprehended under the Title of Natio Belgica) held at Antwerp in the year 1663. Septemb. 18. And that consequently the said Commissary General meant, or related here unto the Solemn Act or Declaration made in that Belgick. Assembly against the Irish Franciscan Subscribers of the said Formulary, even that very Declaration which you have page 116. of this same First Part.

V. That notwithstanding such severe Resolutions taken against them, yet this good Commissary was so just, as not to speak one word hereof to the said Father Gearnon, who was nevertheless so much concern'd, as being himself one of the first Subscribers; and this also not unknown to the said Commissary. Nay, so just, as neither to shew, nor mention, nor take notice to him of any such thing as a Pe∣tition or Memorial given either at Rome to the foresaid Cardinal Protector, or elsewhere to any against the said Remonstrants. And yet so just, as not to enquire of him once concerning matter of Fact in that Petition, although reflecting so particularly and highly on them all, as to that (I mean) of imprisoning the Visi∣tor, Assistant, Minister Provincial, and others. And further yet so just, as neither to have told the same Father Gearnon as much as one syllable of that Antwerp Declaration, albeit so lately and solemnly before sign'd by himself the said Com∣missary.

Finally, so just, as neither then nor after from Mechlin, or elsewhere, nor before or after from Antwerp, or other place, not even by Letter, or Message, or in any other manner, to give notice to the Subscribers of any such either Declara∣tions made, or Resolutions taken against them. Yea, so manifestly, and almost in∣credibly unjust (and not only so unbrotherlike, unfatherlike, unjudgelike) as continually after for many years to proceed out of such Declarations and Resolu∣tions, and proceed against unheard, undefended, unsummon'd, absent men, and men totally also ignorant then, as most of them are to this present, of any such either Declarations or Resolutions; and yet also to conceal from them, with all Art imaginable, those very Declarations made, and Resolutions taken against them.

Pursuant to which strange method of Dissimulation, the said Commissary thought fit to answer even his own old and much both esteemed and honoured Friend Sir Patrick O Moledy's Letter, that, I mean, before mention'd, written in behalf of Father Redmund Caron, and for the publick good of the Franciscan Or∣der and Romish Clergy in general of Ireland. For he answer'd thus:

Excellentissime Domine,

NON poterat gratius mihi nuntium perferri, quam Vestrae de secunda Decembris, cessare videlicet lites & contentiones meorum fratrum in Hi∣bernia, quos ita desidero charitate unictos, ut omnes totius Regni uniant in Charitate Dei, foveantque in debita fidelitate Regi suo, cujus benevo∣lum animum expertus sum ab aliquot annis, quando habui honorem ipsi manus os∣culandi Coloniae Agripinae. Unde & gratulor illi plurimum de Regnis hereditariis recuperatis (quod tunc suae Majestati apprecabar) quae exopto ut diu & felici∣ter regat, ad quod sacrificiis & precibus per me & meos collaborare conabor; nec non & obsequiis, si quae praestare foret in mea potestate. Nuper monitus per Vestras de Commissariis minus gratis a me deputatis pro Visitatione Patrum & Fratrum in Provincia Hiberniae, statim suspendi Commissionem datam, donec juxta Vestras in Comitiis ordinis Generalibus de talibus provideretur, qui forent Pro∣vinciae utiles, & omnibus grati, de quo etiam monui Reverendissimum Ministrum Generalem jam defunctum, qui eandem suspensionem approbavit, sicut & praesen∣tem monui, ut dignaretur afflictae Provinciae subvenire, vel mihi mandare, quid∣nam ea in re a me actum vellet; super quo nullum hactenus responsum accepi. Unde manus habeo ligatas in re ad Capitulum & Superiores meos devoluta, quorum petito beneplacito, temerarium & irreverens foret progredi in re tanti momenti, & considerationis, non expectato responso eorum quorum principaliter interest. Confido interim quod hoc non poterit suae Majestati displicere, cui ausim asseverare nihil negandum a Superioribus Ordinis quod secundum Deum & sta∣tum nostrum praestari poterit; ad quod ego etiam pro viribus, omni sinceritate & diligentia collaborare non omittam; supponens, quod juxta decretum Dilatio∣nis Capituli Provincialis datum in Comitiis generalibus, illi qui actu sunt Supe∣riores possint & debeant in regimine suo permanere donec aliter ab Ordine dis∣ponatur. Quod credo Regiae Majestati non posse esse ingratum, quandoquidem il∣los hactenus fideles expertus sit, & jam ostendant se velle in omnibus possibilibus complacere & obedire, prout & ego desidero, exoptans salutares annum novum appropinquantem.

Dabam Mechliniae xxix Decembris 1664.

Excellentissime Domine, Humillimus Servus Jacobus Riddere Commis. Generalis Nationis Germano Belgicae.

In English, thus.

Most Excellent Sir,

THere could not be more grateful News brought me, than that of yours of the second of December, to wit, of the ceasing of all Differences and Con∣tentions betwixt my Brethren in Ireland: whom I desire to be so united, as they may unite all the people of that Kingdom in the love of God, and cherish them in that fidelity which is due to their King, whose benevolent inclinati∣ons I have experienced some years since, when I had the honour to kiss His Hands at Colen. Wherefore I Congratulate Him the recovery of His Hereditary King∣doms (which then I wished to His Majesty) and which that He may long and hap∣pily govern, I now again wish; and, that he may, shall endeavour to obtain from God by my Sacrifices and Prayers, and by those of mine, as likewise by all other services, if to render any such it be in my power. Being lately advertised by your Letters, that such Commissaries as I had deputed for the Visitation of the Fathers and Bre∣thren in the Province of Ireland, were less grateful, I presently suspended the Com∣mission

given, until, according to your Letters, in the General Chapter (which was then at Rome) provision were made of such as might be grateful to all, and profi∣table to the Province. Whereof also I advertised the most Reverend Minister Ge∣neral who then was, but now is out of Office; as likewise I have him that now is, That he might be pleased to help that afflicted Province, or command me what he would have done by me in that business. Whereupon, as yet, I have received no Answer; which is the Reason my hands are tyed in a matter devolved to the Chapter, and my Superiors: Whose pleasure being desired, it were temerity and irreverence to pro∣ceed in a business of so great weight and consideration, without expecting their Answer who are principally interested. In the mean time, I hope this cannot dis∣please His Majesty, to whom, I dare say, nothing shall be denied, which by the Laws of God, and our Profession, may be done. For which, I will also to my power, and with all sincerity and diligence, not omit to labour; supposing, that according to the Decree of Dilation of the Provincial Chapter, given in the General Chapter, such as are yet actually Superiors, may, and ought to continue in their Offices, till it be otherwise disposed by the Order: Which, I believe, cannot be ungrateful to His King∣ly Majesty, whereas he hath experienced them hitherto faithful, and that now they shew themselves willing to please and obey him in all possible things, as I also desire, wishing the new approaching Year may be happy.

Mechlin 29. Decemb. 1664.

Most Excellent Sir,

Your humble Servant, James Riddere, Commissary General of the Belgick Nation.

Which dissembling unjust procedure of the said Commissary, being throughly considered by Father Antony Gearnon, sent over of purpose to him, and more especially reflected upon as soon as he privately got both intelligence, and a Copy as well of the foresaid Antwerp Declaration, as of those late Letters of Barberin to de Riddere, and de Riddere••s in answer to Barberin; he would lose no more time in pursuit of his negotiation with de Riddere, but went to Louain to try whe∣ther from Dr. Sinnick, or any other, he might get a Copy or sight of the first long Censure of the Faculty Theological there against the Remonstrants. But his endeavours herein also were fruitless. For he could have no more satis∣faction nor reason from any there, but this brief sentence of Doctor Sinnick from his own mouth, Misimus Romam: Placuit Pontifici: reservat in su•• tempora.

Only this little further satisfaction he had, though not as to that matter, That upon occasion of reasoning with the said Sinnick, and other Irish there, and of a Report thereof then come to the then Internuncio at Bruxels, Hieronimus de Vec∣chiis, Abbas Montis Regalis, he was sent for by him: and though superciliously enough dealt with at first by this Lord Internuncio, in order both to Father Ca∣ron, Father Walsh, and himself too; yet at last, and when the storm was over, was desired by him to work with both the said Fathers Caron and Walsh, to take a journey over to Flanders to himself, and their Superiours in the Order, to reason the case with them, and with the Divines of Louain; and that then himself would not be wanting to make Father Caron Visitor of his Order in Ireland, as was desi∣red by Father Walsh, and others.

LXXXIII.

BUT forasmuch as this proposition, or desire of the Internuncio was made in December, the same year 1664. or at least in January then immediately following; and consequently after some little personal acquaintance he had had with the above Fathers Caron and Walsh: I must return back to the month of September that self-same year, and let the Reader understand,

How, soon after the Procurator's coming to London in August immediately preceding, the said Bruxel Internuncio Hieronymus de Vecohiis (having first gone to Paris to the Cardinal Legate Chisi, Nephew to the last Pope Alexander the VII.) arrived incognito at London (about this time, or in the month of Septem∣ber) taking that for his way to Bruxels.

And how the Procurator, hearing by chance of his being there, so as I have said incognito; and that he was to make no stay, but immediately to depart for Flan∣ders, made it his work, by all the means he could, to have a Conference with his Lordship, and expostulate with him for so many of his Letters to Ireland and England, and for those too of Cardinal Francis Barberin, against the Remonstrance, or that Protestation of fidelity to the King, presented to His MAJESTY in 1661. and particularly for endeavouring by his said Letters to make the Subscri∣bers, and entitle them odiously a Sect, and the Valesian Sect, as from the Latin Sir∣name of the Procurator, which is Valesius: and for endeavouring consequently to withdraw His MAJESTIES Catholick Subjects from their obedience and faith to His MAJESTY, and prepare them for a Rebellion in such contingencies, or on such specious pretexts as the discontents of many, or some of them would approve, and the Court of Rome, or some of their inconsiderate Divines and Cano∣nists would no less allow.

How also the Procurator, having in his company Father Caron, came at last to a Conference with his Lordship, in the Back-yard at Sommerset-house: Father Patrick Magin, one of Her Majesties Chaplains coming along with his Lordship, and be∣ing present all the Discourse; but none else, besides the said Father Redmund Caron.

How this Discourse continued three hours, from Ten a Clock in the morning, to One in the Afternoon.

How therein (after due Salutes) the Procurator immediately gave his Lordship a full account of the occasion, motives, ends, and effects too of the Remonstrance, continuing his Speech for half an hour, or thereabouts: and concluding, That be∣ing it was apparent enough, that in the said Remonstrance, or Act of Recognition and Petition thereunto annexed, there was nothing but what was consonant to Chri∣stian Religion, and as such maintain'd expresly even in our dayes, and at that very present, by the Gallican Church and Universities, he could not but wonder much, his Lordship and Cardinal Francis Barberin should write such Letters (as they had) to the Nobility, Gentry, and Clergy of Ireland, against that innocent Formulary.

How the Internuncio answering, That his Holiness had condemn'd it; the Pro∣curator replied, That besides the Non-appearance of any such Papal condemna∣tion, it was plain enough, his Holiness was misinformed; not only concerning the occasion, expediency, necessity, ends and use of that Instrument, but the very mat∣ter also contained therein, even as Paul the V. formerly, in Anno 1606. in those of the Oath of Allegiance had been misinformed, and consequently abused by Father Parsons the English Jesuite, and by Cardinal Bellarmine, and those other six or seven Theologues deputed by that Pope, to report their sense of the said Oath of Allegiance, made by King James by occasion of the Powder-plot Treason.

How hereupon the Internuncio, with some anger, rejoin'd shortly, Ego informavi, I am he that inform'd his Holiness: and the Brocurator to him again near as short∣ly, But with your good leave, my Lord, you have not rightly, nor well informed; giv∣ing withal, his convincing Reasons.

How Father Caron adding to the Procurator's answer, and, in short, desiring the In∣ternuncio to point out the Proposition or Clause, one or more (in that Formulary) against Catholick Faith; and finally concluding, and asserting the said Formulary to be in all parts, and all respects, intirely conformable to Christian Doctrine, and Catholick Faith; the Internuncio had no more to say, but, Vos ita censetis; Sedes autem Apostolica aliter censet; yea think so; but the See Apostolick other∣wise.

How, when both Caron and Walsh had again replied, That general Allegations without particular proof of the See Apostolick's sense, were to no purpose: That the original, or at least, authentick Copy, should be produced: That credit in such matters was not to be given, not even to the Letters of the very Cardinals, as both Civilians and Canonists do teach: That the Popes own acknowledg'd private Letters, in case there had been such, have no binding force; no, nor even his Briefs or Bulls in the present, or other such Controversies: That the point of the Popes Infallibility, was no matter of Christian or Catholick Faith: That the See Aposto∣lick, Roman Court, and Catholick Church of Christ, were three different things: fi∣nally, that together with all now said, the reverence and obedience to his Holiness did very well consist: how, I say, this Replication being made, the Internuncio look∣ing no more as superciliously or high, as he had till then, begun to speak to Father Walsh after another manner, i. e. moderately, and by way rather of Entreaty and Prayer, than Command or Empire.

How this was to desire the said Father Walsh, to lay by thenceforward all thoughts of that Remonstrance, and think rather of any other medium whereby to obtain His MAJESTIES gracious propension to look mercifully and favou∣rably on the Clergy of Ireland, notwithstanding any thing formerly acted by them.

How, when Father Walsh had briefly answer'd, That really he knew no means could serve that end, without some such Act of Recognition as the Remonstrance was, the Internuncio replied, He himself then would propose one: and how accordingly he did this, viz. Sanctissimus Dominus meus, &c. My most Holy Lord (sayes he) shall issue a Bull to all the Irish, commanding them, under pain of Excommunicati∣on, to be henceforth and continue faithful and obedient to the King.

How the Procurator saying presently hereunto, That indeed, my Lord, is the medium, which, if accepted, would make His MAJESTY a down-right Vas∣sal to the Pope, and a very King of Cards; but I hope His MAJESTY hath some better, and surer means to rely on, for keeping that Kingdom in peace, than any kind of Bull, or other even Letters Patent from his Holiness: the Internun∣cio presently again, Then (sayes he) I propose this other medium, viz. Sanctissimus Dominus meus, &c. My most Holy Lord shall grant and create as many Bishops and Archbishops for Ireland, as His Majesty, and His Vice-Roy, or Lieutenant in Ire∣land the Duke of Ormond will desire, and those very persons they shall fix upon: and moreover, shall empower those persons so created Prelates, to dismiss, and send away out of Ireland all Clergymen whatsoever, whom they shall find to be disloyal to the King.

How moreover, the said Procurator, to this also replied, That although it was much more specious than the former; yet, considering His MAJESTIES Religion, and the Laws now as yet in force, and other Affairs too, it seem'd impracticable for the present. That were His MAJESTY even of the Roman communion, nay, and being what He is, there was nothing offered by this medium, but what was, and is His own by ancient Right; I mean, the naming of all Prelates, and suf∣fering no other such but of His own Nomination. And for banishing Disturbers away, That sure He could Himself do that, without the help of either Pope, or in∣feriour Bishops, whenever he should find such Proscriptions necessary. And fur∣ther, That if He could not, at least by the Authority of His own Laws: or must, or would admit of the Popes Authority therein as necessary: then surely he must also, or would in so much, and that an essential point of Temporal Sovereignty, acknow∣ledge His own dependance from a Forreign power; which, questionless, He neither

would, nor could. Therefore, considering all this (besides the strict Oath of Allegiance and Obedience, which even such Archbishops and Bishops must before their Consecration take to the Pope: and not they alone, but all sorts of beneficed persons, according to the present practice and Rules of the Roman Church, or prescript of their Pontificals, and other Canons: and must take also even expresly against all those they call or esteem Hereticks:) the last proposed medium could be no medium at all, not as much as any kind of way probable, if the Remonstrance, and all such other Recognitions were by the self-same Prelates, and all other inferi∣our Irish Clergymen laid by. Especially considering, that the Oaths of Supre∣macy and Allegiance, both Enacted by the municipal Laws here, had been long since by the Popes, and Court of Rome, and by all their fast Friends, or maintainers of their pretences for all both spiritual and temporal Jurisdiction, condemn'd as both unlawful in point of Conscience, and as Heretical too. So that from first to last, this second medium would prove in effect, only a medium to fortifie the Popes pretences, and set all Irish Catholicks loose from any kind of tye of Allegiance to the King. But more especially their Clergy: being it is known that every Clergy∣man of the Roman Communion, is either by solemn vow, or promise, or oath, and by the tye also of so many other both general and particular Canons and Statutes tyed, and fast enough bound already to the Pope. And yet this medium would have them not bound at all unto the King by any, as much as a simple Declaration of their Allegiance, or a simple promise to continue, or prove hereafter obedient, or Loyal Subjects to His MAJESTY.

Finally, how after these Answers, it being One a Clock, the Conference ended, without other Conclusion or Agreement.

Now what opinion this Internuncio de Vecchiis entertained or had (after this Conference) of the said Fathers Caron and Walsh, I know not certainly. But have been told he said this much of them to Father Philip Howard (with whom he went that day to Dinner) That they seemed not to him, as if they did pretend or intend any Schism or Sect. However, I am sure, that at least before that Confe∣rence, his Lordship seemed by his Letters against the Formulary, and Authors, or promoters of it, to have endeavoured mightily, they should have been otherwise thought of amongst the Roman Catholicks of Ireland. One of those Letters you have before in the vii. Section, 16 page of this First Part. And now, for your further satisfaction in this point, I add here two more; whereof the first was to Father Matthew Duff, one of the first Franciscan Subscribers of the Formulary at London, and one the said Internuncio had by commerce of Letters, and otherwise some acquaintance with formerly. Which was the reason, the Procurator Father Walsh desired him, when the said Formulary first came out in Print, to send a Copy of it to this Lord Internuncio to Bruxels: and by Letter to sound his judgment thereof. As he did also desire the Lord Bishop of Dromore, at the same time, and to the same end to write. The Internuncio answered both in two distinct Let∣ters; the very Originals whereof I my self had in my custody. But desired after by the said Lord of Dromore, to give them to the Chancellor of England, I did so, re∣serving only Copies to my self. The Copy of that to the Bishop, I have lost; as I did likewise mislay that of the other. And therefore could not give either in their due place. But now finding by chance, amongst my Papers, the Copy of the other to Father Duff, alias Lyons, I give it here, hoping also to have for my Latin work, both those very Originals.

Internuncio de Vecchiis's Latin Letter to Father Matthew Duff, against the Formulary or Remonstrance.

Reverende in Christo Pater,

PRiores vestras litteras cum char••••s Anglicis recepi, eisque non respondi, quod praeviderem quidem, non tamen plene scirem mentem Sanctissimi Domini Nostri. Interim professionis vestrae formula Romam delata est, mature il∣lic discussa, atque omnino reprobata. Scribit sua Sanctitas illam sibi gra∣vissime

displicere, esse intollerabilem, & cum qua nullatenus possit conveniri. At∣que hoc vult omnibus insinuatum: consonat enim Professioni quam olim admodum doluit ac damnavit Paulus V. Pontifex, & nuper denuo Innocentius decimus. Por∣ro Regiae Majestati Sua Sanctitas a vobis deferri vult omne officii, fidei, atque obe∣dientiae genus: vos istbic esse vult istarum erga Regem virtutum exemplar, etiam ipsis Hereticis: atque ita in loco tenebroso lumen mnndi. Admodum sentit & ad∣miratur sua Sanctitas, a vobis Sacerdotibus atque Religiosis manasse originem, ex qua etiam Laici Nobiles sunt in hanc professionem inducti. Quocirca aliud non possum quam rogare Deum omnipotentem, ur vos illuminet, doceatque viam qua sic Regi reddatis quae sunt Regis, ut Deo non auferatis quae sunt Dei.

Bruxellis 22. Julii 1662.

Paternitatis Vestrae Amantissimus in Domino, Hieronymus de Vecchiis, &c.

In English thus.

Reverend Father in Christ,

YOur former Letters, with the English Papers, I have received; but not an∣swer'd, because that although I did indeed foresee, yet I did not fully know the mind of our most holy Lord. In the mean while, the Formulary of your profession was brought to Rome, maturely there discussed, and utter∣ly disallowed. His Holiness writes, it to displease himself most grievously, to be in it self intolerable, and such as cannot in any manner be allowed. And his plea∣sure is, that this be insinuated (or made known) unto all. For it (the said For∣mulary) agrees with that Profession which heretofore hath so much grieved, and was condemned by Pope Paul the V, and lately again by Innocent the X. And yet withall it is his Holiness's pleasure, That you do pay to Royal Majesty all kind of Du∣ty, Faith, and Obedience; and his Will is, that you be there, of these vertues to∣wards the King exemplars, even to the very Hereticks: and so, in a place of dark∣ness, be the light of the World. His Holiness very exceedingly both resents and ad∣mires, That from you Priests and Regular persons, the very first off-spring should proceed, whence also the Lay Nobility and Gentry have been induced to this professi∣on. Wherefore I can do no other than pray the Almighty God, that he enlighten you, and teach you the way whereby you may so render to the King what belongs to the King, that you take not from God what belongs to God.

Bruxels, 22. July 1662.

Your Paternities Most loving in the Lord, Hierom de Vecchiis, &c.

The second Letter was in the year following, by the same Internuncio, written to Father Bonaventure, alias Flann O (or ••••••ac) Bruodin to Paris, at the said Father's return to Ireland; whereof I have the very Original, given me at Dublin by him∣self, that very (or I am sure, at least next) year, upon his Landing there from France. Of him you have before in the beginning of this Work, Sect. xii. page 42. and Sect. xxxi. page 70. & sequen••thus. a further account. This Letter is word by word thus.

Reverende in Christo Pater,

AMicissimas Paternitatis Vestrae Parisiis 20. lapsi datas accepi, quibus nun∣ciat se iterum Hiberniam cogitare. Quocirca faelicissimum ipsi iter ex∣opto, ac Facultates Missionarii Apostolici transmitto. Quod autem sub∣jungit de periculo confusionis in eo Regno occasione Visitatoris proxime instituendi, vellem me particularius desuper informaret, ut re plene intellecta, con∣sulere opportune possem. Nil mihi occurrit quod Paternitati Vestrae in praesens commendem. Summa autem in eo est, ut Conterraneos suos tam Ecclesiasticos quam Saeculares praesertim Nobiles congruis admonitionibus sedulo continere sata∣gat in sincera & perfecta erga Sanctam Apostolicam Sedem observantia, rejectis commentis novae formulae fidelitatis Valesianorum. Illud enim est quod Ecclesiam Dei majori damno ac pernicie afficere potest quam quaevis anteacta Haereticorum persecutio. In eo autem munere obeundo non est quod Paternitati Vestrae sugge∣ram, utpote ubertim in hujusmodi materiis instructae ex propria eruditione ac pru∣dentia, praeter ea quae nuper ipsi viva voce insmuavi, signanter ut sic refutetur & arguatur illud Juramentum, ne tamen Regii Ministri ansam accipiant in Catholicos saeviendi, eosque tanquam Regiae Dominationi, quia ab Ecclesia defecerit, infestos persequendi. De omnibus porro quae in causa fidei, at statu Ecclesiae, digna no∣tatu compererit, gratissimum mihi erit Paternitatis Vestrae Litteris identidem edo∣ceri. Illas autem inscribat absque operculo, A Monsieur Monsieur Francois Rossi-Bruxelles; ita enim secure ad me perferentur. Denique Paternitatis Vestrae Sa∣crificiis me animitus commendo.

Bruxellis 7. Octobris 1663.

Paternitatis Vestrae Studiofissimus, Hieronymus, Abbas Montis Regalis.

In English thus.

Reverend Father in Christ,

YOur Paternities most friendly Letters, dated at Paris the 20th of the last month, I have received, wherein you signifie that you are now again upon thoughts of your Journey to Ireland. Wherefore I wish you a most happy Journey, and send you the Faculties of an Apostolical Missionarie. As for that which you mention, of danger of Confusion in that Kingdom, by occasion of the Visitor now suddenly to be Commission'd (he meant the Visitator of the Francis∣can Order in Ireland, who was then to be sent, or at least Commission'd from be∣yond Seas) I could wish you did particularly inform me on that Subject, that un∣derstanding fully the whole Affair, I might timely take my measures. Nothing oc∣curs to me, which, at present, I may recommend. But the sum of all consists herein, That rejecting the Comments (Lyes; or false Device) of the new form of Fidelity of the Valesians, you labour diligently, by congruous Admonitions, to contain your Countreymen, especially the Nobility and Gentry in a sincere and perfect observance of the See Apostolick. For that (Formulary) is it which can do more harm unto, and bring more ruine upon the Church of God, than all the forepast persecution of Hereticks. In order to the discharging of that Duty incumbent on you, its need∣less that I suggest any other thing to your Paternity (being a man throughly and abundantly instructed in such matters, by your own eradition and prudence) besides those which I have lately, by word of mouth, insinuated to you, signally, That the said Oath be refuted and reproved so, as, that notwithstanding, the Royal Ministers may not thence take occasion of severity against Catholicks, or of persecuting them as people studiously and maliciously undermining the Royal Dominion, on account of

its having fallen from the Church. As for the rest, know it will be most grateful unto me, that by your Letters I be frequently advertised of all Note-worthy matters concerning the cause of Faith, or State of the Church, which shall occur to you. Your Letters, without cover, you may superscribe, A Monsieur, Monsieur Rossi-Bruxelles; for so they will securely be brought to me. To conclude, I commend my self heartily to your Paternities sacrifices.

Bruxels, 7. Octob. 1663.

Your Paternities Most Affectionate, Hierom Abbot of Mount Royal

On either Letter, though you need no Animadversions (because they are of themselves plain enough: as it is also plain, that as well by these as other you have Sect. vii. this Internuncio begun that which his Successors ever since more vigorously pursued, viz. to have the Remonstrants esteemed both Schismaticks and Hereticks:) yet I cannot here but give some few Observations.

First Observation is, How these men would pull out our eyes, and make us be∣lieve the Pope would have all kind of Duty, Faith, and Obedience paid by us to our King; to be exemplars of these vertues even to Hereticks, and in a place of darkness the lights of the world in such matters; and yet at the same time, and by the same Letters, to condemn us, in effect, as Schismaticks and Hereticks, for any way acknowledging our King to be King, and promising to obey Him as such: and at the same time also, to procure a publick University Censure of the Louain Di∣vines, to condemn our Subscription of such acknowledgment and promise, and no less solemnly, than formally, or in express words, to judge both to be unlawful, detestable, and sacrilegious, yea, and consequentially or virtually to be also Schis∣matical and Heretical. For that our very such bare acknowledgment and promise, &c. were so condemn'd by them, is manifest; because our said Remonstrance and Subscription, neither contain'd, nor imported any more than such bare acknow∣ledgment and promise, &c. being they contain'd and imported only this much, That we acknowledge the King to be Supreme in all Temporal and Civil Affairs, and that we promised to be faithfully and unchangeably obedient to him in such, that is, only in all Temporal and Civil things; leaving out of purpose all mention of any kind of Spiritual things or causes. Now who sees not, that if we be condemn'd for only acknowledging the King to be Supreme in Temporals, we are consequently condemn'd for the bare acknowledgment of his being at all or in any way or sense our King? For there are but two, or at most, three wayes or senses wherein any can be truly said to be King. The one, that he be Supreme both in Temporals and Spirituals: The other, that he be in Temporals only: and the last, that only in Spirituals, either purely, and essentially, or only by extrinsick denomination such. But we have not Remonstrated, nor have we Subscribed our acknowledgment of the King's being our King either in the first or last sense; but have been, as to the words of our Formulary, as far from either of both these two senses, as Heaven is from Earth. And therefore have only in the second. Whence is further most evidently consequent, That being we are condemn'd for Remonstrating or Subscri∣bing in that sense; we are also, for the very barest acknowledgment can be of the Kings being any way King. For how can we acknowledge him King, if ever also as to very Temporals we deny his Kingship? And therefore it is not only a meer Cheat and Imposture, but Folly, Non-sense, and even plain contradiction, to say, That his Holiness would have us to be and continue still in our duty, faith, and observance to any person as to our King; and yet at the same time to tell us, That our profession of fidelity and obedience in Temporal things, is unlawful, detesta∣ble, and sacrilegious, nay, Schismatical and Heretical, upon this account, that by

such profession, we both promise a more ample obedience to such a person, than Kings can require from their Catholick Subjects, and somewhat also against the sincerity of Divine Christian Faith. For so the Censure of Louain sayes, and so say all the Letters of so many Internuncio's and Cardinals these Ten years past, against us and our Remonstrance, and Subscription thereof, and adhesion to it. But any thing is enough to impose on willing minds. Though at the same time none can be so stupid as not to see, what these Papal Courtiers mean by the word King in order to us? What by these things that de Vecchiis prayes we may render to the King? What by those other he sayes belong to God? What final∣ly we must understand by his prayer, That we may so render to the King what belongs to the King, that we may not take from God what belongs to God? A Cy∣pher he means by the first, as to Right; but as to Fact, an Usurper, Invader or Tyrant: Dissimulation for a time, by the second: The Kingdom, and all the very Temporals thereof, by the third. And so we understand his prayer plainly: for the Pope is God's Vice-gerent on earth, even as to all Temporals, and Crowns whatsoever, by Divine Right; but as to those of Ireland, and England, yea and Scotland too, by humane Title also. And truly those who lately in the year 1669. received Mr. Lyons's Retractation of the Remonstrance, and excepted against that parenthesis, viz. Salva fidelitate mea Regi in temporalibus debita, in∣serted by him in that Retractation, confirm all this.

2. How they would have the Remonstrants (or Subscribers of the Irish Formu∣lary of Allegiance) termed Valesiani, or Valesians. As if these Remonstrants were a Sect of Hereticks, and Valesius, or Father Peter Walsh (whose surname Walsh, they call in Latin, Valesius) their head: or as if he were the Inventer, or at least Renewer, and chief maintainer now in these Countries of that Doctrine of indispensable, unchangeable Allegiance in Temporal things to the Supreme Secular Prince, and consequently an Arch-heretick. Which questionless, to have been the meaning of de Vecchiis, what follows immediately in that Letter of his to Bruodin, seems sufficiently to confirm, I mean that passage, Illud enim est quod Ecclesians Dei majori damno ac pernicie afficer•• potest quam quovis ant••acta Hareticorum persecutio. But as I have already, in many Sections together, proved that Do∣ctrine to be Christian and Catholick, and the contrary Heretical, as termed even when it first began (some 600 years since) Haeresis Hildebrandina, from Pope H••debrand, alias Gregory the VII. so I have ingenuously acknowledged who the first Authors of our Remonstrance or Formulary were. That these were the Roman Catholicks of England. That the Catholicks of Ireland had it from them out of Serenus Cressy's Exom••legesis, where he inserts it as one of the motives either of his conversion to the Roman Communion, or at least of his being less prejudiced than formerly against that Communion. That Father Peter Walsh, even that Valesius mean't by de Vecchiis, was at first but one of the first Subscribers of it; though afterwards he was necessitated to be both a promoter and defender of what was by him so conscientiously and justly subscribed. And now again he doth confess, That if to have done so, argue him to be a Heretick, or Arch-heretick, he is content to be esteemed so by such as in the point not only abuse these terms, but really associate him therein with the Christian Church and all the Holy Catho∣lick Fathers thereof for a 1000 years, till the foresaid Gregory the VII's Pon∣tificat. And, in truth, I am not asham'd to confess in St. Paul's words, Acts 24.14. That according to that Sect, which they (i.e. the Roman Ministers) call Heresie, I serve the Father my God, believing all whatsoever is written in the Law and the Prophets. Whence is also consequent, That had I been the only true Author Con∣triver, and Framer of the above Remonstrance, I ought, and should rather have gloried therein, than be ••••••••med thereof. Only I must confess, That from the very beginning of this Controversie, I have been a little ••nwardly troubled for some defects I observed in the Formulary: wherein (I mean) it is in some passages a little short of those expressions or extensions necessary in this Age against the subtle distinctions or evasions of many, or some at least, of the worst sort of Scho∣lasticks. Namely in that passage, where it hath, 1. That no private Subject can

murther, or kill the Anointed of the Lord: and, 2. In that where it only declares the Subscribers to be ready to reveal all Conspiracies, &c. and, 3. In that where it disclaims and renounces all Forreign Jurisdiction, inasmuch as it may seem able, &c. expressing so an act of their will, as it does not absolutely of their un∣derstanding, or their judgment delivered against the very being of any such power in the Pope: and, 4. Where in the whole it hath neither formal, nor vir∣tual Oath, either assertory, promissory, or declaratory, nor hath such, I say, not even any where, from the first word of that Act of Recognition, to the last of it; although there seem an Oath immediately preceding that Formulary, but an Oath only to declare, without equivocation, what follows in the Formulary. For these defects particularly, and some few other, which at my very first reading of that Formulary, I observed, to wit, in this Age, and amongst cunning subtle Evaders, to be some defects, I confess I was somewhat troubled. Yet on the other side, con∣sidering there was enough in it as proceeding from candid and willing minds, and honest men, that intended not any Cheat or Imposture: and considering also that I could not alter, change, or add a word to mend it, if I would present it to the King as it came to me from Ireland to be presented, in the name, and as from the Roman-Catholick Clergy in general of that Kingdom: it must be granted, that it lay not then in my power to help those defects, otherwise than as I did im∣mediately after in my rational and true Expositions of the meaning and conscien∣tious tye of the said Formulary in all Contingencies whatsoever. Which Exposi∣tions and meaning I published in my More ample Account, that little Book set forth in Print presently after the Formulary had been subscribed and presented to the King. Moreover, I considered that the candor of the Subscribers; or Swearers of the very Oath of Allegiance, that which is in the Statute of King James, must have some grains of allowance: or certainly that otherwise, no expressions therein are full, or home enough to prevent all distinctions, or obviate even very many evasions, which might be to frustrate some at least of the great ends of that Oath: being it does not seem in strictness of words, or sense, amongst subtle men, to provide against Rebellions that may be on other grounds or pretences, but those only of sentences or attempts proceeding from the Pope, or of his power and authority. And we know there may be many other pretended grounds, pow∣ers, authorities.

However these matters be, I declare first, It was not the homeness of the Irish Formulary against the Pope, but rather defect of that full and perfect, and una∣voidable, undistinguishable homeness thereof, that troubled me. Though withall, how defective or unhome soever it may be said by some to be against the Pope and Church, or for the King and Civil Magistracy; yet no man will deny now, but that the Roman Court esteems it too too home and full against their Interests and Papal Usurpations.

Secondly, That had I been at first consulted with, as to the framing or fixing on a Formulary of Allegiance to the King, neither King, nor Council, nor Parlia∣ment, or House of Commons, nor other Protestant (Subject, or not Subject what∣soever) should have any ground left for excepting against the shortness or de∣fectiveness of it, as to any point controverted hitherto in that which relates to in∣dispensable Allegiance in all Temporal things whatsoever, or to its being open to Evasions, or lyable to any kind of Quibbles, not even to that of the reduplicative or specificative sense.

Thirdly, That nevertheless I should not have been moved hereunto out of other respect, than that of redeeming the Roman-Catholicks from the severity of the Laws against them hitherto these 100 years. And I mean that of redeeming them only by a Declaration of their future fidelity and obedience in all Civil and Tem∣poral matters so full, clear, and positive, as would be answerable in all points to their so long consultation about such a one this whole entire Age past, wherein they have declined first the Oath of Supremacy, next that of Allegiance; and by their demurs on both, rendred themselves not only obnoxious to so many Laws, but also to so many jealousies and suspitions of their Loyalty to the Crown and

Kingdom of England, Ireland, &c. as if they inclined to the vain pretences of For∣reign powers. And what, I pray you, will judicious learned Protestants say, or rather, what will they not say now, when they cannot but understand how the said Catholicks oppose now again even a very cautious Declaration of bare and meer Allegiance in Civil things only, and such a Declaration too, I mean, as was framed not by any Protestant, but by themselves? Or will not such Protestants as please, have hence a very specious and probable ground, to alledge in Parliament, and plead there openly against the comprehension of Papists in any Act of Indulgence to Tender Consciences, should there be any such? And to alledge and plead, I say, A manifest inconsistence betwixt the safety of a Protestant Prince or State, and the Re∣peal of Laws heretofore made against People so principled, or any absolute liberty or freedom of exercise of Religion to them, whose Religion appears by so many Ar∣guments, to be destructive to the very fundamentals of any Civil State, especially Protestant, because denying still to acknowledge as much as the very essence of such a State; this essence, if not consisting in, at least requiring for one part of its essentials to be absolutely Sovereign, or Supreme and Independent from any but God alone in all Temporal and Civil things? And may not consequently the same Pro∣testants plead, That such Roman-Catholicks as peremptorily refuse to acknowledge that absolute Sovereignty, or Supremacy and Independency, in such a form of De∣claration or Oath as cannot be lyable to any Evasions in any kind of Contingency wha••soever, have no Title at all to His MAJESTIES gracious promises (in His Letters from Breda) for Indulgence to be given to all Tender Consciences that hold not Principles destructive to the fundamentals of Government? For surely if any Opinions be destructive to such fundamentals, those of the said Roman-Catho∣licks, or of such Roman-Catholicks, I mean, as hold them, must be of necessity.

Let any one therefore judge now, with what sincerity, or knowledge, or truth, the foresaid Internuncio Hierom de Vecchiis writ, as you have seen, to Father Bona∣venture Brodin, That the Valesian Formulary is it which may do more hurt and mis∣chief to the Church of God, than all the foreacted persecution of Hereticks? And judge you, Reader, whom he understands here by Hereticks? What by the Church of God? What by hurt, or mischief, or ruine to that Church? But, blessed be God, we are not so mad yet as to confine the Church of God to the walls of Rome, or Papal and Cardinalitial Consistory, or to the small number of men wherever diffused, that either out of ambitious flattery, or cowardly fear, or ignorance, or other respect whatsoever, maintain the Papal Usurpations over Church or State, asserting them so in plain contradiction both to Scripture, Tra∣dition, Fathers, Canons, and practice too of the Catholick Church; and not only to natural reason. Nor yet so mad, as to think that whatever hurts, annoys, or ruines the wicked Usurpations, or unjust worldly Emoluments of such men, must be esteemed any way truly hurtful to the Church of God, and not rather on the other side both highly and truly advantagious, and profitable. Nor further yet so mad, as to hold all those for Hereticks, whom the Roman Ministers, Tribu∣nals, or even many of their Popes, even or also Boniface the VIII. himself, held for such. No nor yet so mad, as to esteem that to have been a persecution, in the bad sense of this word, which was a just prosecution of so many Emissaries sent heretofore from Rome, of meer and set purpose to overthrow both King and King∣dom here, by plotting, and raising, or endeavouring to raise even bloody horrid Rebellions of Subjects against both; that I may say nothing now of the Invasion of Eighty Eight against Queen Elizabeth, or the Powder-plot Treason after against King James, and both His Houses of Parliament; or of the late Rebellion in Ireland in our own dayes, and year 1641. Nor finally so mad, as to account the Remonstrants a Sect, in the bad sense of this word; albeit de Vecchiis would fain have them reputed such, not only by Nicknaming them Valesians, but also by joyning them in a comparative manner with those he expresly calls Hereticks. For certainly it is meer madness, either of blind ignorance, or extreme malice, that should make any to esteem the Teachers of fidelity and obedience in all Temporal things to a lawful King of what Religion soever, to be therefore a Sect, in the

bad sense of this word. Although in the Etymological sense generically taken, or in any innocent thereof, and in opposition to the present Roman Court, its Parti∣sans in the grand Controversie, and in that or like good sense consequently, whether generical or specifical, wherein St. Paul confessed himself to be of the Sect of Pharisees in the point of Resurrection, the Remonstrants confess them∣selves a Sect, and glory in being so. But the Internuncio gains nothing hereby, if not that himself and his Associates, how great or numerous soever, be really in the worst sense may be undoubted members of the Gregorian Sect, and furious promoters of the Hildebrandine Heresie. Which is somewhat worse, I am sure, than to be reputed one of the late Scholastick Sects, i. e. either Thomists, or Scotists, or Occamists, or Molinists, &c. and reputed so, I mean, in the sense these men themselves repute themselves or others to be ofsuch or such a Scholastick Sect.

Or if it be not, yet I am very certain, it is incomparably far worse than to be reputed such a Sect, as the Adherers to the justice of St. John Chrysostom's cause, and maintainers of his Patriarchal authority, against the illegal sentence of Depo∣sition pronounced against him even by a great Council of Catholick Bishops, and Archbishops too, under the Presidency of Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria, were by their opposers both reputed and entituled. For these were by those, and by way of reproach and scorn Nicknamed Joannitae,* 58.1 vide licet, from his Christian name John, or Joannes, for whose defence they stood constantly (albeit under great persecutions, and even banish'd from all their own Churches) until at last, Heaven and Justice, and God and the good Emperor thought fit to regard them, and take notice of the malicious Contrivements of their Adversaries. And I am no less certain, that they whom the said de Vecchiis doth himself, and would have others to call Valesiani, have yet a more excellent cause for which they are so miscalled, and stand and suffer still together with Valesius, than those Joannitae had, albeit in a very good cause suffering for and with that golden Mouth and divine Prelate of Constantinople, St. John Chrysostom himself. Wherefore the Remonstrants have no reason to fear, that the malice of their Adversaries by Nicknaming them Vale∣sians, may be able to work a persuasion of their being a Sect in any bad sense ei∣ther of this word Sect, or of that of Valesiani, no more than those inveterate Enemies of Chrysostom and of his followers or friends were able to fix the opinion of Heresie or Schism on them, by terming them contemptibly, and in scorn, Joan∣nitae; no not although these very Joannitae themselves, would not communicate in Sacred or Divine Rites, Offices or Sacraments, with their said Enemies, but held separate Congregations in private houses, until the name and fame of Chrysostom, and consequently their Churches, were restored. As for the likeness, or even community of Peter Walsh's Latin sirname, with his other name or sirname, who near the primitive Age of Christianity, gave both beginning and name to the old condemn'd Sect of Valesians (otherwise called the Sect of Eunuchi, but from Valesius their Arabian Founder,* 58.2 termed Valesii, or Secta Valesiorum: as may be read in Epiphanius, Haeres. 58. and Augustine, de Haeres. c. 37.) if the Inter∣nuncio, or any other, would derive thence any reflection: who sees not the folly herein? It is a likeness or community either of doctrine or practice, that must ground any such or other injurious or opprobrious reflection. There was a Simon the Apostle, as well as a Simon the Magician. There was a Wonder-worker St. Patrick, Converter of Ireland as well as that erroneous wicked Patrick, who about the year 203. under Severus the Emperour, was perverter of many. And there was a Franciscan Martin of Valentia, that with his Twelve Franciscan Apostles, reconciled to Christian Religion more than Seventeen millions in the new World, when the Augustinian Martin of Germany, withdrew no fewer in the old World, from any veneration of, or communication with the See of Rome. And consequently there have been Patritiani, Simoniani, Martiniani (alias Lù∣therani) and are to day without any reflectirn upon, or prejudice to a Thousand others of the same name; because not of the same common principles or practices. Nay, and there have been Gregory's too in the very See of Rome sometimes, that were unblemish'd by the Gregorian (alias Hildebrandinian) either doctrine or pra∣ctice of after and worser times.

Third Observation is, That without any true or real ground, this Internuncio sayes partly in the Letter you have seen here to Father Duff, and partly in that other before, Sect. 7. page 16. That our Remonstrance agrees, in effect, with the Professions heretofore condemn'd by Pope Paul the V, and lately again by Innocent the X. And therefore needs no new condemnation, being it hath been so already condemn'd in those former Professions. For albeit I confess that our Formulary hath some Propositions coincident with some of those which are con∣tain'd in King James's Oath of Allegiance; yet forasmuch as in others both For∣mularies are not coincident, and that Paul the V. hath neither condemn'd every Pro∣position generally, nor any one or more determinate propositions, clauses, or parts of that of King James: it cannot be either groundedly, or any way truly said, That by vertue of Paul the V's condemnation thereof, our's also must be con∣demn'd. As for Innocent the X, I dare boldly say, he hath not condemn'd that profession which this Internuncio means here: or if he have in the Consistory, or otherwise privately, yet neither at Rome it self, nor Paris, nor elsewhere, hath that condemnation of his been ever yet at any time published, or promulgated, nor judicially or authentickly shewn to any that was concern'd to see it. So that his condemnation, if any kind of such had been, is, in effect, no condemnation at all. And peradventure the same, as to any legal publication, might be said of that fa∣med Brief of Paulus V. against the Oath of Allegiance, though we see it Printed in Suarez his work, contra Regem Angliae, and in other Authors too. We know well enough that the Printing of Instruments, especially Papal Bulls or Briefs, is no legal publication of them: and know also, that without or before legal pub∣lication or reception, they signifie nothing to bind any in Conscience, or other∣wise. Of this Subject of Paul the V's now mention'd Brief, I have some Ten years since Treated somewhat in my More Ample Account, pag. 51, 52, 53, and 54. and there consequentially and evidently shewed out of the very Papal Canon Law, and even out of Innocent the III's own Decree or Answer to the Archbi∣shop of Ravenna, cap. super literis. Extra. de Rescriptis. That without any dis∣obedience, or even irreverence to the Pope, even to that very Pope Paul the V. himself, any and every Ordinary of a Diocess might and may oppose both the re∣ception and publication of his said Brief against the Oath of Allegiance: and this even also (I mean) in case it had been clear and certain, that the said Brief had been true, not forged. Si quando (sayes Innocent in the forecited place) aliqua tuae fraternitati dirigimus, quae animum exasperare videntur, turbari non debes. Qualitatem negotii, pro quo tibi scribitur, diligenter considerans, aut man∣datum nostrum reverenter adimpleas aut per literas tuas, quare adimplere non possis, rationabilem causam praetendas: quia patienter sustinebimus si non feceris quod prava nobis fuerit insinuatione suggestum.—If (sayes he) at any time we write to your Brotherhood what may seem to exasperate your mind, you ought not to be troubled. Weighing seriously the quality of the business whereof we write, either fulfill reve∣rently our Command, or by your Letters pretend a reasonable cause, for which you may not observe it. For we shall patiently bear, if you do not that which shall be suggested by evil information. And therefore I have further particularly and consequentially noted in the 53. page of that little Book,

That nothing is more known then that even after or when the Papal Bulls appear to be authentick, and that it moreover appears they have not been grounded on any sinister Infor∣mation (as to matter of Fact) from others; yet according to the Pope's own Law, and natural reason too, if they proceed from ignorance of the Divine Law, or of that of Nations, or of the Canons of the Universal Church, or from hatred, malice, or other evil passion, or any unjust end, or when they are notably prejudicial to Justice, or the rights of a third passion, they may be suspended, as to any execution of, or obedience to be given to them, until his Holiness be in∣formed by those that find themselves aggrieved by such Letters, or Decrees, or Bulls: and until there may be a legal, fair, and equitable discussion of the cause, and where it may conveniently, or ought to be discussed. And, that it will be sufficient for such as are so concern'd, or find themselves so aggrieved, to al∣ledge,

or even to pretend only, for their excuse to his Holiness, some rational cause (that is, such, as were it true, might and ought to be reputed rational) to save them from any disobedience or irreverence.

This much, and many other things also to this purpose, I have said in my More Ample Account, against that pretended Brief of Paul the V, or use made thereof against our Formulary. But much more as well of that Brief or condemnation by Paul V, as of the other by Innocent X, pretended by de Vecchiis, I have said in a Letter to this Internuncio himself, which you may read in the next Section saving one following this. And therefore I will not here detain you any longer on this Subject, but refer to that following Section and Letter. Only what I did not give in that Letter, I mean, the specifical Articles, or three negative Propositions, in specie, said to have been condemn'd by Innocent X, I will, for the Readers satisfa∣ction, give here, together with their Names who in England subscribed these ne∣gative Propositions, or Articles. Because otherwise it may be hard to find or know what they were. As for the Oath of Allegiance said to be condemn'd by Paul the V, I need not give that, being any man can find it in the Statute Books, and many others at hand.

And because that matter of those negative Articles, is of importance to be truly and fully known: and that I can say nothing of my own knowledge thereof, but what I read and hear from others: I will give here, without Comment, two Pa∣pers of that matter delivered to me lately by some of those who have been either Actors, or conversant with some of the chief yet alive, who acted in it, and sub∣scribed the very Original of those Articles in the year 1647, or 1648. One of those Papers is in Writing, never yet Printed, as I am told, and hath first a Pre∣amble, containing the motives of the Subscription; next, the affirmative Propo∣sitions themselves, whose negatives were subscribed; then the Subscriptions of Seven Roman-Catholick Lords of England, and Seven and Twenty Esquires and Gentlnmen of the same Religion and Countrey; after these Subscriptions, it hath another short Preamble to the other Subscriptions of Clergymen Secular and Regular, which follow; and so in the last place, the Names of these Clergymen, Eight in all. The other Paper is in Print, and besides those Articles doth contain a long and good Letter from Paris, written by Dr. Holden to England upon that matter.

The written Paper is of this tenor.

THE Roman-Catholicks of this Nation taking into consideration the Twelve Proposals of His Excellency Sir Thomas Fairfax, lately publish't this pre∣sent year 1647. and how prejudicial and destructive it might be to them at this time, tacitely to permit an Opinion (by some conceived) of an inconsistency in their Religion with the Civil Government of this Kingdom, by rea∣son of some Doctrines and Positions scandalously laid upon them, which might there∣by draw on persons, that cannot Conform themselves to the Religion here established, an incapacity to receive and be partakers of a general benefit intended for the ease of Tender Consciences, have thought it convenient to endeavour the just vindica∣tion of their integrities therein. And to remove the scandal out of all the minds and opinions of moderate and charitable persons, do declare the Negative to these Propo∣sitions following.

I. That the Pope or Church hath power to absolve any person or persons what∣soever from his or their obedience to the Civil Government established in this Nation.

II. That it is lawful by the Popes or Churches command, or dispensation, to kill, destroy, or otherwise injure any person or persons whatsoever, because he or

they are accused, or condemned, censured, or excommunicated for Error, Schism, or Heresie.

III. That it is lawful in it self, or by the Popes dispensation, to break either word or oath with any persons abovesaid, under pretence of their being Hereticks.

And in farther Testimony that we disallow the said precedent Propositions as be∣ing no part of our Faith, or ever taught us by our Pastors, we have ratifi'd the same under our hands.

• Winchester. Brudenell. Petre. Teinham. Powiis. W. Montagu.
• E. Brudenell. Walter Blunt. Henry Bedingfield. Francis Howard. Tho: Gascoigne. Francis Mannock. John Arundell. Fran: Slaughter. Fran: Petre. Will: Arundell. Will: Havington. Edw: Smith. Robert Hennage. Joh. Webb. James Yates. Thomas Gage. Edmond Thorold. Nicholas Crispe. John Chapperline. Ant•• Monson. Rich: Cotton. Edmond Plowden. Jo: Tasburghe. Geo: Pulton. Geo: Fortesen. John Chamberline. Hen: Beding∣field.

Upon the ground given in the Twelfth Proposal printed Aug. 1. 1647. by Authority from his Excellence Sir Tho: Fairfax, That the penal Statutes in force against Roman-Catholicks, shall be Repealed: and farther, that they shall enjoy the liberty of their Consciences by grant from the Par∣liament, if it may be Enacted, That it shall not be lawful for any person or persons, being subject unto the Crown of England, to profess or acknowledge for truth, or persuade others to believe these following Propositions. That the Pope, &c.

These Premises considered, we under-written, set our hands, that every one of these three Propositions may be lawfully answered unto in the Negative.

• Geo: Gage.
• Tho: Dade Dominican.
• Henry More Jesuite.
• William Penry Fryar.
• Bonaventure Bridges.
• Phil: Champet.
• Tho: Carre.
• Geo: Ward.

The printed Paper is of this other.

ARTICLES proposed to the Catholicks of England, where∣unto it was required they should subscribe their negative An∣swers, whereby it might be understood, they profess that there is nothing contained in these three Articles which doth necessa∣rily belong to the Catholick Faith and Religion, insomuch, that they may and will abjure (if it be thought needful) the practice and execution of them all.

I. THat the Pope or Church hath power to absolve any person or persons from their obedience, to the Civil and Political Government established, or to be establi∣shed in this Nation, in Civil and Political Affairs.

II. That by the Command or Dispensation of the Pope or Church, it if lawful to kill,

destroy, or do any injury to any person or persons living within the Kings Domini∣ons; because, that such a person or persons are accused, condemned, censured, or ex∣communicated for Error, Schism, or Heresie.

III. That it is lawful in it self, or by dispensation from the Pope, to break promise or oath made to any of the aforesaid persons, under pretence that they are Here∣ticks.

Fifty English Catholick Gentlemen have subscribed Negative answers to these three Articles, upon certain conditions secretly agreed upon for the good and free exercise of the Catholick Religion, they being assured by divers Priests, both Seculars and Regulars, under their Hand-writings, that it was lawful for them so to do. Which since a Congregation in Rome, hath ordained and decreed, was not, nor is not lawful. Whereupon a Priest writeth out of England to his friend, a Doctor of Divinity of Paris, and sends him a Copy of this Congregational De∣cree, earnestly desiring him that he will let him freely know his sentiment and opi∣nion in this business. Which Doctors answer to the question here followeth.

Most dear Brother in Christ,

HAving seriously considered the three Articles you sent me, with their little Preface (which you say contains in brief the substance of what was in∣tended both by the proposers and your selves) I cannot refuse, neither in charity nor friendship, to give you my opinion concerning your Subscription thereunto. Yet being unwilling you should relie upon my private and particular judgment, in a matter of such moment, I have consulted with several great and learned men of our Nation, but especially some of the most ancient and learned Doctors of Divinity of our Faculty here, whose constant sentiments are, that not only in their Opinion your Act is lawful, just and true, but that it, is also the gene∣ral and universal belief of all the learned and judicious men of this Kingdom. So that I see not upon what grounds you need fear or apprehend the Censures which the Decree of the Congregation in Rome pretends you have incurred. Were your Kingdom or State setled, and that your liberty depended only upon your giving as∣surance of your fidelity, I should easily procure you such sovereign Antidotes against your timorous apprehensions, and such publick Declarations of your duty in this kind, as that none but either weakly scrupulous, or busily factious, would be any whit moved at the interessed proceedings of the Court of Rome. Methinks you should not be ignorant how such Decrees of those Congregations are slighted and rejected in the Supreme Courts of this Kingdom, by the most learned and most vertuous Se∣cular Judges of the Christian world. Even those who bear the most dutiful Re∣spect to his Holiness, as well Seculars as Regulars, will openly profess, That the Ca∣bals and Interests of the Court of Rome are now so generally known, that the De∣crees of their Congregations are scarcely taken notice of out of the Popes Territo∣ries. We had not many months ago such a Decree sent hither from Rome to the Pope's Nuncio, against a late Book, called Les grandeurs de L'eglise Romaine, which because the Popes Nuncio would have published and dispersed throughout the Kingdom (having obtained licence from the King to it.) The Kings Advocate General Mr. Talon (a man worthy of his place) made a learned Speech in open Parliament (without any relation or interest to the Doctrine of the Book) against the admittance of such Decrees, wherein he remarked very well the different nature and quality of these Congregational Decrees (which were never received, nor ac∣knowledged as legal and authentical in France) from th Bulls of his Holiness as Head of the Church. And this Speech was immediately confirmed an ratified by a judgment given by this renowned Senate; and so the publication of the De∣cree was hindered and suppressed. There was likewise in the year 1625. a sedi∣tious Book written by one Garasse a Jesuite, but bearing no name, entituled, Admo∣nitio

ad Regem, secretly dispersed up and down in this City, which was condemned by a general Synod of the Clergy of this Kingdom, then assembled in this Town, wherein the indispensable duty and obedience of Catholick Subjects to an heretical, and even to a persecuting King or State, was particularly declared and avouched. You may see the words themselves, pag. 12. Quare id ipsum, &c. Given at Pa∣ris in the general Assembly of the Clergy, the 13th of Decemb. 1625. Whereupon one Sanctarellus an Italian Jesuite, was caused to write a Book in approbation of the Pope's temporal authority to depose Kings and Princes, and to absolve their Subjects from their obedience, which was presently censured by our Faculty of Divinity, and the affirmative Doctrine of your first Article (which is your chief difficulty) and other such like Positions were improved and condemned as new, false, erroneous, contrary to the Word of God, &c. Given in the Sorbon the 1st of April, 1626. Hereupon four of the most famous Jesuites of France, then residing Superiours in their Colledges here, were sent to the Parliament, and being demanded their Opinions in this point, they confirmed and ratified this Censure under their hands; professing farther, That they did and would consent and adhere to what the Sorbon had, or should declare in this, or any other matter of Doctrine. I could send you the particulars of these, and many such like proceedings here, being partly in Print, partly upon publick Record; but I conceive it needless, at least, for the present. How∣ever, the Court of Rome's pretensions to Secular and Temporal power over Kings and Commonwealths, are now grown out of date, nor was it ever authorized, but by the execution of it. The Origine of the Pope's authority in Temporal Affairs, is well enough known. The great piety and respect to the See of Rome of divers ancient Emperors, Kings, and Princes, have made them receive their Crowns and Diadems from his Sacred hands, and cast their Swords and Scepters at his Saintly feet. Others have made use of the Pope's swaying power to settle themselves in their usurped Monarchies and Princedoms. Not any versed in Ecclesiastical History, but knows the particulars of these Truths. But to come back to your Decree, I perceive, that the Authors of it looking only upon tht Negative answers to the bare Articles? without the Preface, or separated Instrument, whereunto you Priests and Religious did subscribe (which was purposely made to secure the Lay-Gentlemen, that suppo∣sing they might enjoy the freedom of their Religion, they might lawfully renounce the practice of these Articles, which makes the case far different both to the one and the other) they conceived you intended to deny and destroy the probability of that Opinion which they think it necessary for their ends to maintain. And there∣fore, to keep their hold, and conserve their pretended right, they framed this De∣cree in hugger mugger, and kept it private. Their chief motive is acknowledged in the Decree it self, Least it should be said hereafter, that his Holiness did approve or connive at the Subscription to such Articles, as were prejudicial to his Ponti∣ficial greatness. The same was also expresly intimated to the Popes Nuncio here, it being signified unto him, there should be no legal publication of it, no more then there had been at Rome: nor consequently sure did they intend it should oblige. Nay even they themselves would esteem him a very Fool, that would lose his Estate, or venture his Life for the maintenance of this Opinion or Decree. Your Nega∣tive Answers to these Articles, are to be understood according to your and the Pro∣posers intentions, that is, to renounce the practice of them, and profess them to be no part of your Faith and Religion, which I believe the very Court of Rome doth not pretend, witness Cardinal Peron, who after he had often averred in his Oration to the Nobles of France, in the year 1615. that the Doctrine of the Pope's power to depose Heretical Kings, and absolve their Subjects from their obedience, was only Pro∣blematical. And in particular, That the Catholicks of England were obliged to obey King James then reigning. In his other Oration to the third S••••te (who ur∣ged and pressed to have the contrary Doctrine received, as a fundamental Law of the Kingdom, and as holy, true, and conformable to the Word of God) having used all possible Arguments to dissuade them from this design, and learnedly labour∣ing to shew a greater probability for the affirmative part. He concludes towards the end of his Speech, That the Pope doth tolerate and suffer the contrary Opinion to

be held, so it be only maintained as Problematical in matter of Faith, that is, saith he, so it be not proposed as necessary to Faith, nor the Opposite declared, as con∣trary to the Word of God, impious and detestable. Besides, this Decree is given against the Negative Subscribers to unpublished Articles, without any information or knowledge of the original Instrument, whereunto you Priests did subscribe, nay, without calling any of you to Account, but only in the Air against the Negative Subscription, supposed to be done they know not where, nor how, contrary to the or∣dinary forms of our Law avd Justice. But every man who hath negotiated in the Court of Rome, can tell you, That these Congregational Decrees are generally made by a few Cardinals and Prelates, who (to speak modestly) little know upon what grounds and principles the abstruse Sequels of Faith are to be resolved. They say in this, They have consulted Divines, that is, perhaps some few Forreign Regulars, whose Interests lie wholly in that Court, depending immediately of it, and exempted by his Holiness from the ordinary and divine Hierarchical Government of the Church; who knowing nothing of the Affairs, nor of the Circumstance of the Que∣stion, were not like to deliver any other Opinion than what their great Patrons would have them. I wish with all my heart, That with the loss of my blood, I could blot out the belief of all experienced men, that nothing but Interest and Faction are prevalent in the Court of Rome. It is now in every mans mouth that understands the Affairs of the World, that they seek their own ends, not the publick good. Final∣ly, I remark, that they chiefly direct their Decree to the Superiours of their exempted Emissaries, no mention made of the Bishop or Clergy, who are the only lawful and Ca∣nonical publishers (with the permission and consent of the State or Civil Magistrates) of any true authentical spiritual Command. Truly, if such a Decree had been sent hither, and so illegally proclaimed, it would have been presently condemned to be burnt by the hands of the Hangman. In a word, I see nothing capable to beget a Scruple, nor that ought to hinder any Catholick from Subscribing to the Articles as you have done. Nor shall I easily persuade my self, that any wise and experienced man will shrink from so just an Act. If your State, King, or Parliament, will suffer and tolerate you to live quietly under them (which I wonder such able men should boggle at) I shall quickly provide and help you with such advice from the most learned and most vertuous Divines of Europe, as will make your Ecclesiastical Government an example to all other States and Kingdoms your Neighbours. And still conserving all due Respect and spiritual Obedience to the See of Rome, you shall free your selves from all unnecessary and unfit dependance of the Roman Court, wherein I shall fur∣nish you with the resolutions of such Questions as will open the eyes of all your unex∣perienced and tender conscienced Countrey-men, who have not had perhaps, the means to discern and distinguish their due and unnecessary obedience, from a superfluous and un∣just obsequiousness: And which shall withall make appear to all the Christian World, the now well near Fourscore years hard and unfatherly dealing of the Court of Rome over the poor persecuted and distressed Catholicks of England. Let it therefore be your constant endeavour, to give the King, State, or Parliament, full satisfaction and as∣surance of your fidelity to the Civil and Political government of your Kingdom, what∣soever it shall be, which may most certainly stand with the integrity of your Religion and Consciences. For the rest fear nothing, trust to the justice of your Cause, which you may assuredly believe will not want support. For my particular, according to my poor Ability, you shall ever find me,

Your most loving Brother in Christ, And obedient Servant, T.H.

From Paris, this 2d. of April, 1648.

By which two several Papers, the written and the printed, the Reader may un∣derstand fully what he shall find hereafter, answered by me in the year 1664. to the foresaid Internuncio de Vecchiis, concerning his Allegation, or pretence of Inno∣cent the X's. having condemned these Negatives, and consequently our Remon∣strance, as for one part thereof coincident with, or virtually contain'd in them.

Fourth and last Observation is, concerning that signal, crafty admonition which the same de Vecchiis gave (as you have before seen) to Father Bruodin, in these words, Signanter ut sic refutetu•• illud Jura nentum, ne tamen Regii Ministri an∣sam accipiant in Catholicos saeviendi, eosque tamquam Regia Dominationi, quia ab Ecclesia defecerit, infestos puniendi. If I be not much mistaken, de Vecchiis would have the Anti-Remonstrants use all kind of other false Arguments to ruine the credit of the Ecclesiastick Subscribers; to the end the people, or rest of the Clergy, might not be indoctrinated or lead by them on the controverted point so prejudicial to the worldly interest of the Roman Court and Pontiff. He would have them cryed down for disobedience to their Ecclesiastick Superiours, Excom∣municated persons, Schismaticks, Hereticks, and (in a word) for wicked men de∣signing wickedness, and undermining the very fundamentals of the Old Religion, Church, and Head of the Church, and in all things conspiring also to ruine their own Nation eternally for the sake of English, Scots, and others, both British and Irish Hereticks. And yet, in the mean time, to pretend nothing at all of the true ground, but amongst those were sure to the Cabale; nay, on the contrary, to deny stifly, That the quarrel to, or against the said Ecclesiastick Subscribers, is upon any such ground of their Subscription to the Remonstrance; least peradventure His MAJESTY, or His great Ministers being informed and convinced thereof, should cherish them, and punish their opposers; and consequently, the doctrine of the said Remonstrance be more and more both spread and rooted amongst the Roman-Catholicks of His MAJESTIES Dominions: and so the Letters al∣so from Rome and Bruxels, and Censure of Louain, and other proceedings from other parts also beyond Seas, and opposition at home against the said Formulary, and Ecclesiastick owners thereof prove rather hurtful, than profitable, or advanta∣gious to maintain the Roman Courts pretensions to England, Ireland, &c.

I am sure, if any think me deceived in this my judgment, or interpretation of this passage of de Vecchiis Letter to Father Bruodin, he will not think so (whatever he speaks) after he shall not only consider the former passage, and rest of the same Letter, together with the whole tenour of those other Letters of the same de Vec∣chiis to Lyons, Caeron, and others, which you have page 15, 513, 531. and of those of Cardinal Francis Barberin, which you have page 17. and page 505. of this First Part; and of those many others too, partly of the same Cardinal Barberin, and partly of the now Cardinal (then Internuncio) Rospigliosi, which you have more∣over in the Second Part of this First Treatise, in several pages together; and, besides all these Letters, when he shall reflect on the bitter invectives of the above de Vecchiis against Caron and Walsh, in his personal Conference at Bruxels with Father Antony Gearnon one of the Subscribers, and shall peruse my long Letter, which is given hereafter Sect. Lxxxvi. in answer to those invectives.

However, I am most certain, no indifferent man can think so, after perusing al∣so the Second Tome of this Work, wherein matter of Fact since the year 1666. to this present 1672. shall be related; and consequently the fate of that Loyal Formulary, and well-meaning Subscribers thereof shall be seen to be, that they have been especially these last four years, viz. from the year 1668. to this present 1672. as they are yet still persecuted from the Court of Rome abroad, and its Emissaries here at home, by Depositions, Excommunications, and all kind of other the very vilest and inhumane wayes too, infamous Lyes, and abominable Ca∣lumnies, and horrid Plots and Conspiracies also even of Assassination against such of them as would not calmly yield and retract their Subscription, or yield obedi∣ence to the Roman Decree, or Patents of Cardinal Barberin (that Decree, or those Letters Patents I mean so uncanonically, injuriously, and as to any right or tye

of the Canons, invalidly too) deposing Father Francis Coppinger from his office of Provincialship over all the Franciscans of Ireland, both at home in that Coun∣trey, and abroad in Forreign parts, and the Irish Colledges in such parts; and deposing him (I say) for no other cause, but only, That he was one of the late Remonstrants, as he was formerly all along one also of the old Anti-Nuntiotists; and that it was too too prejudicial both to the Roman Court abroad, and its Emis∣saries at home in Ireland, to see the Provincial Superiour of the most numerous Order in that Kingdom, nay, and together with him, so many Local or Conven∣tual Superiours (called Guardians) to be of that dangerous Sect of Valesian Remonstrants, as Internuncio de Vecchiis called them.

For in that Second Tome, you shall see the chief Anti-Remonstrants, and above all, the fiercest Leader of them all (now lately in the year 1669. by that Court, and questionless for advancing its designs and interests in these Kingdoms, created Archbishop of one of the Metropolitical Sees of Ireland) making use of even all the very most truly wicked Maxims of those now commonly stiled,* 61.1 The Jesuits Morals, and of set purpose too, making use of those Morals to suppress the said Remonstrants, even as such. But more especially to ruine both in name, fame, or esteem, yea, and if necessary, in their very being and life too, such of the same Remonstrants as should peradventure make, or rather indeed have already made head, or any resistance against him, or the dictates of Rome to and by him. Such persons, I mean, as knew full well, and no less contemn'd his shameful ignorance, and yet shameless impudence; his lying genius, and innumerable forgeries; his arro∣gance unparallel••d, and ambition without end; his disloyal designs, and spirit of revenge;* 61.2 and in fine, his Religion and Devotion, like those heretofore of the Senior of the Mountain, that very zealous, but withall both impious and barbarous, and inhumane and Mahumetan Author, Captain, Prince of those de∣voted Eastern or Assyrian Assassines, we read of in Gulielmus Tyrius.

And therefore in the said Second Tome, you shall see the same Prelate, and to the very same end of triumphing in the destruction of the Remonstrants, shall see him particularly and singularly making use of all the most abominable and horri∣ble doctrines: As,

1. Of those of Dicastillus, Crassetus, Danjou, Albius, Franciscus Amicus, and so many others, besides the grand, but impudent Apologist (all related by Ludo∣vicus Montaltius, Ep. 15. (a) 61.3 and by Vendrockius in his Notes on that Epistle, and by both there objected to the Jesuits) for the lawfulness (according to Conscience and Christianity) of ruining your Adversaries by calumniating them, i. e. by as∣persing them with, nay, and by accusing them of all kind of invented and forged Crimes imaginable, even Adultery, Murther, Heresie, Treason, &c. And,

2. Of those also either of(b) 61.4 Lessius, or Molina, or Escobarius, or Reginaldus, or Baldellus, or Fillutius, or Desboys, or the foresaid brave Amicus (not to say any thing now of Peter Navarr, Sayrus, Gordon, or Caramuel) or several such other excellent Casuists, for the lawfulness of murthering or assassinating not only your declared known enemy, or inveterate, or even any way profess'd, or not profess'd Adversary, but also any other, even your own Consort or Companion that either affronts you never so little, or but reveals, nay, or but threatens to reveal hereaf∣ter, nay also, or but whom you only suspect or fear may reveal (although only out of lightness or vanity, and not out of any malice to you) some, or any one even true imperfection or fault, or fact of yours, which being known, may either defame, or lessen, or hinder you, or your Society, Order, or Colledge, from that power, authority, dignity, esteem, or advantages and emoluments you or they aspire unto; provided only, that you conceive the death of such a person to be necessary or behoveful either for the recovery or preservation of your name, fame, or of that which is, or is called your worldly honour, credit, or esteem, or even but your utility or profit, temporary and earthly.

Finally, you shall see the said most Reverend Prelate proving effectually by his carriage towards those Remonstrants for three or four years past, That notwith∣standing his formal Ejection or Dismiss out of the Society (and he knows for what,

and knows moreover that I am not ignorant, nor have been since 1659. either of that very true cause, or of the very great person that procured his said Ejection) yet he hath continued still a pragmatical, constant, close Disciple in the worst of Maxims to those very worst of Moralists, Equivocatists, Probablists, Academists, Scepticks, nay, and Assassins too: retaining so whatsoever evil could be learn'd of them; but relinquishing all that was good, or just, the more Christian precepts and practices he might have seen in some others, even Writers of that very Society which threw him out.

Whether it was therefore that, when he was created Archbishop by the Pope some Three years since, his then Father General Oliva did complement him so high (in a Letter, which I my self have read, from Rome) promising himself, and his Society in Ireland, &c. I know not what, even certainly all that was great and wonderful, now that he the foresaid Prelate was made Archbishop of the Head City or Metropolis of that Kingdom? I am sure it argued what otherwise I my self did, and could not but observe.

1. That notwithstanding his ejection by the Fathers, of purpose that they might please, or rather, not too much and too openly displease him (whose affairs and hopes he the very same Prelate, or person, though not then a Prelate, endeavoured to betray, and utterly ruine Anno 1659. and by whose application therefore to the General of the Order, his ejection was urged home) yet the same General and ruling Cabal of that Society understood him, and he them very well all along both before and after his ejection, or dismiss given to him. And how therefore and notwithstanding it, and continually after it, he observed a no less intimate cor∣respondence with them, and promoted their interests, no less wheresoever he might, than he had before.

2. That in a very special and particular manner he did so, by undermining co∣vertly in all occasions, and opposing also publickly (in some) all he could the Subscription of the Remonstrance. As if indeed, by that Formulary or advance of it, his whole Ignatian Order's Reputation in these Kingdoms lay at stake. (His Letter out of England, ann. 1666. to Father Barton the English Jesuit then in Ireland, persuading him to hinder all he could the National Congregation from Subscribing the Remonstrance, may testifie this abundantly. Which Letter the said Barton shewed, and read then to my self.) Or if he had seriously considered what was most certainly true, how well nigh a whole Century of years, albeit more especially since the Powder-plot Treason and Oath of Allegiance made by King James, the Professors of that Society of the Ignatian Order, have labour'd so mightily both by word, deed, and writing, to impose on the World, and, above all other parts or people of it, upon His MAJESTIES of Great Britains Roman-Catholick Subjects, That the power or authority, and the doctrine or po∣sitions renounc'd, disclaimed and abjured by the Oath of Allegiance made by King James, and consequently (as Internuncio de Vecchiis sayes) those also pro∣tested against by that our late Remonstrance, are positive and affirmative points of the Christian Religion. And that all sincere Catholicks ought rather to suffer not only loss of goods and liberty, but of life also, even death it self, than take any Oath declaring against such matters. And moreover, That such a death question∣less should, would, and ought to be reputed Christian Martyrdom, in a proper and strict sense of these words; and consequently also reputed that very Baptism of blood, which of its own nature, without any Sacrament, not only washes away clean all kind of sins, both as to guilt, and even temporary punishment, but further purchaseth that extraordinary even accidental glorious Garland in Heaven, which the Divines call Aureola Martyrii.

3. That his foresaid promotion (whether Legal or Illegal or whether as much as Canonical or Uncanonical, nay, whether absolutely void, invalid, or null by the Canons of the Universal Church, I question not here) was upon such and the like consequential accounts further'd in an high measure by the above General Oli∣va, and other Jesuits of the Cabal, as a matter conducing mightily to their in∣terest; the principles and genius of the man, and consequently that he was the

fittest instrument they could pitch upon being considered. And certainly whoever knows that Societies power in the Court of Rome, and how ignominious a punish∣ment, note, and blot, Ejection out of any Religious Order is, or is esteem'd to be, when it is after so many years profession and continuance in such Order, and is moreover pretended to be for criminal causes; and withall how, when there is no intrigue in the matter, there must also by consequence be, or certainly and com∣monly is rather some extraordinary hatred, or at least a very great strangeness and distance 'twixt the Ejectors and Ejected, than any kindness; and besides, with∣out peradventure how easie it is for the General, or even Procurator of any Order at Rome, to obstruct the like promotion of any that hath ever at any time before professed their Institute, and after deserted it; whereas if the Canons of the Church, or even those of the Tridentin Council, nay, or the very Papal constitu∣tions and ordinary practice of scrutiny at Rome it self, de vita & moribus, and other qualities of such Episcopal candidates be observed, or not rather wilfully and extraordinarily omitted, a very small Objection made by men of Authority will serve to that end; but much more questionless the infamous note of having been ejected for criminal matters: who ever, I say, considers all this, will certainly out of the above Letter of Oliva infer, That the foresaid late promotion, was on those very same or like consequential Accounts (I have said before) further'd in a high manner by the same Padre Oliva, and others of that Society, as a matter con∣ducing mightily to their interest, &c.

And yet withall, I am not wholly ignorant how, by whom, to whom, when and for what other ends quite different or disparate, that promotion was here at London so lately as the year 1668, or 1669. earnestly recommended to be at Rome effectu∣ally and speedily granted. Much less am I so forgetful, as not to remember the manifest Arguments given to my self by the said Prelate himself (about four or five years before he was made Prelate, i. e. in the year 1664.) that he was not called by God as Aaron was, but by his own Ambition: being he could not then (however too early and unseasonably) abstain from coming of purpose to my Chamber, to importune my self, as he did, to take off a certain Nobleman from hindering his said promotion. So early, to my own knowledge, did he for himself sollicite that dignity. And consequently, so Ʋn-Aaron-like was he called to it, if not peradventure to melt the Ear-rings, and frame the Golden Calf, and lead the people back to Egypt. But of this good Prelates engaging so violently and mali∣ciously against the Remonstrants, more at large, and of purpose elsewhere in due time and place.

And so I have done my occasional Animadversions upon as well this late Letter of Oliva, as upon those former of Internuncio de Vecchiis. Whereupon as I have questionless by Anticipation said some things here: so you good Reader are to take notice, that I write this present Section now in the year 1672. when I resu∣med the continuation of this Work, or First Treatise thereof, from page 442. where at the command of others, I stopt the Printer in the year 1668. And there∣fore you are not to wonder, if in some passages of this Book, you are given to understand it had been written and printed four or five years sooner, than by mat∣ters here or elsewhere related you find it has. That indeed of finishing and pub∣lishing it in 1668. was my design; nor was it my fault that it was not compassed. But for your further satisfaction herein, you may turn back to my Preface.

LXXXV.

NOW, if you please, I will give what was consequential to Internuncio de Vecchiis message to Caron and Walsh by Gearnon. For there (viz. in the perclose of my Lxxxiii. Section) I broke off the Thread of my Discourse, to insert those matters you have now immediately read in my last, or Lxxxiv. Section.

De Vecchiis, not content with his said verbal message by Gearnon, suddenly af∣ter writes to my Lord Aubigny, the Queens grand Almoner, entreating him to work at least with Caron to go to Bruxels, and withall enclosing another Letter to Caron himself. This to Caron you have here.

Reverende in Christo Pater,

INtelliget Paternitas Vestra ex Patre Gearnono causas, propter quas confirmatio vestra in Commissarium & Visitatorem Hiberniae redditur difficilis. Ego ta∣men, qui multum defero & officiis Illustrissimi Domini de Aubigni, & volun∣tati Excellentissimi Pro-Regis Hiberniae optarem difficultates supradictas amovere. Ad quod faciendum puto esse unicum medium, si scilicet Reverentia Vestra vellet huc ad me venire; tunc enim possetis conferre cum Superioribus vestri Ordinis, & cum aliis Theologis super vestra illa Formula, quae est lapis scan∣dali, & amicabiliter convenire, ac in gratiam Superiorum vestrorum redire. Con∣tribuam ad haec omnem operam meam cum fructu ut spero, dummodo Reverentia vestra ex parte sua velit ad eumdem finem collimare. Intelligetis plura super hoc proposito a Praefato Patre Gearnono, ad quem me refero; unum hoc addens, Re∣verentiam vestram posse absque timore alicujus molestiae aut ex parte Ordinis, aut cujusvis alterius, huc accedere, prout vobis fide publica polliceor in praesenti, ac spondebo etiam Dominis de Aubigni & Duci Ormoniae. Precabor interim, Deus ut vobis inspiret illud consilium, quod ad salutem vestram, & incrementum Ortho∣doxae fidei magis conduit. Bruxellis 9. Januar. 1665.

Paternitatis Vestrae Ama n••ssimus Hieronymus, Abbas Montis Regalis.

POSTSCRIPT.

Cum in Martio proximo hinc Romam versus discessurus sim, optarem quantocius ad∣ventum vestrum.

The Letter Superscribed thus. Reverendo in Christo Patri, Patri Red nundo Caronio, Ordinis S. Francisci, Londini.

In English thus.

Reverend Father in Christ,

FRom Father Gearnon, your Paternity will understand the causes wherefore your confirmation as to the office of Commissary and Visitator of Ireland is rendred difficult. Yet I, who have a griat regard both unto the good of∣fices of the most illustrious Lord Aubigny, and pleasure of the most excel∣lent Vice-Roy of Ireland, could wish those difficulties removed. To the compassing of which, I think the only medium is, that your Reverence would come hither to me. For then you might confer with the Sureriours of your Order, and other Di∣vines upon that Formulary, which is the Rock of Scandal, and you might agree ami∣cably, and so return to the good grace or favour of your Superiours. Hereunto I shall contribute all my endeavours, to good purpose I hope, provided that your Reverence do of your side aim at the same end. Of these matters you shall understand more from the foresaid Gearnon, to whom I refer my self; adding only this, That your Reverence may without fear of any trouble either in behalf of (or from) the Or∣der,

or of (or from) any other come hither, as I do on publick Faith promise you at present, and will also promise to my Lords Aubigny and Duke of Ormond. In the mean time I shall pray that God may inspire that counsel to you, which most con∣duces to your salvation, and increase of the Orthodox Faith. Bruxels the 9th. of January, 1665.

Your Paternities Most Loving Hierom, Abbot of Mount Royal.

POSTCRIPT.

Whereas I am next March to go hence towards Rome, I could wish your speedy Arrival here.

The Superscription thus. To the Reverend Father in Christ, Father Redmund Caron of St. Francis's Order, at London.

To both, i. e. to that verbal message by Gearnon, and this Letter by Aubigny, however Caron demurred; yet he answered civilly by Letter, excusing himself to the Internuncio. The truth is, he was at that time not only employ'd in writing, and near finishing his Latin Folio Work, bearing Title, Remonstrantia Hibernorum contra Louanienses, but was also unwealdy and very unable for a Winter journey over Seas. And yet withall I confess, he declared positively several times then to my self, that had he been as healthy and strong as ever, yet he would not go upon any such invitation: because he foresaw very well and certainly, there was nothing intended but deceit and circumvention; and that the Court of Rome (whose slavish servants, not only the Internuncio Minister Apostolick, and Com∣missary General of the Franciscan Order in Flanders James de Riddere, but also the then present Theological Faculty of Louain were) really desired no Reason, whatever was pretended, but even contrary to all Reason expected an absolute and blind submission.

However, the Procurator Father Peter Walsh, was very unwilling to give amongst his own Countreymen against himself or Formulary this advantage, viz. that up∣on or notwithstanding such a specious invitation, he would not dare abide the test, or go, I mean, to Flanders, to confer with his own Superiours, and those Divines of Louain, who had so briskly censured the same Formulary. He apprehended the false and scandalous consecutions would be thence deduced, and both loudly and largely in every part of Ireland amongst all sorts of people cryed and spread by the Anti-Remonstrants, viz. That had not Walsh and Caron suspected their own strength to justifie the Formulary, and consequently the unsoundness of it in point of Catholick Religion, they had never bogled at appearing in Flanders. Behold the true genuine cause wherefore Father Walsh resolved at any rate or risk what∣soever to go himself alone, when Father Caron would not; provided neverthe∣less he had their permission at Court, by whose mediation and persuasion he had both obtain'd already the quiet which the Clergy and people of Ireland at that present did enjoy, and expected much more yet for the future, or had at least His MAJESTIES Licence. And indeed partly with the most specious Reasons he could offer, and partly also by too much importunity, he obtain'd at last the Duke of ORMOND (then LORD LIEUTENANT of Ireland) his consent. But when the matter came to the Lord Chancellor, and others, it was

wholly obstructed: yea, notwithstanding my Lord Aubigny's joint and earnest sol∣licitation, even for four or five Weeks; this Noble man also being as earnest there∣in, as concern'd to oblige thereby the said Internuncio and Court of Rome where∣in he was about that time a Pretendant. And yet the Lord Chancellor would send no other but this very Lord Aubigny to both Walsh and Caron, declaring to them from the King, it was His MAJESTIES pleasure, and express commands to them, they should not stir out of His MAJESTIES Dominions. And to Father Walsh moreover, That the Chancellor would speak to himself on that Subject. Who, when he appeared before his Lordship, heard himself to some pur∣pose ratled for entertaining any such thought. And I remember very well, that his Lordship said to me amongst many other things, That I was rash and foolish to think they would perform any faith or promise with me; yea, notwithstanding I had all the safe Conducts I could wish, both de Vecchiis's, and Carracens's too the Spanish Governour then. That he was certain, had they now once more got me into their hands, they would, together with the Remonstrance, and all the conse∣quents of it, call to mind what I had formerly acted against the Nuncio Rinucci∣ni: and therefore would never let me return, nor—And that sure I could not by any promise expect more safety, than Huss did from the Emperour's Pass-port; nor surely from the present Ministers of the Court of Rome more honesty or sin∣cerity, than he by a fiery and deadly experience found in the Council of Con∣stance. Lastly, his conclusion, was a repetition of His MAJESTIES for∣mer Commands to me by my Lord Aubigny. Then which, I must confess (as I also before God protest it to be true) I do not remember that in my life I received any Command with more regret: so earnestly desirous was I then to appear in Flanders, and confer with those Divines of Louain, who so temerariously Cen∣sured the Formulary, and Subscribers of it. And so troubled I was with the ap∣prehension of what Lyes and Scandals my Adversaries would derive from my not going thither.

Which, and to speak also plainly my further sense under my own hand's wri∣ting to the said Internuncio de Vecchiis, was the reason I writ him immediately in Latin this following Letter, being an exact Translation of the Latin.

My Lord,

HAving understood from Father Gearnon what your Lordship was pleased either to communicate, or object, or otherwise to give him in charge to be told to Father Caron, and me, of your Lordships desire of seeing us the said Caron and Walsh at Brussels, to the end we might confer with our Superiours, and other Divines, about the Form of the late Protestation: and having withall soon after seen your most civil Letter to the same Father Caron, in∣viting him particularly to Brussels, and inviting him as well for the foresaid end, as for that other also of removing the difficulties that hinder as yet his being institu∣ted Commissary Visitator of the Province of Ireland (which difficulties, your Lordship sayes, have their total rise from the said Form, as the onely Rock of Scan∣dal:) I resolved presently to use my utmost endeavours for satisfying your Lord∣ships desire, and that your most civil invitation should not be in vain. And there∣fore have these five whole Weeks past, minded onely a Licence or Permission to de∣part, as my Lord Aubigny can witness; and likewise press'd it very earnestly, as well with the Vice-Roy of Ireland, as with the Chancellor of England. For with∣out their privity and good will and much less without His MAJESTIES con∣sent or permission, it could not be lawful for us, or either of us, in this, or like case, to depart. Nor would even your Lordship, if I be not much deceived, think it expedient we should: whereas any kind of dispute, conference, or even change, either in the sense or words of that Form, would be to no purpose, without their previous consent, who must of necessity be assured by that very Form, or some other such (Catholick and just, I mean; and which they shall think sufficient to their own purpose) of the future Loyalty of Subjects in matters relating to the

temporal peace of the Kingdom; and who if they be not so assured, will give no hopes at all of that liberty for the Clergy or people of Ireland, which these poor Creatures do with so much longing expect. And indeed the most excellent Vice-Roy assented first. But when the matter was broke to the KING and Chan∣cellor, it seemed of greater moment than to be so soon determined. Wherefore having further till the first of February, expected His MAJESTIES Royal Pleasure, being at last sent for by my Lord Chancellor, and appearing at his house, after much debate to and fro, near two whole hours, partly upon your Lordships Letter to Father Caron (which the Chancellor then was pleased to hear me read) and partly upon other papers and passages relating to the subject of that your Let∣ter, I nevertheless heard, to my very great grief, even there and then my self pre∣sent, and from his own very mouth pronounced, That neither Caron, nor I, nor any other should go on such an Errand, or depart for any such end: because this were as much as to subject a thing in it self wholly certain, and the regal and undoubt∣ed Rights of the Crown, to Altercation. Which can be no way lawful, especially to Subjects. Nevertheless, I did not altogether as yet despair; having withall at that very time and place received the said Lord Chancellor's command for cal∣ling to him my Lord Aubigny, who should from him know His MAJESTIES final resolution. Which was the reason I fostered still some little kind of hopes for three or four dayes longer. But all in vain. For notwithstanding any rea∣sons my Lord Aubigny gave, the Chancellor declared unto him, in His MA∣JESTIES Name, we should not stir. Then which tydings, indeed I scarce re∣sented any thing in all my life with more sadness, as having had most ardent inclina∣tions, even my self alone, yea, without a particular invitation by Letter, or safe conduct, to go and kiss your Lordships hands at Brussels, and satisfie (to my pow∣er) the Superiours in Belgia, and the Doctors too of the Theological Faculty at Louain, as to that Form which is called ours. For as I had fixedly resolved to yield (what in me did lie) to any thing might be rationally offered for the peace of my Brethren, and Countreymen, and Clergy, and People of Ireland, much more for that of the Universal Church of the Roman Communion; and not only for preserving, but promoting yet more and more that Reverence and Obedience which is due in spirituals throughout the whole earth, to the great and most bles∣sed Pontiff: so I had also firmly determined not to shun, nor decline any meeting or conference, either private or publick, of the most Learned, especially of those of Loua••n: And yet I doubt not those Louanians have, without any just cause, without any well-grounded reason, without any end that is divine, but meerly hu∣mahe, too too rashly Censured that Form. Otherwise, wherefore should they be ashamed of their judgment given? Wherefore apprehend so much it should be exposed to publick view? Or why should they fear to let us, that are above all others concerned, or to let any other indeed for us, have a sight of even as much as any one Copy of their original Censure? For there is a report, nor a report on∣ly, but an asseveration of eye-witnesses, that that original Censure is scarce con∣tained in Seven, Eight, or Nine sheets of paper, or thereabouts; and that accord∣ing to the manner of University Censures, therein single Propositions of the For∣mulary are noted, and Reasons given (whether probable, or not, I now dispute not) of the Censure of each. Nor is it less known, that the other secondary short Censure of Louain, which is dispersed abroad, contains in the whole but a few lines only: singles not out any one or more Propositions: gives no Reason at all, probable, or improbable. Nay, That Dr. Synnick answered lately the said Father Gearnon at his being at Louain, and praying to see the true original first and long Censure, answer'd him (I say) in these words only, We have sent it to Rome: it pleased the Pope: he reserves it for his own time. O worthy Acade∣micks! O excellent Divines! O men born to Flattery and Servitude! And O truth of mortal Wights and immortal Spirits, whither art thou exil'd! A very few Doctors of our Age, and of one City alone, to determine against the torrent of other Doctors of the whole Earth, and of all Ages of Christianity, and give no Reason openly for doing so! and not to determine only so, but to divide, but rend

in parts the Church, as much as in them lies disturb the peace of Nations and King∣doms, asperse the Faith, and make odious the Communion and Religion of the Roman See and Bishop! But hereof another time.

At present, whereas neither Caron nor Walsh can go to Brussels, it will be fit to consider what is to be done to that end which your Lordship designed, if even both had together appeared there. For I will not question, but your Lordship proposed to your self the peace or quiet of Catholick Religion: and as well the liberty or free exercise thereof in the British Empire, or Dominions of our King, as, in all other respects, the comfort of Catholicks: and, what besides must neces∣sarily follow, a more ample and more obsequious veneration of the great Pontiff. But I understand not what you might pretend to for attaining these matters; if Fa∣ther Caron and Walsh appeared at Brussels, which you may not by exchange of Letters to and fro from them. Although (and I speak it in the word of a Chri∣stian, and of a Priest, and of a Professor too of the Seraphical Order, and by consequence of a most devout observer of His Holiness, and speak it moreover in the presence of omnipresent and omniscient God) I have, for my own part, de∣sired most passionately to go my self to Brussels, laying alide all kind of delayes, and humane respects whatsoever. But however this be: as to that now in hand,

Either you thought of our Refixing, or Retracting our Subscriptions; forsooth because according to the supercilious Louanians Censure (pronounced by them, as from the tripos of Apollo) we are bound under the guilt of Sacriledge to Re∣fix, as they speak. Which yet I scarce think could be hoped for by your Lord∣ship, or indeed by any other. I mean, until we be first convinced either 1. By ma∣nifest Arguments (such, I mean, as are evident, or such as can have no probable Answer) That our Form implies either Heresie, or Schism, or some other sin. Or, 2. By some decree or determination of a lawful, general, and future Coun∣cil. For in those Councils past already, it's plain, there is not as much as one word against us: as neither in the Books of Holy Scriptures, or Volumes of Holy Fathers, or Tradition called Oral; whatever is to the contrary babled by Bellarmine, Becan, Suarez, Lessius, Gretzer, &c. whose Writings altogether, which Treat of this Subject, no less than those of their opposers, I have perused most attentively: as likewise the Writings of those others who preceded them some Ages (and whose too too erronious footsteps they all along followed) Durand, Bertrand, &c. 3. At least by some decree or decision, and that future likewise of some Roman Pontiff (for to this day there is none produced to any purpose by our Adversaries, none, I say, of all that ever yet emaned from any Bishop of the Roman See:) and such decree or decision made in or by a clear, authentick, undeniable, and unanswer∣able declarative Bull directed to all Christians wherever diffused throughout the World: or at least to some Nation or people (albeit this later kind of Bull, I mean, to a particular Nation or people, is not sufficient, according to the doctrine of Divines, not even I say, of those very Divines who attribute Infallibility to the Pope alone, without a Council in his declaration of Faith:) and yet such Bull, decree, or decision precisely determining the point as of Christian Catholick Faith received from the Apostles, and so to be necessarily believed, viz. That the Roman Pontiff may, by vertue of a power in him, either direct or indirect, as they speak, and that either spiritual, or temporal, or mixt, depose all Kings whatsoever, at least such as are Christians, but above all, such as are Hereticks, or believers of Hereticks, and may depose them at least casually, as Innocent the Third speaks, that is for sin, or by occasion of their sin, or may at least depose them for some kinds of horrid sins, or lastly for evil Government, or unfitness or uncapableness to govern; as the foolish Assertion is of some late smattering Divines, flattering Parasites of the great Pontiff. For indeed, although from the very first time I un∣derstood any thing of Theological positions relating to the Civil or Lay, and Ec∣clesiastical or Church-powers (which the more ancient Divines, and many too of the very Scholasticks have excellently well distinguished, as Gerson, Almainus, Oc∣cam, and others) it never once entered my Soul, to repute the great Pontiff alone,

without a Council Oecumenical to be a competent Judge in this Controversie: as I never since, or before either, believed Him to be infallible, or unerrable, but in such a General Synod only, and only too in defining there, with their concur∣rence, Articles, or matters of Faith: yet, even in his sole judgment, as in that of the Primary Bishop, and Universal Patriarch, Doctor, Father, and spiritual Supe∣riour of all Christians, I have alwayes thought fit to acquiesce for the peace of the Church, until a General Council be assembled. I mean, if, or when he declares that his judgment as Pope, not as a particular Doctor: and further, if it evidently ap∣pears not to contain an Error against the Christian Faith once and all along till then delivered: and lastly, if or when it is in matters purely belonging to that very Faith. Wherewith notwithstanding is well consistent and compatible, That I Religiously acknowledge his fulness of Apostolical power in spirituals, and my own absolute subjection to Him in such: as I do indeed (and as I am specially bound to, by the Rule of St. Francis I profess) most devoutly acknowledge both. This only follows out of what is before said, That if from the appearance of Ca∣ron, or Walsh, at Bruxels, your Lordship hoped for a Refixion of their Signatures, you have invited them to no purpose.

Or you thought peradventure of some kind of modification, or change of the said Form, either as to the sense, or to the words, or both. If to the sense, you would, without any peradventure, lose both your oyle and pains. Since it is very true and certain, That hitherto no reason, no motive proposed to those, from whom we do expect the benefit of that Protestation, could prevail with them to admit, not even in the least, any manner of variation in the sense, for what concerns the substantial parts of a declaration and promise of fidelity indispensable by any mor∣tal, and of an acknowledgment of the Kings MAJESTIES power Supreme in Temporals to depend of God alone, and of no other kind of power on earth, Spiritual or Temporal, or mixt of both whatsoever. But if to the words, the same sense in substance still retained; they have already granted that.

Or lastly, perhaps you thought of Treating with us of some other wayes or means whereby the Romish Clergy of the Kingdom of Ireland may be restored to His MAJESTIES Favour, notwithstanding that the foresaid Form be laid by for ever, and not only that Form, but all and every, or any other Form, Oath, Protestation, or Declaration whatsoever of Allegiance. And, truly I could, with all my heart, wish there might be any such Expedients proposed, or such as would be grateful to His MAJESTY, and prime Counsellors of State. But that any such may, or such as will suffice without a publick Declaration, Protestation, or Oath of fidelity for the future, I do for my part wholly despair. So deeply hath the remembrance of the Troubles raised amongst the Catholicks of Ireland against the King, and Crown, and Peace of that Countrey in the late Wars, by the Lord Nuntio Rinuccini, and by his too too zealous sticklers of the Irish Clergy, fixed its Roots. And so powerful to break open again, and make the old sore fester anew, your Lordships endeavours and contrivements (for so they call here your Admonitions and Cautions) and much more yet those of the most eminent Cardi∣nal Francis Barberine, in so many several Epistles of both, to the Clergy, Nobili∣ty, and Gentry of Ireland, on the subject of our Protestation, have been. Epistles sent to no other end (say they) but to alienate once more that Nation and King∣dom from the duty of Subjects. For if this were not your design, their demand is, Why should you seek for knots in the smoothest bulrush?

Whatever your Lordships intention was, or whichsoever of these three things you resolved to propose to Caron, or Walsh, or both, had they appeared at Brus∣sels, I see not wherefore being they are stayed at London, it may not be as well pro∣posed unto them: and by mutual Commerce of Letters treated as happily, nay, far more happily, and speedily too, I mean, as to any reasonable point, than if they had been at Brussels.

Wherefore, by the wounds of the crucified God, I beseech your Lordship may be pleased to deal fairly and candidly with us, and with the rest of the Irish Cler∣gy: and write the single Proposition or Clause, any one, or more, if perhaps more

then one seem such to you or your Divines, which may be said undoubtedly to be against faith or salvation: or which may render the Subscribers guilty of Sacri∣ledge (as your Doctors of Louain have Censured the Form in general.) And that you may be pleased to fix on such Proposition or Propositions, Clause, or Clauses, not by the Rule of any variable sentence of some Opiners, but by that of the infallible sense of all Believers, by that of the constant doctrine of the Church, and by that of the divine persuasion of all People, Kingdoms and Nations that are in communion with the Roman See and Bishop. Which, if your Lordship can∣not do, or if you cannot, according to this Rule, single out of that Form any one Proposition or Clause (or more such) that may be lyable to Censure: let (I beseech you) the most holy Father permit a miserable people, communicating with, and obeying Him in spirituals, redeem themselves, by lawful and honest means, from the severity of Laws which make them drag a life of hardship and slavery; clear the suspition of disloyal principles and practices, otherwise most justly con∣ceived of them; and wipe off, as well as they can, and wash away that blemish, which renders even Catholick profession in it self very odious. Nor verily can it be esteemed just, much less pious (and the Church ought to be very pious in go∣verning) That the most Holy Father should by Censures and Threats, or such other means, either by Letters, or by Messengers, compel, or drive any people or per∣sons (at least who live without the bounds of his own proper temporal Jurisdi∣ction, or Estate) to renounce in this Controversie, a Doctrine or Position, which they very well know to have been asserted in all Ages by Thousands, and by Milli∣ons, even of the most Learned, most Religious, and most Holy of Catholicks, as the soundest and safest, if not as wholly and absolutely, and in all respects certain∣ly Catholick, according to the faith of Christ: and to have been asserted by them for such, not in their speculative Ratiocinations only, but in all the practick obser∣vations of their life: and yet by them for such asserted so that whensoever, or as often soever as this Controversie was renewed, and even at that very time it viewed first the light, under Gregory the VII. they devoted the contrary, both doctrine and practice to all the Furies of Hell. Such proceedings, I say, cannot be reputed just or pious in the most holy Father; especially when it is apparent, the Irish (in relation to whom the present debate is) cannot change their Opi∣nion, cannot retract their Subscription, without hazard of losing all their tem∣poral Goods and Fortunes, or hopes of any; whatever may, in the mean time be said probably on either side, for the loss or safety of those are purely spiritual. But such proceedings, or attempts; to have their source from others, without ei∣ther consent or knowledge of his Holiness, and to be continued certainly with the scandal of the Church, and hatred of the Pope, and hurt of Souls, and singu∣lar decrease of Religion, and yet carried on by most filthy Forgeries and Impostures, must seem absolutely both unjust and wicked.

And your Lordship may be further pleased to write what change you desire in the words: or send some other Form of your own; but such as you shall ratio∣nally think may satisfie the KING, and His great Counsellors, and may withall be allowed by his Holiness.

Lastly, you may be also pleased to specifie those other means, if any such be, which appear to your Lordship, whereby the Catholick Subjects, chiefly such as are of the Clergy, may daily more and more ingratiate themselves with our most Gracious KING.

For truly, and in relation to my self, I protest here anew, and under my hands∣writing what I have before, in your own presence, and to your self, by word of mouth, at London, and I protest it too in the sight of the All seeing God, That I have not hitherto aimed in this whole Affair, do not at present, nor shall at any time hereafter (God willing) aim at other thing but the encrease of Christian Faith, and Roman Catholick Religion, the freedom of my Countreymen from the yoke of most severe Laws against it, and the peace of the Kingdoms, and other Dominions in general of Great Britain's Monarchy. And to the end this my ingenuous Protestation may be the more believed, I shall be most ready to give

and make, and as well by writing, as by word, a full entire profession of my Faith, if at any time you demand it, even that very profession which Pius the IV. hath ordered, in prosecution of a Decree of the Council of Trent.

Some other passages I was minded to give in this Letter, by reason of some things, which more particularly concern Father Caron, and Father Walsh alone, and which have been said, or rather indeed upbraided by your Lordship to Father Gearnon. But least such an addition should be too much for one Letter, or one sheet too scanty for all I have already, and what I must further give in that other Subject, I thought better to leave it to a distinct Paper, which is the enclosed. And will only add here, That I willingly understood from the said Father Gearnon, how your Lordship challenges me of my promise (when your Lordship was here) to write to you to Bruxels: and that you took in ill part, I never since performed, but more especially that I did not at least, write by him. For I am glad to know your Lordship desires that which I my self so heartily, i. e. an Epistolar Corres∣pondence. And without any question I was my self most firmly resolved, before I knew any thing of that your challenge, to send unto the said Father Gearnon Letters for your Lordship, if he had stayed, as I thought he would, but one week longer at Bruxels. However, if your Lordship please, I shall hereafter abun∣dantly compensate, by my diligence; that fault of delaying so long my duty. And so kissing your hands, with all becoming respects and affection, I remit your Lord∣ship to this other annexed writing, and beseech God to direct and keep you in health, London, Ides of Febr. 1665. stilo novo.

My LORD,

Your most Illustrious Lordships Most humble and obsequious Servant, Peter Walsh.

The additional Paper, mention'd as you see in the end of this Letter, because it is long (as being a necessary Expostulation with the same Internuncio for his passionate and rude (and both injurious also, and ignorant expressions to Mr. Gearnon (at his being at Bruxels) against both him and his friends Walsh and Caron) I remit to the following Section, which is wholly taken up by it. And must only here advertise the Reader, That (as he will find by the date) this additional Paper was not sent together with the first Letter, but some dayes af∣ter it.

LXXXVIII.

HOwever, that very same Paper, or second Letter of the Procurator (to the In∣ternuncio de Vecchiis) Translated out of the Latin, is, and most exactly too, as followeth.

My Lord,

SInce your Lordship was pleased, in Discourse with F. Gearnon, to call Caron and Walsh Schismaticks and Apostates; and, when he expostulated the mat∣ter, to assign no other Reason for those most ignominious Titles, but that they had been disobedient to the command of their Superiours, namely, as far as may be guessed, the Commissary General of the Flemish Nation, who had admonish't and cited them to Rome, or Bruxels: I thought good to repress the ma∣lice and ignorance of your Informers, together with the wonderful liberty they

take to calumniate, by declaring the Truth briefly in the following Lines, and more at large in the bundle of Papers annexed, which contains both Copies of that Ci∣tation, whatsoever it was, and to whomsoever directed, and of the Answers of Walsh and Caron as well for themselves, as for the rest, who by any conjecture could be conceived concerned in it.

Be it therefore known to your Lordship, That neither Walsh, nor Caron, did ever receive any Command, Citation, or Monition, either by writing or word, so much as by fame or any relation of any other, from any Superiour other than one in a Letter from Father James de Riddere Commissary, as abovesaid, of the Flem∣mish Nation (whom they undoubtedly acknowledge and receive as their lawful Superiour) to Father Caron at London (now about some Two years since) and certain others in general: none of those others being named, nor any fact expressed by which, or one of which it might certainly be determined who besides Caron were admonished or cited: for in those Letters onely, the said Father Caron was admo∣nished and cited by name, but the rest in general who had medled with that busi∣ness (for these are the very words of the Letter) to appear at Bruxels, or Rome, to render an account of their actions. That Father Caron, and some other Fathers, of those who had subscribed the Protestation, and were then at London (guessing, neither could it be other than pure guess, that they were the persons meant) im∣mediately by another Letter answered the Commissary General, and in it gave their Canonical Exceptions against such a Citation, and alledged very just Reasons why they could not obey it by going beyond Sea, in case, I say, they were the persons whom he meant in his Citation: which nevertheless was neither peremptory, nor one for three, neither did it contain a precept, nor commination of Ecclesiastical Censure. That after this, Father Caron sent to Walsh in Ireland, and the rest of the Subscribers there, the same Citatory Letter of the Commissary General, and withall a Copy of his Answer to it. That Walsh, upon the Receipt of them, ad∣vising with the rest who were thought concerned (if nevertheless we did not think amiss, for to this very day we know not) writ at large both in his own, and the name of all the rest in Ireland, to the said Commissary, alledging very clear Ex∣ceptions both of Law and Fact. Copies of all which Letters I have here annexed. Lastly, That Father James de Riddere Commissary aforesaid, upon the Receipt of both our mentioned Answers, sate quietly down, and transmitted, and devolved the whole business to the Minister General of the whole Order. For so he answered me in a short Letter, and so it appears by his perpetual silence in that matter to this very hour. Where now is the disobedience here? No man was Cited but only Caron, and he but once, and that neither under Precept, nor Censure. Caron an∣swered once, and alledged rational Exceptions, and Reasons, not only probable, but necessary why he could not obey. And the Superiours desisted from any farther trouble of Citations, not replying the least word, or shewing they were not satis∣fied. In like manner, Walsh and the other Subscribers answered too, though neither named nor certain by any circumstance of words or things they had been Cited. Where then is the disobedience? Shall we say perhaps that those Prelates of the Church, and other Ecclesiastical Judges and Subjects, and even Lay-men, are disobedient to the commands of the Pope, who refuse to execute the orders even of the Pope himself, though propos'd under penalty of the most grievous censures, even Excommunication latae sententiae, which intermination of Hell, and eternal malediction, with a formal precept of most strict obedience, nay, by the authori∣ty of the Holy Apostles St. Peter and Paul, and in vertue of the Holy Ghost him∣self, in case they see some cause (I do not say every way necessary, but only rea∣sonable) of not obeying, before they declare this cause to his Holiness? Plainly, whoever say this, are wonderful unskilful in the Canons, in Divinity, and all Law both Divine and Humane, and Equity and Justice too. Or perhaps, are not our Su∣periours to be judged, according to the Rule of the Law, to consent in our case where they are silent? Where then is the disobedience?

But, my Lord, be it supposed (which can never be proved) that we have in this point been guilty of some disobedience, and, if you will, of such a disobedience

as is properly called Contumacy, and is a mortal sin, and in our Seraphick Order a most grievous crime, and, in our Statutes, of that kind which is reserved by Clement VIII. (which only then according to the said Statutes has place, when after three Admonitions a man for a whole natural day resists the command; un∣derstand a lawful one:) are we therefore to be termed Apostates, or Schismaticks? Those who desire and endeavour to persuade your Lordship this, are to be esteem∣ed not only ignorant, but mad, and full of malice, and diabolical fury. For who has ever read the Summist's, Canonists, or Divines, where they treat of Schism or Apostacy, cannot but see these spiteful Calumniators are blinded by the highest de∣gree of malice; nay, if he have but attended to the common acception of words, even of the most ignorant vulgar. For no disobedience, how obstinate soever it be, makes a Schismatick (to wipe first off the infamy of this Reproach) unless ac∣companied with denial, and denial too with a kind of Rebellion to be subject to the Pope or Church, or acknowledge Her or Him for Superiour. Which that learned Cardinal of Cajeta Thomas de Vio, following other Canonists and Divines, has expresly taught, 2. 2. q. 39. ar. 1. ad 2. These are properly called Schismaticks, sayes St. Thomas in the same place, who of their own free will, and by design, separate themselves from the Ʋnity of the Church, and refuse to be subject to the Pope, and communicate with the members of the Church subject to him. It is not Schism, sayes Cajetan here, to refuse even pertinaciously to obey the Pope; but to refuse to be subject to him as Head of the whole Church, is Schism. For mark diligently, that to refuse the command or iudgment of the Pope, may happen three wayes. First, on the part of the thing judged or commanded. Secondly, on the part of the person judging. Thirdly, on the part of the office of the judge himself. If any one pertinaciously contemn the sentence of the Pope, because he will not put in execution what the other has commanded (for Example, to abstain from such a War, restore such an estate, &c.) although he err most grievously, nevertheless he is not for this a Schismatick. For it happens, and that often, that a man will not do what his Superiour commands, and yet retains this Acknowledgment, that he is his Superiour. But if any one do reasonably hold the person of the Pope for suspected, and therefore refuse, not only his presence, but even immediate judgment, and be ready to receive from him Judges not suspected, he neither incurs the crime of Schism, nor any other fault. For it is natural to provide against harms, and beware of dangers. And the person of the Pope may govern Tyrannically, and so much the more easily, by how much he is more powerful, and stands in fear of none to punish him on earth. But when a man refuses the command or judgment of the Pope upon the account of his office, not acknowledging him for his Superiour, although he believe him to be so, he is then principally a Schismatick. And according to this sense, are the words of this Text (viz. of St. Thomas supra) to be understood. For disobedience, how per∣tinacious soever it be, does not make Schism, unless there be Rebellion against the of∣fice of the Pope or Church, so that one refuse to be subject to him, to acknowledge him for our Superior, &c. Thus far Cajetan, and with him all Divines, Canonists, and Summists. If (I say) we look upon the proper acception of the word Schism, as importing that special grievous sin distinct from all other both greater and less. And take not the sense only from the Etymology of the word: in which most of the faithful, Subjects and Prelates, Laity and Clergy, entire Nations, your Lordship, nay, Popes themselves, may be termed Schismaticks: that is to say, as often, and whenever they are any way severed, divided, or cut either from others, or among themselves. But 'tis manifest, That neither Walsh, nor Caron do, or ever did se∣parate themselves (or any other) from the Unity of the Church, of their own free will, and by design: nor of any others (if this did suffice, as 'tis plain it does not, to Schism.) Do, or ever did refuse to be subject to the Pope, or communi∣cate with the members subject to him; and this not only not with Rebellion which nevertheless were necessary to Schism) but not even without any manner of Re∣bellion. By what Right then are they called Schismaticks? Now for what con∣cerns Apostasie, the matter is no less clear. For your Lordship will not say, That Apostasie is taken here in the Etymological, or most generical sense of the word,

namely, as it imports any kind of standing, or going back even from the obser∣vance of the Divine Law or Commands. According to which sense the Wiseman speaks, when he sayes, To Apostatize from God, is the beginning of all Pride* 65.1; and according to which, the Holiest among the Faithful, must of necessity both often and truly be called Apostates, since 'tis manifest that all do sometimes sin, and need the grace of God, and fall seven times every day: and who thinks otherwise, and sayes he is not, according to this less usual sense of the word, an Apostate, lyes, according to the Apostle and the truth of God is not in him* 65.2. Wherefore, since for the present we are to consider Apostasie in the specifical, proper and restrained sense, in which it is now generally used by the Faithful, and as it imports, according to the meaning of those who use it, whether of the School, or People, a special sin di∣stinct from other kinds, and a temerarious receding only from the state of Faith Clericate, or Religious Order (as may be seen in St. Thomas 2.2. q. xii. and his Commentators:) 'tis most evidently manifest, That Walsh and Caron are causelesly termed Apostates. They never receded from the profession of Christi∣ans, namely, the Roman-Catholick; and not only never receded totally (which nevertheless, according to the Archdeacon, were necessary to Apostasie, as it signi∣fies a special sin) but not so much as in the least kind, or word, nor ever will. Neither from the Clericate. Hitherto they have (and for the future will, as they hope from the goodness of God, while life and health endures) exercised the Sacred Function of Priests, according to the circumstances of time and place, as other Clergymen of the Roman Communion in the British Empire do. They have not taken Wives. They live not after the manner of Laymen. They left not off their habit and tonsure with a mind to live so; and with whatever mind they put off their Regular, and put on a Secular habit (as your Lordship himself knows all Ecclesiasticks of the Roman Communion must of necessity wear who live here, or come into these, or other Countries, not acknowledging the jurisdi∣ction of the Pope) I say, They put not off the one, and put on the other, with∣out lawful Faculty and Mission from their Superiours. Lastly, They have not ap∣plied themselves to business of the World misbecoming the calling of Clergy∣men, or any against the Canons, Extra. de vita & honestate Clericorum. And for what concerns their Religion, or Regular Institution in which they have lived from their youth, viz. The Seraphick Order of St. Francis, nothing can be objected to their face (nor has any such thing ever yet been objected) by which they may be accused of any Apostasie, or receding from it. As partly follows from what has been said. And even fully is manifest from hence, That from the first day in which they took the habit of the Seraphick Order, they never lived, or tarried any where, without the consent of the Superiours of the Order: never went out of the Monastery, never Travelled any whither, without Letters of Obedience (as they call them:) neither are they now in England, or Ireland, without lawful Mission under the Hands and Seals of their Superiours not revoked to this day, but rather confirmed, and that lately, by those to whom it belongs. That moreover the Mission of both is to the Three Kingdoms of the British Empire. And that, over and above all, Walsh in particular, now some Three years since, was by an ample authentick Instru∣ment made, by the chief of the Irish Clergy, Procurator of the same Clergy, to His ROYAL MAJESTY, and chief Ministers, and Officers whatsoever, for those things which concern the good, peace, and advance of the exercise of Ca∣tholick Religion in Ireland, and prosecution of right as to the favours and bene∣fits granted by the Articles of Peace an. 1648. to the Clergy and People of Ireland. Wherefore, since not even according to the general Statutes of the Franciscans, Cap. 6. §. 20. (pursuant to the holy Synod of the Fathers at Trent) any are said Apostates from the Order, but such as wander through Countries, Provinces, or some places, without Letters or Licence of their Superiors: nor any other disobedience, though contumacious, nor any other whatsoever transgression of vows, nor by consequence of any particular precepts of the Rule or Statutes (which a fortiori is to be affirmed of other meer precepts, which are called ab homine) is termed Apostasie: with what reason, I beseech you, are we called Apostates, even as much as from our Order on∣ly?

For Apostasie from our Order, or that by which we ought (or not at all) be stiled Apostates, imports here, as likewise that which is from the Clericate, or Faith a spe∣cial crime far different from others, even from contumacious disobedience (as ap∣pears above from Cajetan, and others:) or else we must of necessity admit the univer∣sal Church it self, for the far greatest part to be overflown with a Sink of Apostates. But perhaps it is allowable in the Calumniators of innocent men, who have sug∣gested these things to your Lordship out of hatred and rancor, to abuse words, and their sense, and Divinity it self, and the Holy Canons, when they vomit out against Caron and Walsh, the damnable poyson of their ulcerous corrupted breasts. Never∣theless, your Lordship would do well to consider what satisfaction an upright Con∣science, and Christian Doctrine would have given to those who are unjustly wron∣ged in recompence of the injury. 'Tis a received Maxim amongst Divines, taken from St. Austin* 65.3, That Sin is not pardoned till what is taken away be restored.

But, my Lord, I conceive it fit to reflect a little on those Aspersions which in the progress of your discourse with Father Gearnon, were cast upon Caron, and me. For you were pleased to reproach our Descent, Parentage, or the meanness of our Birth and Families: and withall to complain of I know not what Troubles rais'd by us to the Church of God. Homines de luto quas molestias Ecclesiae Dei creaverunt? Men of dirt, said you, what troubles have they not caused us, and to the Church of God? Good God! A Christian, an Ecclesiastical, an Apostolical man, to reproach other Clergymen in the School of the Humble, of Christ and his Apostles, and reproach them, I say, with their Lineage, how mean soever! This from a Minister of the Successor of Peter! Of his Vicar, who for the meanness and poverty of his stock, was born in a Hovel, in a Stable, and laid in a Manger; and who, according to the Law, was truly called, and truly also was a Carpenters Son! Of that See in which have sate so many Bishops (Supreme Judges of the World) of the lowest ex∣traction, and almost in our Age a Weaver and Brewer, and that Minorite Fisher too, as our Holy Malachias 500 years before Prophetically called him! And yet 'tis your Lordships pleasure to upbraid Caron and Walsh with the meanness of their Birth. Apostolical man! Worthy Minister of the Supreme Bishop! Who would persuade Christian Priests, Philosophers, Religious persons, to esteem the Goods of Fortune, Goods which are Trifles, and for the most part misfortunes; and make it shameful to want these things which do not make a good man. O my good Lord, how much more proper had it been for you to have admonish't us from the Apo∣stle Doctor of the Gentiles, to attend to our vocation, and often inculcated the reason from him? viz. because not many wise according to the flesh, not many pow∣erful, not many noble: but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world, to con∣found the wise:* 65.4 and God hath chosen the weak things of the world, to confound the strong: and the ignoble and contemptible things of the world, and those which are not, God hath chosen to confound those that are: that all flesh may not glory in his sight. For as the Evangelical Prophet Isaiah long before said, All flesh is hay, and all the glory thereof as the flower of the field.* 65.5 Nevertheless, I would not have your Lordship think I have alledged these things to excuse a base extraction, or acknowledge the truth of that reproach of yours. Nothing less, my good Lord. Neither have our Parents or Families been in themselves such, or at all reputed such. And we were born, not only not of Jews, or Mahumetans, or Hereticks, or Schismaticks, or any sort of Infidels, or so much as Neophits (whence according to the rigour of any Canons or Statutes, any note of infamy, any suspition or incapacity could in the Church, or our Order, be derived to the children) but even of unblemisht Christians, and old Catholicks. And those too, not of the very lowest sort, or dregs of the people. Not of Slaves, or Workmen, Merce∣naries or Hirelings: nor even of Mecanicks, Tradesmen, Artificers, or Bores: not only not of persons in any kind base (I speak for the present, according to the manner and account of the World) but of such who were neither so mean, nor so poor, as to be taken for Dirt, I mean, in the sense of your Lordship. Otherwise I know very well what, not only may, but ought in a like occasion, be said not only to ours, but to whatsoever Pedigree of whatever mortal, whether base or noble,

as Elihu the son of Barachiel the Buzite said to Job, Ecce! & me sicut & te fe∣cit Deus, & de eodem luto ego quoque formatus sum. Behold! God made me as thee, and of the same (clay, or) dirt, was I also formed, Job 33. Fortune, or, to speak more Christianly, Providence, gave us both Parents, content with their moderate lot. My Ancestors to my Father (who being the second Brother, could not therefore be Heir) have almost now for 500 years enjoy'd an Estate of inheri∣tance in Lands and Villages belonging to them in Ireland. The Son, in a right Line, still succeeding the Father. Caron, likewise, has Ancestors, who, peradven∣ture, were able to reckon more Ages of ancient descent and possession, than those among the ancient Romans who were proudest. Wherefore let not these things be understood, as said in defence of a fordid Extraction, but in Reproof of a most vain untruth. For I cannot but according to the admonition of St. Paul, esteem this Objection of our Descent most vain, whether it be true or false. An Ethnick Poet could say, I hardly call our own, or Ancestors, or Stock, or what we have not done our selves. And 'tis the saying of another wise man, That's true Nobility which adorns the mind with vertuous manners. But, while I repeat the sayings of wise men, am not I my self become foolish, to use the words of the Apostle of the Gentiles, pleading thus in my foolishness for flesh and blood, and pedigrees? Be it so: But you have constrain'd me,* 65.6 as the same Apostle answered in a case not much unlike. Besides, I may add, 'tis lawful for a Clergy or Religious man, to have a care of Honour too (such, I mean, as is according to the esteem of the world Honour, so it be not contrary to Goodness or Holiness) especially where he sees that by the lessening of it his authority and power to persuade people to the Truths of the Gospel, is lessened, and that such is the design of his envious Calumniators. And, I suppose your Lordship will not be angry that I have, as becomes every honest man, endeavoured to wipe off the dirt thrown in my face: that is, answer'd the reproaches and injuries objected. Nay, so far am I from fearing this, that I should much more fear to pass for truly vile and unworthy, either to speak, or any way have to do with your Lordship, if out of Cowardize I should neglect, or out of Baseness omit to give a free and true Answer.

For which Reason, my Lord, neither can I here pass over in silence your Lord∣ships judgment of Father Gearnon. Whom, after you had ask't if he were of the number of the Subscribers, and he had acknowledged it, it had been better, re∣plied you, you had been in your grave first. Now of all that came from you in your Discourse with Father Gearnon, this judgment which you made of him can least be past in silence: because it reaches by consequence not only all the Sub∣scribers, but all other maintainers (and that for all Ages of Christian Religion, past and future, as well as present) all Doctors, Favourers, Abettors, nay all Believers, or any way Assenters to this Doctrine, That Kings may not be depos'd by the Pope. It had been better, said you, to have been in your grave, before you had subscribed to such a Doctrine. And this to the face of a Priest, pious, exemplar, religious. I could say, a Gentleman too (if you will have this circumstance of blood to be of mo∣ment) and who, for Christ, despis'd a fair Estate descended to him by inheritance, and chose the Order of St. Francis. A Priest so zealous for the Catholick Faith, that for many years before, and after this Subscription, even to old Age, he had laboured painfully and successfully in the Irish Vineyard, to reduce Sectaries to the Church, and preserve and comfort those which were Catholicks: and this (while the late Tyrants were in power) in extreme straits, and often imprison∣ments. Who had often suffered banishment: and been snatch't from the very jaws of death, having been condemn'd to the Gallows by the sentence of the Laws and Judges. A death, which being for his Faith, and the Pope, he was not only most ready, but most desirous to undergo, but that his Judges, when they saw his resolution, envy'd him the glory of Martyrdom, as they publickly told him. This judgment of yours concerning such a man to be pronounced to his own face! and pronounced by a Religious Abbot nay, and also by the Abbot of Mount Royall Poor Gearnon then, had better have been in his grave, say you, than subscribed. What then is it you do not say of Caron, Walsh, and the rest of the Subscribers? What not

only of those whose names are long since in Print, but which make far the greater number those who are yet only in Manuscript, Guardians, Priors, Doctors of Divi∣nity, Bishops? What of those not only Clergymen, but almost of all the Lay-Catholick both Gentry and Nobility in Ireland; the rest, who have not yet, being ready to Sub∣scribe when call'd upon? What of the English Clergy of the same Communion and Faith, who, 'tis manifest, have approved this Form of our Fidelity, and made another for themselves, not only not unlike ours, but for what concerns the Point in Contro∣versie far better? What of the French, Venetian, Spanish, German, indeed all Ca∣tholicks in Europe, and not only in Europe, but all Christians of all places and all times, both present and past, whenever their Interest is, or has been in question? Nay, What do you think of the Holy Doctors, Prelates and Fathers, whose me∣mories are now in veneration, and who conspired with us in this Doctrine, nay, taught it us? Lastly, What of the Primitive Church it self, and the chief and greatest Doctors of it, the most Holy Apostles, and the very Princes of the Apostles Peter and Paul, who first, after our Saviour himself in their Epistles, taught this Do∣ctrine to the World? Had it then indeed been better all these universally had never been, than been defiled with this venemous Contagion? Had it truly and consequen∣tially been better too the Religion of the Cross had not been Taught by Christ, Preach't by his immediate Disciples, and by their Successors delivered down? Better that even after it had been Preach't, and believed, the Superstition thereof had not been preserved, but totally abolish't? Better Christian Churches had been shut up, their Altars profaned and destroyed? the dispensation of Sacred things had ceased, Sacraments, Sacrifices, and the Sacred dispensers of them taken away? And, if all this sufficed not for rooting out the pestiferous Error, much better, to join with Ju∣lian for restoring Paganism and Judaism; or with the Saracens and Turks, for setting up the fiction of Mahomet? and so, shutting the gates of Heaven, and opening those of Hell to all Mankind, by the miserable loss of souls, to bring joy to the wicked spirits, and make the Angels of peace, as the Prophet speaks, weep bitterly? But a Christian Ab∣bot to say That from whence all this would follow! O shame! To prefer the Temporal, but most vain and false Monarchy of the Pope, before the true and certain one of our eternal Bishop, Saviour, God! O Wickedness! And to wish this rather should perish, than that not be establish't! O abominable, and mad! See, my good Lord, whether too much heat in a bad Cause has drawn you, and the consequence of an unadvised Judgment pronounced against Father Gearnon, and the Subscribers: unless perhaps you would be thought to have spoken without any judgment, i. e. without weighing the consequence of what you said. Whatever you would have us think: how much rather according to Religion, more pious; accord∣ing to reason, more prudent had it been, with that most holy, and most prudent Abbot of Clareval S. Bern. Ep. 170. ad Ludovic. Reg. Franc. to have praised the unsha∣kable resolution of Gearnon, and the other Subscribers, in performing their Allegi∣ance to their King, Although the whole World should conspire against them? And by the example of that holy Saint to have added what his Writings testifie of him, That even in such case, viz. of a Conspiracy even of the whole world, the God of Heaven is to be feared by us? and therefore we are to believe that not even in such a case 'tis law∣ful for Subjects to attempt any thing against Regal Majesty, or Plot against the Life, Authority, or Crown of Him who is subject to God alone, second to none amongst Mortals; first in His own Kingdom after God, and in Temporals judged by God alone? How much more pious, and more prudent had it been, with that most prudent Saint, thus to have exhorted Gearnon (and each other of the Subscribers) Stand thou in thy Testament, exercise thy self therein, and remain in the work of thy Commandments, until Death take thee away? as (in effect) also, that wise Hebrew, Jesus the Son of Sirach, long before St. Bernard's time, premonish't us, Ecclesi∣astic. xi. 21, But you, my Lord, persuade the direct contrary; and not only persuade, but to your power constrain, and constrain both by word and deed, and that almost for these Three whole Years, although not alwayes in the same words. Although the whole world should be on our Kings side, and the Pope alone against him, by Sentence either of Deposition, Privation, or perhaps only Excommunication, that at

the back of his Holiness, we not only lawfully may, but ought to plot and attempt against our otherwise lawful King, is your Sentence (Hierom Abbot of Mount Royal) your Admonition, Exhortation, Precept, and what not? Which because we do not em∣brace, but by a publick and necessary Protestation detest, on the sudden we are be∣come wicked men, deserve to be razed out of the number of the Faithful, and by your Lordship are particularly termed disobedient, Apostates, Schismaticks, Men of Dirt, who have raised Troubles to the Church of God, and Men who had better have been first in their Graves. And thus indeed Hierom Abbot of Mount Royal, however otherwise Bernard Abbot of Clarevalle. But O the difference 'twixt Abbot and Abbot! (O Abbas, & Abbas! as the same St. Bernard cryes out, in the life of another Saint and Abbot, St. Benedict comparing himself to him.) O the difference (I say) 'twixt Abbot and Abbot! The Abbot, who Teaches Duty to Kings; and the Abbot, who Teaches Treachery! The Abbot, who ap∣proves Subjection; and the Abbot, who approves Rebellion! The Abbot, who writes for Truth; and the Abbot, who writes for Lyes, for Vanity, Falshood, and most dangerous Errours! Lastly, the Abbot, who leads to Life: and the Abbot, who leads to Death, both temporal of the body in this World, and eternal of the Soul in the next.

I have spoken freely, I must confess; but not more freely than truly: nor is the freedom I take more then necessary. Your Lordship is the Assailant: I only defend my self, and that with the moderation of an unblameable defence. A defence, not of my self alone, but of many others, of thousands, of almost all the Catho∣licks of Ireland, England, Scotland, nay, of the universal Church wheresoever dif∣fused. For that speech of yours, that judgment rashly given of Gearnon, has in∣jur'd all wheresoever they live, who are against the temporal Monarchy of the Pope. And those former practises and attempts of yours, as likewise of his Emi∣nence Cardinal Barberin, by so many Epistles and Emissaries, by which you have rendred all His Majesties Catholick Subjects suspected beyond measure in the point of Allegiance, and continued them under the yoke of most severe Laws, have deject∣ed, afflicted, and for the present quite ruin'd them all. And what we had done by that publick Declaration of our Allegiance with a good Conscience and right Faith, and a good and necessary end, namely, to clear Catholick Religion from the scandal and infamy, especially amongst Sectaries, of the most odious Tenets of King-deposition, and King-deprivation, nay, and King-killing too, at the will of the Pope in order to Spirituals, by a pretended either direct or indirect power; and be∣sides, to get those Laws taken away which have long been made against Catholicks in these Kingdoms, and principally against the abettors and believers of such most wick∣ed assertions: your Lordship and his Eminence have suddenly blown away: and by those Epistles of yours, so busily dispers't through Ireland and England, reproved either of Lying or Errour. Then which, in the circumstances in which things then were, nothing could come to the hands of those Protestants who were ene∣mies to Catholicks, more acceptable, or more wish't for: nothing more contrary to the Orthodox, nay, or such even Heterodox, as being moderate and well-affected, desired a Repeal of Laws made against Religion. Those being overjoy'd, they had now got out of your Letters evident, as they thought, Arguments to overthrow, or obstruct the end and scope of our Form of Protestation, and prove that Catho∣lick Religion is wholly inconsistent and incompatible with the absolute and in∣dispensable allegiance of Subjects, and the safety of the King and State, especially in a Kingdom of a contrary communion. These on the other side dejected with extreme grief, to fall thus from their hopes, when they saw that must happen which did, namely, That the Catholick Clergy, at least in Ireland, would by such Let∣ters break into Parties: and by consequence would not so unanimously, freely, sea∣sonably, and ingenuously give such assurance of their Allegiance for the future, by subscribing the Protestation, as might stop the mouths of all their Adversaries, and open those of their Friends, and which our good King, and his principal Mini∣sters would admit as sufficient. Wherefore 'tis Hierom Abbot of Mount Royal, and Cardinal Francis Barberin, who, for the present, have cast down, afflicted and

ruined the Catholick interest, and hopes thereof in Ireland principally. And conse∣quently only you two, and your credulous Clients and Zealots after you (for the most part over-ignorant, dull, and envious) not Caron, nor Walsh, nor any other of the Subscribers, either singly, or altogether, you two, I say, are the men who, in the British Empire, and chiefly Ireland, have raised to the Catholick Church of Christ not only troubles, but mischiefs, to be deplored for ever, unless the mercy of God, and a good King divert them: and we are chiefly they who have pre∣scrib••d remedies against those troubles and mischiefs. You two alone, more than all the rest, have bravely bestirr'd your selves, and to your power endeavoured to obstruct all peaceable and Christian, nay even in any sort probable or apparent ways to a Catholick people, not only for restoring Orthodox Religion and Faith, but re-establishing also the Papal Rights, I mean, those are truly such: We are they who have laid open the onely lawful, honest, holy, peaceable, evangelical way of entirely restoring both, viz. the ancient Religion, and Papal Jurisdiction. As far namely as that Jurisdiction is true, not pretended; as 'tis admitted by the Canons of the universal Church, not usurped against and above them; as 'tis purely spiritual, and of the keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven; not temporal, not mixt, not confused, not of the ensigns of a certain worldly Dominion; and, to speak in one word, as far as 'tis either acknowledged or received by all other Roman Catholicks of Europe. Lastly, you alone have been the leaders of those, who, as the Samaritans and Idu∣maeans of old, look with malicious eyes upon the repairing the Holy Temple under our Cyrus, and run headlong upon, and with all sorts of weapons fiercely fight (and this) almost daily and hourly, against the builders of the walls. We are they who with one hand lay stones in the holy wall, with the other drive back the enemy. Let the Church of God, and our Holy Father the Pope himself, consider in equi∣ty and justice what thanks, what rewards belong to you; what crime is to be im∣puted, and what punishment inflicted on us. Confidently and undoubtedly I speak it, If we who have subscribed that Protestation, have not been, nor shall be able to restore the veneration due to his Holiness by the way we have taken, that is an Apostolical, Christian way, a way of Allegiance in Subjects, peace to the People, and all man∣ner of security to Princes: it will never be restored by that contrary way of yours, which you have hitherto shewn us, that is, by Anti-apostolical, Anti-evangelical, An∣tichristian doctrines and practices both of Tumults, Seditions, Conspiracies, Rapines, Perjury, Homicide, nay, Regicide too, of Treasons and Rebellions, and by conse∣quence of acting in a most impious War, and cruel Murthers, and more then cruel effusion of innocent blood. My Lord, there has been tryal enough of that exe∣crable way of yours; enough of Attempts, enough of Rebellion, enough and more then enough of War. Of all which Ireland alone is, and to all Ages will be a sad argument for History. God, who is good, not being inclined to give a bles∣sing or wish't success to wicked arts or means used either in a pretended, or even truly intended quarrel of Religion. Nor our humble Saviour, Jesus Christ crucified, being pleased that his Religion should be restored by other wayes than what he first ordained: or any other indeed than that of Hu∣mility, and the Cross; as that alone which he both in life and death, in word and work, shew'd his ungrateful people the Jews, and by his blessed Disciples preach't and declared to the Gentiles of the whole Earth. But why this Discourse of the way of the Cross, of the way of Religion and Christian Faith, to an Abbot of Mount Royal? 'Tis paint, not substance, with which you colour things. You pretend Religion, but intend it not; and so with notorious Sophi∣stry alledge a not cause for a cause. In St. Gregory Nazianzen's Orations of Peace, where he treats of the great differences which then were amongst the Clergy, espe∣cially the Bishops, I find the true cause of that vehement spirit of yours, and your and his Eminence Cardinal Barberin's opposition. Besides ignorance in many of your Informers and Whisperers, there is impetuous anger my Lord, and hatred, and spite, and envy, and there is avarice my Lord, and pride, and ambition, and a blind passion to domineer, and the glory, pomp, and vanity of the World.

But this too, is it not o'th freest? I confess it; but 'tis a freedom which the thing requires, and which becomes a Christian Priest, and old Divine, and faithful Subject of His King, in a Controversie no less great, than unhappy, between some of the Clergy with the whole Laity, with supreme Princes themselves, and Kings, and Emperours of the World, concerning Right in Temporals. Never∣theless, to say and write, as I have done, to the Internuncio of his Holiness, and of a Cardinal, Is it not misbecoming? This I deny. For, as for your Lordship, if in dignity as a Commendatory Abbot and Internuncio of the Pope, you go be∣fore me; yet in Order and spiritual power, and in the Hierarchy, you come behind me. Nor is there in that respect so much difference betwixt a Bishop, and the meanest Priest, as betwixt you and me. Nevertheless, I respect and reverence an Abbot, and much more an Internuncio; nay, honour your person without those titles, if you respect me as is fitting. For what concerns his Eminence, as I have a great veneration for the height of the Sacred Episcopal Office, as instituted by Christ our Saviour; and the Dignity of Cardinal, as constituted by the Supreme Bishops: so I have a far greater for both in the person of his Eminence Cardinal Fr. Barberin; and so much the greater, as by the rule of our seraphick Father, I know my self obliged by a stricter tye, to reverence not only the Governor, Protector, and Corrector, but, as I am informed, a Friend, and Patron, and singular Benefactor too of our Order; and a man besides, if this unhappy Controversie had not lessned his esteem, pious and good. Notwithstanding I maintain, I have used no greater freedom against either, than becomes the Cause, than becomes Walsh, or any other Priest who is a Divine, and pious in the same Cause. The Cause, I must confess, is in one respect proper to Walsh, and the rest of the Subscribers; but in more and more important respects, 'tis the Cause of a Kingdom, of the British Empire, of England, Scotland, and more particularly Ireland; nay, of all Common∣wealths, Kingdoms, and Kings, of Christian Faith over and above, and by conse∣quence of the universal Church, People and Clergy, and all Priests. 'Tis a Cause besides which for the side you take, is wonderful bad and most false; which has long since been exploded, condemned, adjudged, and adjudged as seditious, scan∣dalous, erroneous, contrary to the Word of God, Heretical; and moreover, dangerous to Kings and People, destructive of the peace of the World, apt even to make the Pope, and Church of Christ be abominated, hated, and abhorred. And yet so (I say) or as such adjudged, exploded, and condemned in all ages, all times, from the dayes of Gregory the VII. to this present, and at present also; and that most of all, by renowned Prelates, famous Doctors, Universities, Churches, most Kingdoms, and Commonwealths through all Europe, preserving notwithstand∣ing the Faith and Communion of Rome. Besides, 'tis a Cause for which, and for that part, I mean, which you have undertaken to maintain, albeit that were but on∣ly for the Popes indirect power, and that also only in some cases, over the Tempo∣rals of Christian Princes, its most learned and eminent Patron, Cardinal Perron, demanded no more, but that as problematical, or as uncertain, and doubtful, it might pass uncensured, and demanded this in an Assembly general of the Three Estates in France. Lastly, 'tis a Cause which for that very unwarrantable part the Internuncio and Cardinal do so persuade, urge, press, and, to their power, constrain also to be embraced, and this with all manner of art and craft, with all manner of industry and fraud (but yet onely in a corner of the World, amongst a company of ignorant Islanders, the miserable Irish I mean, far from the great Continent; and but there indeed, where such arts are not so well known:) that, not content with the late and entire destruction of a miserable Nation procured by such frauds and fictions, for Faith forsooth, they would again ensnare them, and would rather have them lose for ever the present small (such as it is) and all future hope of being restored to their Countrey or Religion, or (as I gladly would) to the publick and free exercise of their Religion under a most clement Prince, or even to any either temporal or spiritual advantages, then not to embrace, not believe this most impious Assertion, and believe it as an Article of Faith, without which they cannot be saved. And would have them serve over

again their wretched slavery, undergo Prisons, Banishments, and Death. And, as heretofore in the persecution of the Vandals, would have the whole Clergy, Bi∣shops, Priests, Religious as Traytors, Rebels, and Outlaws, either be hanged at home, or banish••t again to Beggery abroad: leaving none in that Island of Saints to baptize the new born, or confirm the baptised, or absolve those of years, or anoint the dying, or consecrate or administer the holy Host to any. Now if Walsh have expostulated, defended, and reproved, as above, and this after two, nay, almost three years of patience and silence, in such a Cause, against such an assertion, such enormous errours and impostures, such more then abominable plots and attempts, who that considers the thing as it deserves, can object against him that he has spoken more freely than became him?

But the Cardinal is Protector, Corrector, and Governour of the Order of the Minors, and by consequence has the power of a Prelate, and lawful Superiour over Walsh, and yet against him much here is said. I have granted this before. But is it therefore not lawful for Walsh in this, or the like case, to use the freedom which he here uses? or what do you think of St. Peter? what of St. Paul? what of that reprehension of St. Peter by St. Paul? St. Paul was the last of the Apostles, was called not the ordinary way, was the Thirteenth, was one, who said, He was not worthy the name of an Apostle: St. Peter was the first, chief, greatest Prince of the Apostolical Order; and Prince not only by priority of place, or honour of dignity, or only vocation, or age, or sanctity, but (I speak with the generality of Divines) by priority of an ordinary Pastor and Prelate, that is, of spiritual Jurisdiction received from Christ over the Rams, as well as sheep of the flock; as well over the Apostles universally, as all the rest of the faithful. And yet St. Paul reprehended St. Peter, not with less, but far greater liberty, though in a case, if I mistake not, of less moment, and this in a Publick meeting of the Disciples; and not only reprehended, but resisted him to his face; reproov'd, ac∣cus'd him of Judaism among the Jews, Gentilism among Gentiles, dissembling amongst both, and that he walked not uprightly, according to the truth of the Gospel. And this passage betwixt St. Peter and himself, St. Paul would have testified to the Christian world in the Epistle which he writ to the Galatians; al∣though this dissembling of St. Peter was afterwards defended from sin by St. Au∣stin, against the Writings of the learned and holy St. Hierom. 'Tis superfluous to rehearse what others have done in process of time, and almost all ages of Christi∣an Religion in imitation of St. Paul, and with like liberty reprehending even Popes themselves, the Successors of St. Peter, what the holiest Bishops, the most Religi∣ous Abbots, most austere Monks, the best Priests, and the devontest Laity and Clergy almost of all degrees, and all these united to the Roman Church and Bi∣shop, in the strictest tye of Ecclesiastical communion. For the present, and for a Letter, let that one example of St. Paul suffice; and let it suffice to excuse Walsh from too great a freedom in writing to an Internuncio of an Internuncio, whom he does not acknowledge for his Superiour; and to an Internuncio of a Cardinal, whom he does acknowledge. I complain, or reproach, or object nothing, but that in the present Controversie you walk not according to the truth of the Gospel; but that by that dissembling, or flattery or at least wicked errour of yours, you strive to put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples, the Christian world, beyond comparison worse than that of the Mosaick Law: and strive to impose this yoke of a kind of Papal Tyranny by arts truly bad. A yoke, which neither we, nor our Fathers could bear: a yoke, plainly contrary to the yoke of Christ. My yoke is sweet, sayes our good Saviour, and my burthen light. That of yours is full of thorns, and your burthens more than insupportable, driving both body and soul even to Hell. And shall it be thought a fault in Walsh, after he has been provoked with much injury, and urged with reproaches and slanders, and that only for this cause, That he writes more freely than becomes him, not against the Pope himself Alexander the VII. (whom God long preserve to the good of his whole Church, who, for his own part, is said to be so innocent in this matter, that he has severely reprehended both Cardinal and Abbot) not against those of his Court, or

Ministers universally, but onely one inferiour, though a commendatory Abbot, and one Bishop though a Cardinal, but two of the whole number of his Ministers. Will they say, That though the matter require freedom, yet 'tis not allowable in Walsh, nor fit in an Inferior to and of a Superior¿ What then? was not Paul in∣feriour to Peter, and Bernard to Eugenius, and Robert (that holy Bishop of Lin∣coln) to Innocentius? So many other famous holy Catholick Writers, were they not inferiour to Popes, I say, themselves, to whom, or of whom many, even in this very Controversie have written, and written with a liberty at least not less?

If you object again, That Walsh is tyed, by a particular vow of his Rule, to render obedience to his Superiours: Walsh will reply again, That to this very day he never was commanded by any Superiour, either under obedience, as the custom is, or censure, nor in vertue of the Holy Ghost, or by any formal so much as simple command, not so much as by a single admonition, either not to hold as he does, or not to write or speak. And Walsh will reply, That the obedience he has vow'd, is Canonical, not Political, and to be understood of spiritual, not civil matters. And he will reply besides, That a Vow neither is, nor can be a bond of iniquity: as from the Canons themselves of the Popes, even the very dullest of the Ca∣nonists teach. Lastly, he will reply too, That a man is not less obliged by a pre∣cept of Divine, or even Ecclesiastical Law (receiv'd I mean, and not repugnant to the Divine Law) than by the tye of a Vow, how solemn soever. And that St. Paul, St. Bernard, Robert of Lincoln, and the rest of whose greater at least equal freedom in expostulating with the greatest and holiest Popes, I have spoken above, were tyed to Canonical obedience by a precept of the Divine (I speak according to the opinion of your Lordship without doubt, and the most common amongst Divines) or Ecclesiastical Law, or both: and that many of them had also upon them the tye of a religious Vow. Why then should not that be lawful to Walsh, which was lawful to them, and many of them in this very Controversie, or some other wholly like it?

If your Lordship say, our Holy Father Alexander the VII. who now sits in the Throne of St. Peter, has written Letters to you, by which it appears, it is the judgment of His Holiness, That this Form of ours contains Propositions which are all one with those condemn'd long since by Paul the V. and lately again by Innocont the X. If, I say, you object thus, Walsh will answer:

First, As for what concerns our Holy Father Alexander the VII. that where a thing makes to the prejudice of a third person (and this manifestly makes to the prejudice not only of one single third person, but of a great Kingdom, of many such Kingdoms nay, of the whole World) credit by the Canons is not to be given either to your Lordship, or any other Minister whatsoever, and howsoever dignified with Cardinalship, or other Title, unless he produce the Original, or (at least) authentick Copy thereof. You have yet produced none, you have shew'd none either to the parties concerned, or to any other, as far as we can un∣derstand. Besides, that private Letters, even of our Holy Father Alexander him∣self, are not of force to oblige the faithful to a conformity of judgment or opini∣on, much less of Faith which is Catholick and Divine, unless some Rescript, or De∣cretal Epistle, some Bull or Brief (which kind of writings you do not so much as al∣ledge) come out with due solemnity, be publish't, and promulgated: and this not directed to any particular person or persons, neither to one Clergy, People, or Kingdom, or even more than one, but to all the faithful of Christ wherever they be. Otherwise, that according to many eminent Divines, even of those who are for the Infallibility of the Pope without a general Council, no writings of His whatso∣ever, though under his own hand, and with his own name, induce not a certainty of Faith, or such an one in which there can be no falshood or errour. I say nothing for the present of the other conditions they require to this, that a Declaration of the Pope, though by such a Decretal Epistle, or Brief, so promulgated, and so di∣rected to all the faithful of Christ though definitive too, and in a matter of Faith, ob∣lige not (per se) of its own sole nature to assent: or what restrictions they put, as name∣ly,

that neither the proems, nor motives, nor suppositions, nor any reasons alledged are defined. And that whenever the Bull is declarative onely, and not constitutive also, or as far as 'tis only declarative, if it relie on false grounds or reasons, or any way uncertain, or apparent only, or only opinative or probable, so far of necessity it is subject to the danger of errours: and that the constitutive part of such a Bull, grounded only upon such a declarative, necessarily wants all manner of force to oblige any whatsoever, at least those who clearly see the errour, doubt, or uncertainty. For the present likewise, I say nothing that these Divines require besides to the Infallibility of a Papal definition, or to this that none may dissent, that the Pope declare in express or equivalent words, that the Article defined is an Article of Catholick faith, and the contrary or contradictory heretical. All these things, I say, and possibly more to this purpose, I pass over in silence.

Yet there is a certain errour, deceit, or, at least, supposition not well grounded, I have read and observ'd in several of your Lordships Letters to several peo∣ple both here and in Ireland, which I cannot let pass without a short animadver∣sion. It is, That our Holy Father Alexander the VII. did not think it necessa∣ry to give a new censure of our Protestation; that being sufficient which had been made by former Popes: since it appeared ours contained some things which were the same with the Propositions condemn'd heretofore by Paul the V. and lately by Inno∣cent the X. But my Lord, it does not appear that Paul the V. has condemn'd any one, or more certain and determinate Propositions of the Oath of Allegiance (as they call it) or Fidelity, prescrib'd by a Law of King James, and the Parliament, and Kingdom in his time. (For in the reference which you make to the judgment of Paul the V. you allude to Propositions contain'd in that Oath.) Nay, it appears on the contrary out of the Letters of Paul the V. (which are extant in Print, and in form of a Brief) directed onely to the Catholicks of England (I question not for the present whether they were subreptitious, or ever publish't, or whether the due Solemnities of Law were observed) it appears, I say, he never condemn∣ed any one or more in particular; but onely in general terms (after other mat∣ters of not going to the Churches, Sermons, and Rites of Protestants or Hetero∣dox) admonishes the Catholicks of England not to take that Oath, or the like: as is manifest by the very tenour of the first Brief dated at Rome the 10th of the Calends of Octob. 1606. (in which only first Brief he speaks directly, and by design against that Oath of it self.) And in particular this is manifest by the words of the same Pope in the same Brief, which give the onely reason why he admonishes them not to take that Oath, and why he tells them it ought perspicu∣ously to appear to the English Catholicks out of the words of the Oath, that such an Oath cannot be taken with the safety of Catholick faith, and of their souls, Since (sayes he) it contains many things which are manifestly contrary to faith and salvation. (For after these words, and for these alone, as the onely ground and reason of his Declaration and Admonition, it follows immediately, There∣fore we admonish you, that you wholly beware of taking this, or the like Oaths.) Wherefore since it appears sufficiently by these words, which assign his reason, especially joyn'd with the tenour of the rest of the Brief, from the beginning to the end, that Paul the V. did not condemn all that was contain••d in that Oath, I say, did not condemn all so much as in these general, or any other terms of these Letters; or, at least, since it does not only sufficiently, but evidently appear, that to his Holiness Alexander the VII. it can not be known by those Letters, nor in∣deed can be known at all (for no man in his wits will say, he can be certain of this, otherwise than by those words, and that Brief) which in particular, or whether any such of the Propositions contain'd in that Oath of Allegiance made by King James, were censured by that Declaration, nay, not so much as which he desired or in∣tended to censure: and because 'tis no less plain to any, that shall exactly compare that Form of the Kings with ours, that the Propositions are far different both in words and sense: and that in that there be many more Propositions, but fewer in ours; that in that there is contain'd a formal Oath largely expressed, and an Oath without all doubt strictly taken, in some places assertory, in others promissory (for thrice

at least, if not four or five times, they formally swear in that manner in that of the Kings) but no Oath at all contained in ours, not so much as largely taken, no where in no part or Proposition from the beginning of the form to the end: that 'tis affirm'd in that (and peradventure with the sacred tye of an Oath) that there is in the Pope no power to depose Kings; whereas ours, for what concerns that particular, expresses onely an act of the will, and renounces such a power, de∣termining nothing, either with or without an Oath, of the Position in it self, and taken in its own nature, whether it be true, or false, or probable, or not: that in that some things are abjured as heretical, in ours none: that that binds under ob∣ligation of a promise sworn to, to discover all Treasons, &c; ours declares onely a readiness of mind to discover them: I say, since it appears that all these things are most true, and farther out of Parson's Letters in Withrington, dated at Rome, when they consulted there of condemning that Oath of K. James, and farther also out of several Books of Bellarmine, though under counterfeit names, against the said With••ington, and other defenders of the said Oath; that Paul the V. was on∣ly or chiefly moved to frame that Brief, by which the Kings Oath is condemned, by this reason, because He had been persuaded (though without any either suf∣ficient or probable argument) by Bellarmine himself, and those other seven or eight Divines at Rome whom He had deputed to examine it, that by that Oath was like∣wise deny'd the Primacy of the Pope, and his power to excommunicate either Kings or their Subjects (though it be evident that neither of these positions can be dedu∣ced from the words of that Oath, or their true, genuine, plain, natural and proper sense, or any sense, but strain'd by a malicious, or at least erroneous interpretati∣on; nor even from the intent and end of the Oath, even extrinsecal end I mean, or that given it by the Legislators; as far, I say, as is possible for any other man to know:) and after all, since 'tis manifest, that there has not been so much as any rumour spread, that any one or more determinate and individual Proposition or Propositions is couch'd in ours which can agree with that one or more in the Oath of King James which Paul the V I do not say censured, but which He but intend∣ed, desired, or willed so to censure (which intention nevertheless, desire or will, He did not express in any manner sufficient to condemn any determinate Proposition, and consequently either to inform the faithful what was just, what unjust, what holy, what wicked of the matters contain'd in that Oath, or to oblige any of the faithful (although other conditions had not been wanting) to reject any particu∣lar or individual Proposition, nay, peradventure, not so much as in general, and indefinitely or undeterminately, and confusedly:) and farther, because 'tis equally and most evidently manifest, that the power of the Pope is not touch't so much as afar off, either directly or indirectly, or by any consequence, nor any truly spiri∣tual power of any other one or more Bishops or Ecclesiasticks, that is, that no such power is either wholly, or in part, deny'd by our Form, much less either the Primacy of the Pope, or his power of making any properly Ecclesiastical censure against any whosoever, even Kings: lastly, because tis manifest that that Brief of Paul the V. is in truth purely declarative, and no way constitutive of new right; and that declaratory Letters, Bulls, or whatever Papal Laws do not oblige in con∣science if they relie upon a false, doubtful, or only probable ground; and that the aforesaid Brief relies upon a doubtful, at best, or only probable, if not plainly a manifestly false reason, to wit, that which is given above: since, I say, the truth of all these things is abundantly manifest, I do not see how your Lordship can with∣out injury to our Holy Father Alexander the VII. write every whither, as for these three whole years you have done, that such is His judgment, and that He an∣swered as above, That twas needless for Him to censure our Protestation of new, the censure given by Paul the V. &c. being sufficient. However this be, i. e. whether your Lordship have in this particular done well or ill, whether his Holiness said so or no, in or out of Consistory; whether He writ in his own hand, or in another hand with his name to it, or only caus'd his mind, opinion, and judgment to be in∣timated to your Lordship, or neither writ, nor caus'd such intimation to be given, the matter is not great: because, as I said before, your Lordship produces no

Original, or Copy of such Letters by which the oral judgment of the Pope, Vi∣vae vocis craculo, as they call it, may appear. And because, besides, it may be reaso∣nably presumed from the allegation it self, especially if the circumstances be weigh'd with it, that our Holy Father Alexander was deceiv'd by the like bad interpretation, as well of the sense of the words, as of the intention, scope and end of our Form made by the Divines of his Court to whom he committed the busi∣ness, as Paul the V. was by his eight Divines who blasted the Oath of King James. Lastly, because that judgment of the Pope, supposing it true as is alledged, did not proceed ex Cathedra. From the nature of which last exception I confess it fol∣lows, that, although in this, or the like Controversie, you should produce some private Letter of his Holiness himself, even under his own hand, we should yet think it free for us to put in our exceptions. For however, we should respect and kiss the Seal of his Holiness: yet in such a private Letter we should acknowledge the judgment of Alexander as a private man, not as Pope: and should take it for the opinion of a particular Divine or Canonist; not for a determination of the Judge of the Universal Church giving sentence in his sacred Tribunal: and conse∣quently should deny any manner of prejudice could thence arise to our cause. Neither can your Lordship wonder at this. For if the Briefs themselves of Popes, though directed to a People, Kingdom, or entire Nation, so they be not directed to all the faithful of Christ over all the world, pass for private Letters of the Pope (as Eudaemon-Joannes himself, in the Preface to the Parallel of Tortus, confes∣ses, otherwise a keen maintainer, not of the Rights only, but, of all Pretensions of Popes;) or if, as is in some manner touch't before, such kind of Apostolical Let∣ters, that is, Briefs, and likewise Bulls, directed to some one Province or King∣dom, whether they be called private or publick, are not esteemed of themselves alone to oblige any body to assent to the matters declared: (upon which ground, amongst many others, the Catholicks of England, now for these Fifty years and more, are not moved by that above-mentioned declaratory Brief of Paul the V. though dated at Rome, and under the Seal of the Fisher:) why should your Lordship think, that in the present Controversie, any one should be moved by Letters without comparison more private, and less inducing certainty; as being written by the Pope to a single person, and that his own Internuncio. And I confess besides, that to this tis consequent, that although it were wholly certain that He had so judged, and judged with truth, that is, that certain Propositions of King James's Oath, had been condemn'd by Paul the V. and that the same were contained in our Protestation: and it were no less certain, that such censure of His were directed by an Apostolical Brief either to the English alone, or Irish, or both, but not to all Christians over the world: lastly, that it were likewise cer∣tain that these Apostolical Letters, in form of Brief or Bull, had not been procu∣red by concealing any thing true, or alledging any thing false, or by any other fraud, nor granted out of anger, hatred, ambition, fear, &c. nor any way ex∣torted; but proceeded from certain knowledge, and the proper motion of his Ho∣liness; and that all usual formality, and all solemnity of publication and promulga∣tion according to custom had been observ'd: we should yet think is free likewise for Walsh, and the rest of the Subscribers, and any other Divines vers't in the pre∣sent Controversie (so they preserve the reverence due to his Holiness, and the first See) to dissent, except, expostulate; unless his Holiness, or some body else should happen in those or other Letters, or some other way, to convince by irrefragable Reasons the opposite opinion of errour, and so convince it that neither Walsh, or other Subscribers, or Divines, who would otherwise except against it, could have left them any thing of moment which in their own conscience they judged unsolved. In which case nevertheless, not to assent, would be unlawful, not for such Brief or Bull consider'd precisely of it self, or in its own nature; but because the truth is rendered manifest, and the mind convinc••t by arguments unavoidable (which 'tis evident are not necessarily requisite in such Letters.) These things are said accord∣ing to the sense of those who are Patrons of the Papal Infallibility. For otherwise we might recur to other Authors no less Catholick and truly Learned, who in this or

the like Controversie, would without more ado openly reject all definitions of the Pope whatsoever, made without the consent of a general Council, though declared by Bull directed to all the faithful of Christ in whatever part of the world: and who nevertheless were, are, and in that case too would be most dutiful observant sons of the Bishops of the Roman See; as united by the holy band of Religion, and the strict tye of whatever other Ecclesiastical communion. But because what is said above, is abundantly sufficient to answer the objection drawn from the judg∣ment of his Holiness (whether only pretended, or true, makes now no matter) as far as it concerns our present case, that is, the coincidence, or identity (to use the School terms) of some Propositions in our Protestation with those which some mistakingly would have condemn••d by Paul the V. in the Allegiance Oath of King James, it is not for the present necessary to have any recourse to them.

Now for what relates to a like conformity suppos'd in the judgment alledged of our Holy Father Alexander, betwixt some Propositions of our Protestation with others said to be condemned by Innocent X. of happy memory (namely, the three Negatives signed, as is said, by some Fifty English Catholicks of Quality to Cromwel, to obtain some liberty for those of the Roman Catholick Faith) the an∣swer is much easier, partly from what has already been said, and partly from what will presently be alledged. For Innocent did not publish that judgment of his by any Bull or Brief either to the Catholicks of England, or any other, so much as one particular man anywhere; as far as has been heard to this day, so much as by rumour. But if any Decree were either made or projected of that matter in a Consistory of Cardinals, with the assistance, or by the command of Innocent, and afterwards sent to Bruxels, or Paris, to the Nuncio's, as there is a report of its being sent to the Nuncio of Paris: nothing has been heard more of its publica∣tion, but remain••d suppressed, according to that report, in the hands of that Nun∣cio. Now whether it were so or no, is no great matter, nothing to purpose: since according to Divines generally, and Canonists too, such Decrees fram'd in that manner, and no otherwise declared, do not force consent, nor reach faith, nor ob∣lige any of the faithful to submission, at least out of the Popes temporal State: no not in a Controversie of far less moment; as where there is no question of faith, but only and it may be a just reformation of manners. And yet 'twere much more proper to attribute the care of such a reformation to the Pope, alone, I mean, with∣out the intervention of a general Council, than of declaring the truths of Faith by an infallible judgment and definition, such as it were unlawful for any man in any case to contradict. Besides, 'tis a plain case, that Cromwel was an Usurper, a Traytor, and a Tyrant all manner of wayes, both in administration and title (ac∣cording to the twofold acception or sense of that word, found generally amongst Divines, and particularly in Suarez against the King of England.) And therefore that wise Pope might neither imprudently nor unjustly condemn such Propositi∣ons, in that conjuncture of things, or looking upon the immediate, though extrin∣secal end then in view, namely, of observing fidelity to a Tyrant. Although we are to judge quite otherwise, and according to the common doctrine of Orthodox Divines it be lawful to judge so, in case He had not respect to that end, but minded only the intrinsecal, or even extrinsecal end which is limited by the Law, or took the Propositions bare in themselves, and abstracting from all bad ends. Wherefore it does not appear to the Church of Christ, nay, to any particular men, nor ever did authentically and legitimately, that those negative Propositions were any way ei∣ther by word or writing condemn'd by Innocent the X, at least by him as Pope, and speaking ex Cathedra.

Wherefore, my Lord, since there is no other condemnation of Innocent, or Paul the V. to which his Holiness Pope Alexander could relate, than those here mentioned; and your Lordship objects nothing else: and since those old argu∣ments so often brought by Bellarmine, Suarez, Lessius, &c. as well under their own, as borrowed names, from some places and facts of former Popes, though in their own cause, and some appearances (if they be appearances) of Councils, and scrap't together from false Reason, and the Authority, whether of some later

Doctors, or the ancient and holy Scriptures, have by other famous men of the Church of Rome long since been weakned, answered, overthrown: there remains to Walsh the same liberty of expostulating, which devout men, and men no less learn∣ed than holy, have by their example in all Ages so often taught.

May your Lordship therefore cease to persecute Caron, or Walsh. May his Eminence Cardinal Barberin cease. May you both cease (and I beseech you by our Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge both you and me at his terrible judgment) Cease, I say, both of you, to seduce the Clergy and People of Ireland. You have laboured now these three years to corrupt them both. You have endeavoured to tear again in pieces a Kingdom every way miserable. You have bestirred your selves to your power, to replant a most pernicious Errour; but onely amongst ei∣ther simple or mercenary people, onely in one corner of the world; with those of discretion and honesty you prevail not a jot. In all Europe besides, in Italy it self, next the very temporal Patrimony of St. Peter (which now for some Ages has been annex't to the Popedom onely, by Humane, not Ecclesiastical, or Divine Right; that is, by the gift of Princes, or favour of the People) you lose your labour. For the mask is now taken off, and, if I may conjecture of future things, will be taken off more and more every day. Which your Lordship himself, if I be not deceived, knows to be so true, that you cannot be ignorant that in the rest of the world, I mean, those parts of it which are in the Catholick communion of the Roman Church, this your or our question of the Popes pretended right over the Temporals of Kings (whatever name it go under, spiritual, temporal, or mixt of both) is not so much disputed amongst learned men, as that other far different question drawn especially from the 27th Canon of the great Council of Chalcedon, as also from some others, of his purely spiritual, or at least Ecclesiastical power, (which has no respect at all to Temporals either directly or indirectly) whether this power be truly by Divine right immediately over all the faithful through the whole world? or onely by Humane and Ecclesiastical right? or else from both? at least in that latitude to which they commonly extend it, that is, over all the faithful everywhere, none exempted either in any district of any of the other Patriarchs, or in any cause? With which most difficult question, though I have no intention ever to meddle, as, however, I am fully resolved to follow in this point the common do∣ctrine, and to stand unmoveably fixt to the decision of General Councils: never∣theless, because all men are not of the same mind, that is, do not judge or under∣stand every way alike many things which may be alledged on both sides; nor have the same inclinations, or that forward, strong and constant affection to his Holiness, and the See of Rome, which I have notwithstanding the injuries which I cannot deny many, and as many as (since the beginning of the last War in Ireland) took part with the King, have suffered with me, I thought fit to intreat your Lordship, and do with all earnestness beseech you, that you will let the Subscribers live in peace, not move them to impatience, or anger, nor reject them from Ecclesiastical charges with∣out other demerit than this pretended one of Subscription: and that you will not put a bar to the publick good of undoubted Religion for the maintenance of an as∣sertion so far, (at least) doubtful, that in the judgment of many, and those Catholick Writers, and even entire Universities, it deserves the name, not so much as of an Opinion, but of Error, and Heresie; and also yet so doubtful, that the reason is plain why 'tis call'd Heresie. Understand, my Lord, material Heresie, as they call it. For I conceive no Orthodox Censurers, and least of all I, ever thought of charging formal Heresie upon the Pope, or Church of old Rome, or its particular Diocese, so much as in this matter controverted betwixt us; formal Heresie not being found without obstinacy against the Faith of the Universal Church undoubtedly known. But as for material Heresie, many orthodox, learned, and pious men have not doubted to fix it openly upon the Patrons of your opinion; mov'd by this amongst other reasons, namely, that Heresie is no less in excess of than recess from the due mean in points to be believed; or, that 'tis as much Heretical to add to Faith, that is, assert, preach, teach, impose upon the Faithful to be believed as necessary to salvation, or as revealed by God, taught by the Apostles, preserved by

perpetual succession in the Church, and as a part of the depositum delivered by Fathers in every age of Christian Religion to their Children, That of whose ne∣cessity, revelation, and tradition, there is no undoubted and certain evidence, but opinion at most, or likelihood, and this only to somefew of the Faithful, the rest, which make a greater, or as great, or at least a considerable part of the Catholick Church, denying, disclaiming, condemning, abjuring it; I say, that, according to those Doctors, 'tis as much Heretical to add to Faith in such manner as it is to substract from it, i. e. as it is to deny any thing to be of Catholick Faith, of which nevertheless tis truly, undoubtedly, certainly, universally evident, that it was revealed by Christ, and deposited by the Apostles, as much as any other Article of Faith. Now who does not see that these, who teach that Assertion, of the Popes right over the Temporals of Princes, as a point of Catholick Faith, without the belief of which, or with the witting denial of which, none can be saved, or en∣tirely profess the Christian Catholick Faith, relie upon Arguments at best, but pro∣bable, and grounding only opinion, against the greater, or equal, or indeed the far greater remaining part of the Catholick Church, which in all ages of Christiani∣ty have denied, and still persevere to deny, disclaim, abjure that Position as impious, and contrary to the doctrine received by Tradition, and without difficulty solve such Arguments which they look upon as Spiders webs, as ridiculous Sophisms, as Trifles and pure Toyes? And indeed some orthodox Doctors, moved by this discourse; not to mention other Reasons, fear not to brand your Position with the note of Heresie. But if your Lordship desire my own opinion in the case, I must confess ingenuously, I see not why it is not as much truly an intollerable error to assert in Popes, Bishops, Priests, or any of the Clergy, or even Laity, a power to be believed as of divine Catholick Faith, which does not certainly and evident∣ly appear from the Rule of Faith, that is, either from Scripture, or Tradition, or both, as it is to deny a power which does so appear* 65.7.

At last, my Lord, I conclude this long Letter; and yet I neither repent my la∣bour, nor ask pardon for my prolixity, since it no way more concerns Walsh to write Truth, than it does an Internuncio to read it. And if your Lordship be of the same judgment, it will be well; if otherwise, I must bear it with patience. Let it suffice me to have done what became an honest man: videlicet, to have refu∣ted slanders, reproaches revilings: to have proved Caron and Walsh were cause∣lesly term'd by your Lordship either Schismaticks, or Apostates, or, which is less yet, any way disobedient: causelesly by contempt men of dirt: causelesly also raisers of I know not what troubles to the Church of God: lastly, that without cause, it was said to Gearnon's face, he had better have been in his grave, than subscribed. Let it suffice to have defended the freedom of expostulating in a cause most just; to have shewn it reasonable; and answered those things which with most apparence are alledged to the contrary. Lastly, let it suffice, that for a con∣clusion I have made you a hearty Prayer, and a Petition no less earnest: adding at the end, and for a complement of the whole discourse, that reason (of so urgent a Petition) which swayes with those Divines who censure with freedom your do∣ctrine. Neither have I more to add, but onely my wishes that for the future, the Internuncio's of Bruxels may be more men of heavenly spirit, at least, when they have to do with men of earthly dirt. Which, humbly saluting your Lordship, and kissing your hands with all due respect and affection, truly, and from his soul wishes,

My LORD,

Your most humble and affectionate servant in Christ, Peter Walsh.

London, Pebr. ult. M.DC.LXV.

The Answer either to this, or former Letter, I cannot give, because I never saw nor heard of any; it having been the fate of all my Writings, hitherto these 28 years, on whatever Subject, never to have had the honour of either Answer or Reply: onely my Letter to the Duke of ORMOND in behalf of the Irish Nation, and their Temporal pretences, or those, I mean, of their Temporal rights excepted. And yet my Replies on this very Subject, as well to the man in the dark, as to the person of Quality, remain still without rejoinder. But that of the Temporal rights of our miserable unfortunate Nation, as it relates to the King, and municipal Laws, and later Acts (also) of Settlement, or Explanation for Ireland, since His MAJESTY was restored, being no part of, nor having any relation to the present Controversie with the Court of Rome about our Remon∣strance, I pass over without any further Animadversion upon it, or my self, or my own fortune or fate in order to it.

LXXXVIII.

SOon after those two Letters had been sent to the Internuncio, and the Procu∣rator's Reply to the person of Quality had been out in Print much about the same time (a Reply indeed which at that time very much took with the Ro∣man Catholicks of Ireland in general, whether Royallists or Nuntiotists) and yet the Explanatory Bill for Ireland going on apace before the King and Council at London: the Procurator was advised to send from London, Father Antony Gearnon, once more back to the Provincial and Diffinitors of the Franciscan Order in that Kingdom, partly to give them an account of his late negotiation and success in Flanders, but principally to persuade them to a concurrence to, and subscription of the Remonstrance, without further delay; that by their example, all the rest of the Irish Clergy, both Regular and Secular, might speedily resolve to give such testimony or assurance of their future Loyalty, as in a time of so great and im∣minent danger it was more than needful they should. For it look'd then towards a Rupture and great War both with France and Holland.

With Letters to that purpose written by the Procurator to the Provincial, and whole Diffinitory, as with assurance also to them that they might safely meet where ever they pleased, Father Gearnon arrives in Ireland, and accosting those principally concerned, delivers his Letters. Whereupon the Provincial sum∣moning all the rest to the Convent of Killihy, they all meet accordingly on the day appointed (which was in June 1665.) and many others too, both Remon∣strants, and Anti-Remonstrants of that Franciscan Order, to hear the debates, and see the issue. After some dayes consultation, the Diffinitory (who onely were the persons in chief authority, in all Nine, viz. the Minister Provincial, the four Diffinitors, the Custos Custodum, and three more stiled Patres Provinciae, as ha∣ving been formerly Superiours Provincial of that Province, i. e. of the whole Franciscan Order in Ireland) being divided on the point, the greater Vote of Anti-Remonstrants amongst them carried the resolution in the Negative. Which was an easie matter for that Party, when they would do nothing but by Vote. For they knew their own strength that way, there having been in that whole Diffini∣tory but onely two declared overboard for the Formulary, as who had long be∣fore very freely of themselves subscribed it, viz. Father Valentin Brown, a Profes∣sor Jubilat of Divinity, eldest Father of the Province (as who had been well nigh Forty years before Minister Provincial of Ireland, and then received me into that Order) a man esteemed both of sound learning, and great holiness, and Father James Fitz-Simons then Custos of the Province, and Guardian of Dublin, like∣wise a learned, vertuous, and very judicious Gentleman. Besides these two throughly and openly declared Remonstrants, the Provincial himself, Antony O Docharty, who was President of that Meeting, and Superiour of all, had by Let∣ter under his own hand to the Duke of ORMOND Lord Lieutenant then of Ireland, even sent by my self from Multifernan to the said Duke, privately decla∣red

himself a Remonstrant, although being an expectant from Rome (and not that only) he would preserve himself that side too, and therefore not own before others any such matter or Letter. Yet this Letter you have before, page 92. & 93. of this First Part. Some others also of that Diffinitory were not averse; but they were overborn by a greater number, especially by the violence of Thomas Makiernan, Peter Gennor, and Bonaventure O Mellaghlin, grand, inveterate, fiery Nuntiotists; but above all by the said Thomas, whose authority or esteem amongst the Nuntio party was more than ordinary, as who had been in the said Nuntio's time made Provincial of set purpose, and the Provincial that play'd Rex indeed, especially in his own Order, until the Loyal Marquess of Clanrickard made bold (yea notwithstanding the fond pretence of Ecclesiastical immunity in the case) to seize upon his person, and clap him prisoner into the King's Castle at Athlone. By such men, I say, the Resolve was carried in the Negative, i. e. That neither themselves, nor their Brethren Franciscans (in all, at least, Four or five hundred at home in Ireland at that very time) directed by them, should sign the contro∣verted Remonstrance (and yet they themselves were the very first that wrought and rais'd all the grand Controversie by their Instrument or Paper given to Bra∣dy. See page 91.) but another framed by themselves in that Meeting. Which, and their other Resolve too of writing again to the Commissary General de Rid∣dere into Flanders desiring a Visitator, I mean, such an one as would not be ex∣cepted against by His MAJESTIES Ministers, or by Father Walsh, or other of the Remonstrants, you will better understand out of their own Letters both to my self, the foresaid Procurator P. W. and to the said Commissary General de Riddere.

Their Letters to me were three several. One from them All together. One from the Provincial onely. And a third from Father Valentin Brown.

The First in this Tenure.

Reverend Father,

WE have received yours by Father Gearnon, in Answer to which we say. That notwithstanding we have been liable to the Censure of many, for not having hitherto signed your Remonstrance, by reason it was so gene∣rally contradicted by the Clergy of this Nation, scrupling some distaste∣ful expressions therein; and that it did not (until of late) appear unto them, that it was exacted or required by Authority: yet inasmuch as to our great grief, we are given to understand that our Order, supposed to be the most numerous, not ac∣cepting or signing the said Remonstrance as yet, hath been the occasion that nothing was done in that particular: Wherefore as well to vindicate our selves from As∣persions, and to testifie our sincere Affection and Zeal by our best endeavours to ad∣vance His Majesties Service, We have unanimously agreed to Sign the Protestation which goeth along with this to you, Signed and Sealed by the Provincial and Secre∣tary of the Diffinitory, wherein the substance of the said former, to our best know∣ledge, is so inserted, as we suppose no body will judge any part thereof left out. And as it shall ever be our study to further His Majesties Service, instructing the People in principles of their Duty, so We hope that his Grace, the Lord Lieutenant, will be pleased to Present the most hearty Acknowledgment of our Duty and Loyalty expressed in our Remonstrance; and likewise to be our Mediator to His most Sacred Majesty, to own us as true Subjects, and accept and receive the Recognition of the subjection due to Him, as our natural Prince. We are confident of your endea∣vours

to that end, and We shall not be wanting to return you the good offi∣ces of,

Reverend Father, Your Brethren and Servants,

• Fr: Jacobus Caius.
• Fr: Valentin Brown Provinciae Pater.
• Fr: Thomas Makiernan Provinciae Pater.
• Fr: Bonaventure Melaghlin Provinciae Pater.
• Fr: Antony Docharty.
• Fr: Petrus Genor.
• Fr: Anto. Burke.
• Fr: Paulus Fearanan.

Dat. 26. Junii. 1665.

The Second in this.

Reverend Father,

Killihy 26. Jun. 1665.

I Am confident, you doubt not of my endeavours to forward the Signing of the Remonstrance, which quoad substantiam is done not without great debate: neither have I been wanting to my best abilities to endeavour a perfect union in this Nation, as well among Clergy, as Laity, in these times of difficulty, or in case of any Forreign attempts against His Majesty in this Kingdom. I suppose it needless to acquaint you how ready I have been to give all manner of satisfaction to the old English Interest, as that of Twelve once for Commissary and Vicar of the Province resolved to be presented, I would allow of none other but of English Ex∣tractions. But now that we are not certain who is most grateful to the King for the said respective offices, we have written to the General Superiour, in such away, as he may understand that we are not to present for our Superiours, but such as shall be not ungrateful to the King, but to the contrary, such as shall be admitted by His Majesty. I have in custody a Paper signed by the whole Diffinitory, and others besides, whereby they are obliged to sign the Remonstrance sent to you, when you will desire it, and acquaint us that it is acceptable. As for any particular good offices or service I can do you, certainly you may be assured; and in progress of time this happy Ʋnion among our selves, will be very pleasing to all good men, and ad∣vantagious, I hope, to the settlement of this distracted Countrey. So wishing you all happiness, I remain,

SIR,

Your Brother and Servant, Antony Docharty.

POSTSCRIPT.

Multum debes Patri Antonio qui pro viribus & posse hic laboravit non solum pro Regia intentione, sed & pro intento Reverentiae Vestrae. Tuus Ant: D.

Si non sit aliud quam Consolatio mea, quantocius sollicitet ex Curia no∣minari aliquem quem possit instituere Pater Commissarius in Visitatorem; qui uti fuerit gratus Regi acceptabitur, maxime ab eo qui est Totus tuus Antonius Docharty.

And third also in this other.

My own very Reverend and dear Father,

I Came to this Meeting, where I hope an happy union is concluded, especially our difference concerning the Remonstrance, with an universal consent agreed upon, according to the substance, meaning and intent. Some offensive words taken out, the substance remaining. As for the difference concerning the Commissa∣ry, to be named as grateful, or not ungrateful to His Sacred Majesty, they leave the naming of him to your Reverence's discretion.

I am very much taken with your Book against the Gentleman of Quality, as I conceive all others ought to be, and are. I am sorry the Three Corporations seemed to be condemned for the offence of some few, if any such, and which truly I never heard before. I read it in Orery's Book, concerning Galway. I hope the innocence of those that suffered for their affection to His Majesty and Govern∣ment, must not suffer now again under His Majesties happy Government. Sweet Jesus direct and comfort your Reverence to his own glory and edification of the faith∣ful. Which will be still the prayers of your own,

Fr: Valentin Brown.

To the Dutch Commissary General in Flanders, they all together writ this following Letter, which also in the very original, and with a flying Seal open, they sent me to London, to be transmitted further, according to the Superscription, and my discretion.

Reverendissime Pater, ac Superior noster observantissime,

CƲM ipsi Reverendissimae Paternitati Provinciae nostrae modernus status, non minus fere quam nobis ipsis sit notus, paucis tantum ei revocamus in me∣moriam, Visitatores a se institutos in prosecutione suae commissionis fuisse plane impeditos: Capitulum item hac ratione esse dilatum: in nobis amplius, seu a prima postulatione, non esse jus postulandi aut prasentandi personas determi∣natas pro Visitatore. Et licet a Ministro Generali & Paternitate vestra cum reli∣quis Provinciae officialibus continuati simus, eamque etiam continuationem accepta∣verimus (vestri & status in quo Provincia est respectum habentes) officii tamen & molestiarum plane pertaesos esse. Ideoque Reverendissimae Paternitati humiliter supplicamus ut Provinciae de Visitatore aliquo tam cito prospiciat ac ex nostra Provincia in aliquem incidet tali muneri in hisce circumstantiis idoneum, ac Sere∣nissimo Regi nostro non ingratum. Quodsi tamen quacumque de causa Talis Ido∣neus Regique non ingratus Visitator, tempestive mitti non posset, iterum roga∣mus ut Reverendo Patri Ministro, corporis indispositionibus, laboribus, rerumque in∣quietudine plane fatigato Idoneum aliquem Provinciae Vicarium Regique similiter non ingratum sufficere placeat: unaque, aut quam saepissime commode poterit, nos confortare suis consiliis & instructionibus in difficilibus hisce temporibus; a quorum inclementia nos Deus liberet: cui Reverendissimam Paternitatem, nos vero Paternae

vestrae curae, ex animo commendantes, dedimus in Conventu nostro de Killiby 25 Junii. 1665.

• ...Fr: Antonius Docharty Minister Provincialis.
• ...Fr: Petrus Gennor Diffinitor.
• ...Fr: Paulus Feranan Diffinitor.
• ...Fr: Anto. de Burgo Diffinitor.
• ...Fr: Valentinus Browne Provinciae Pater.
• ...Fr: Thomas Makiernan Provinciae Pater.
• ...Fr: Bonaventure Mellaghlin Provinciae Pater.
• ...Fr: Jacobus Fitz-Symon Custos.
• ...Fr: Jacobus Caius Diffinitor.

POSTSCRIPT.

Si superveniet Vicarius Provincialis, sit ex Momonia, ut vicissitudo servetur juxta Statuta nostra, prout invenietur unus in illa plaga Regi non ingratus.

• ...Fr: Antonius Docharty Minister Provincialis.
• ...Fr: Jacobus Caius Diffinitor & Secretarius Diffinitorii.

And besides that general one, the Minister Provincial writ from himself to the same Commissary this particular Letter.

Pater noster Reverendissime,

Killihy 27 Junii 1665.

UT omnia praeter hactenus audita, uno (ut aiunt) verbo complectar, sup∣pliciter significo Paternitati Vestrae Reverendissimae nolle Magistratum nostrum, ullum admittere in Commissarium aut etiam Provincia Vicari∣um, aut Ministrum Provincialem nisi talem qui fuerit Regi nostro, ejus∣que Ministris, gratus. Ad satisfactionem alterius Partis, nos hic congregati no∣minavimus duodecem personas ex solis Anglo-Hibernis, supponentes quod unus vel alius esset positive gratus; quo non obstante tandem resolutum est, cum non scire∣mus quis foret positive gratus Gubernio, neminem nominare. Sed totum relinquere Prasentationi Curiae, ne vel in minimo videamur velle Magistratum offendere. Quare obnixe in Domino flexis genibus rogo Paternitatem vestram Reverendissi∣mam, quatenus quamprimum de tali ex Curia constiterit, quod ipsum instituat in Commissarium seu Vicarium Provinciae, ut & Magistratui satisfiat, & tandem his litigiis finis imponatur, videamusque semel Pacem in diebus nostris. quod si ali∣quid interea superveniet a Reverendissimo Patre nostro Ministro Generali, rogo quantocius & securius mitti; quia tunc etiam non parum temporis elabetur, donec resciatur ex Curia an fuerit gratus qui mittendus est. Quae omnia omni cum submissione offert, rogat & praesentat Paternitati vestrae Reverendissimae

Reverendissime Pater Paternitatis vestrae Reverendissimae Servus & Filius indignus Fr: Antonius Docharty.

As for the Protestation, or new Formulary of their own, sent to me by that Diffinitory, as you find it mention'd in their Letter to me, you have it here fol∣lowing.

To the Kings most Excellent Majesty CHARLES II. The most humble Remonstrance, Acknowledgment and Recognition of the Provincial, Fathers of the Province, Diffinitors, and the rest of the Religious of the Order of St. Francis in Ireland.

WE do freely confess and declare in our Consciences, Your Maje∣sty to be our true and lawful King, Supreme Lord, and right∣ful Sovereign of this Realm of Ireland, and of all other Your Maje∣sties Dominions. And therefore we acknowledge, and confess our selves to be obliged under pain of Sin, to obey Your Majesty in all civil and temporal Affairs, as much as any other of Your Majesties Subjects re∣spectively, and as the Laws and Rules of Government in this Kingdom do require at our hands. And that we will still acknowledge and per∣form, to the uttermost of our Abilities, our faithful Loyalty and true Allegiance, to Your Majesty: and That notwithstanding any power on earth pretended to the contrary, be it spiritual, or temporal, or any sen∣tence or declaration of what kind or quality soever, given, or pretend∣ed to be given, or which hereafter shall be given, or pretended to be given by any such power, or by any authority spiritual or temporal, pro∣ceeding, or derived from any such pretended power against Your Maje∣sties Rights, or Royal Authority. And we openly disavow, and disclaim all Forreign power, either spiritual or temporal, inasmuch as it would, or shall pretend to free, discharge, or absolve us from this obligation, or shall any way give us leave or licence to raise Tumults, bear Arms, or offer any violence to Your Majesties Person, Royal Authority, and Rights, or to the State or Government: being all of us ready not only to dis∣cover, and make known to Your Majesty, and to Your Ministers, all the Treasons made against Your Majesty, or them, which shall come unto our hearing; but also to expose our Lives in the defence of Your Majesties Person, Rights, and Royal Authority, as occasion will require; and to resist with our best endeavours all Conspiracies and Attempts against Your Majesty, be they framed, or sent under what pretence, or patroni∣zed by what Forreign power or authority soever. And further we pro∣fess, That all absolute Christian Princes, and Supreme Governours of what Religion soever they be, are Gods Lieutenants on earth in their own Dominions, and that obedience is due to them according to the Laws of each Commonwealth respectively in all civil and temporal Affairs. And therefore we do here protest against all Doctrine and Authority to the contrary. And we do hold it impious, and against the Word of God, to maintain that any private Subject may kill or murther the Anointed of God, his Prince, though of a different Belief, and Religion

from his. And we do abhor and detest the practice thereof, as dam∣nable and wicked.

• Fr: Antony Docharty Minister Provincial.
• Ex parte Diffinitorii Fr: James Cay Diffinitor,
• ...Secretary of the Diffinitory.

[illustration] legal seal

O

The place of the Seal

In such very Form, sealed with the great Seal of their Province, and attested so as you see by the proper hand of their President, and of their Secretary too, in the name of the rest of that Diffinitory, they sent me two original Duplicats of their said Protestation, as of their own proper Remonstrance, Acknowledg∣ment, and Recognition, &c. but without any either Preamble antecedent, or Pe∣tition subsequent, or other Complement or Address annexed besides those Letters to my self.

Another Paper also signed by them all, was sent unto me by Father Gearnon from that meeting, as all the other, both Letters and Papers were by the Pacquet and Post. For the truth is, neither to him, nor to any other of the more intelli∣gent persons that were for the Remonstrance, did any of all these, either Letters or other Papers, seem worthy of his toyle, to come in person with them; or even scarce to send them by the very Post. However, he did carefully send all those you have already seen: and besides them, this other protesting briefly, in the word of Priests, That none of them had by himself, or other, written any such matter as was contained in the Petition exhibited at Rome to the Cardinal Protector in the name or behalf of the Province of Ireland against Father Walsh, Caron, and rest of the Remonstrants. Such was the effect, in short, of this other Paper, as you shall see in their own words. For having drawn a Copy of the said Petition upon one side of a Leaf, and it, as a true Copy, authenticated by their Custos Custodum James Fitz-Simons, their Provincial with his own hand on the other side of that same Leaf written in Latin, as above, and both himself, and all the rest of the Dif∣finitory sign'd it, as here now word by word. Ego in verbo Sacerdotis protestor me nihil ex retroscriptis scripsisse, aut scribi fecisse ad Eminentissimum D. Cardi∣nalem. Fr: Antonius Docharty Minister Provincialis. Idem ego testor Fr: Petrus Gennor Diffinitor. Fr: Paulus Feranan Diffinitor idem testor. Fr: Antonius de Burgo Diffinitor idem testor. Idem quod supra in verbo Sacerdotis protestor Fr: Jacobus Caius Diffinitor & Diffinitorii Secretarius.

But who sees not the equivocation, or rather reservation, and the cheat and in∣significancy of this Paper? 1. Because neither Thomas Makiernan, nor Bonaven∣ture O Mellaghlin, two of the chief Anti-Remonstrant Fathers of the Diffinitory, did sign it. 2. Because those that did, only say they did not write, nor cause any other to write of those matters to the Cardinal Protector; but do not say, they did not write, nor cause others to write to their Agent at London, Father Francis Fitz-Gerrald, who kept weekly correspondence with the Irish Franciscan Colledge of S. Isidore at Rome: nor say, they did not even by themselves write to their other Brethren Agents at Louain, Prague, and Rome it self. 3. Because they re∣fused

to sign such a Paper as was any way home to the purpose, although drawn by one of their own body, viz. A Paper containing exactly, and nor more nor less, but what follows here.

HAud sine dolore intelleximus, ex parte Provinciae Hiberniae & nomine nostro, libellum su plicem exhibitum Eminentissimo ac Reverendissimo Domino Cardinali Protectori Ordinis nostri repletum calumniis adversus P. Petrum Valesium & adversus P. Raymundum Caronum S. Theologiae Lectores, & alios dicta Provinciae Patres, accusantem dictos Patres, ac si essent con∣tra authoritatem summi Pontificis, & fidei Catholicae detrimentum conantes; & ex∣presse in dicto libello supplicatur, quatenus dignaretur Eminentissimus Dominus Pro∣tector praecipere Commissario Generali Gallobelgico ut nullatenus dictis Patribus fa∣vere audeat. Nos infrascripti convenientes simul & in Domino congregati, pro rebus hu••us afflictae Provinciae Hiberniae strictioris observantiae postulati de hacre, coram Domino protestamur, & praesentium tenore declaramus, nec nos, nec ullum ex nobis aliquid tale proposuisse, aut exposuisse Eminentissimo ac Reverendissimo Cardi∣nali Protectori nostro, nec alicui ullo modo talem commissionem dedisse. Totum sub∣reptitic, clandestine & perperam factum, a quocunque sit factum. In quorum fi∣dem hisce subscripsinus 26 Junii Anno Incarnationis Dominae 1665. In Conven∣tu de Killihi.

As for those Letters of theirs to the Commissary General concerning a new Visitor, the Procurator did not think fit to send them forward to Flanders.

• 1. Because he had already seen by last Winters negotiation, how the said Com∣missary was resolved to give none at all of those who had sign'd the Remon∣strance.
• 2. Because even in those very second or later Letters of that Diffinitory, he saw that there was enough to signifie tacitely, the Writers had been rather con∣strained, than free, in desiring any such thing.
• 3. Because the Plague did by this time so rage at London, that he doubted whether that Dutch Commissary would entertain any correspondence thence.
• 4. That Father Caron had about the same time publish'd his Latin Folio work, entituled, Remonstrantia Hibernorum, against, and by occasion of the Louain The∣ological Faculties Censure of our Remonstrance: and therefore knew the preju∣dice against the same Father Caron, would be now greater than before.
• 5. And lastly, That he understood from Spain, there was one Father Mark Brown (an Irish Franciscan residing at Madrid for many years) deputed by the Spanish General Ildephonsus Salizanes, to be Commissary Visitor of the Pro∣vince of Ireland, and President of their Provincial Chapter.

But for what concern'd their new Remonstrance, albeit the Procurator saw well enough the material variations of it from that was expected from them, i.e. from that was sign'd at London; and both humbly presented to, and graciously accepted in the year 1662. by His MAJESTY, even that about which the grand con∣test had continued so long; nevertheless he failed not to present it to his Grace the Duke of ORMOND, then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and then also pre∣paring to return to Ireland with the second Bill of Settlement, or that called the Explanatory Bill. Neither did he fail to endeavour by all the Reasons and Ar∣guments he could, to persuade his Grace to accept of, and present to His Majesty this Franciscan Remonstrance, as that unto which the Authors promised all other Regular Orders, and the whole Body also of the Secular Clergy, and Irish Na∣tion, would by their manual Subscription every one concur. What moved him most to be so earnest herein, were two or three Reasons.

First regarding the good, or advantage not only of those Irish Ecclesiasticks, but of the Catholicks in general, both Clergy and Laity of that Kingdom, was, That neither his Grace, nor His MAJESTIES other inferiour Ministers, nor His Privy Council, nor His Parliament in Ireland might thenceforward with so much reason (as till then) entertain or continue former prejudices, jealousies

against, or former suspitions of that unfortunate people, in relation I mean to their loyal or disloyal principles, or affections towards the Crown and King of England.

The second, and it regarding the general good of all, both Protestants and Catholicks, and Fanaticks too, and His MAJESTIES great concern, because the peace of all His People, was, That he foresaw the ancient Catholick proprie∣tors would ere long lose all their patience, when they did perceive clearly by the new Explanatory Bill (as soon as Enacted by Parliament, and executed by the Court of Claims) there could be no more hopes of restitution for them; and foresaw consequently, that according to humane Tentations, they would be ready to be persuaded to any thing, if they had their Clergy and Commons likewise discontented, and therefore ready to join with them on account of wanting the publick and free exercise of their Religion.

And the third, near akin to the said second was, That he saw also the conjun∣cture of affairs and humors, portended then a War with Holland, if not with France likewise, which did soon after follow. These Reasons, together with the certain knowledge he had of the inclinations of many leading men, both of the Clergy and Laity of that Nation, made the Procurator so sincerely and earnestly move the LORD LIEUTENANT to accept at such a time what was freely offered, and accordingly to present it to His MAJESTY. And I re∣member it was then when the City of London was much depopulated by the Plague, and the Court removed to Salisbury, and the said Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, at his Countrey-house of Moor-Park, and consequently when I had lei∣sure and opportunity enough to reason these matters with his Grace. And I re∣member also that Father Patrick Magin, one of Her Majesties Almoners, being there at the same time, and both acquainted with, and interested very much in those affairs of the Irish Clergy, did, as much as he could, assist me to persuade his Grace to accept of that Franciscan Remonstrance, in order to a general Signature thereof by all th- rest of Ireland, that so all difference amongst them on account of Signing, or not Signing, the former condemn'd by Rome might cease, and yet their Allegiance be sufficiently declared to His MAJESTY.

Notwithstanding all which earnestness and importunity, the Procurator did (be∣fore any such used) ingenuously and plainly discover to his Grace the shortness, reservedness, unhomeness, insignificancy, imposture of this latter, or wherein it came short of, and of purpose varied from the former Remonstrance of 1661. And yet I must withall confess, the said LORD LIEUTENANT Duke himself, and of himself, discovered enough by his own first reading, and compa∣ring of the same later with the former. As,

• 1. That it had nothing against either equivocation, or mental reservation.
• 2. That the Pope was not therein specified.
• 3. That it also omitted the plain expression of the specifical cases of either Deposition, or Excommunication.
• 4. That nothing was therein acknowledging in particular the subjection of Clergymen either to the directive, or coercive power of the Lay Magistrate.
• 5. Many other changes of lesser note, or not so obvious, though otherwise very material.

But above all, that of omitting to declare against equivocation, and mental re∣servation: and that also of not mentioning the Pope, and moreover that of not descending expresly or particularly to the case of Excommunication, made him esteem this new Franciscan Formulary a meer Cheat. For by the frequent dis∣courses and disputes his Grace had been acquainted with for so many years since 1661. concerning such matters, he perfectly understood what such variations and purposed omissions did import. And how by no kind of general expressions the Roman Divines did understand such specifical cases as they would exempt: for example, that in odious matters the Pope is not, according to their Rules, or Scholastick distinctions, understood to be comprehended by any kind of general expression, not even by these words, any authority or power on earth spiritual or

temporal, unless he be expresly and specifically design'd or noted by these other words Papal, Pope, or some such importing an express, specifical, particular, and proper comprehension of the Roman Pontiff; the same Rule also warranting them not to understand or comprehend the specifical sentence of Excommunication under the generical word sentence; especially where, on the contradictory questi∣on, they both of set purpose omitted such specifical expressions, and withall on the contradictory question refused to insert any word against either equivocation, or mental reservation; as indeed these Franciscan Fathers of the foresaid Diffinito∣ry assembled in the Convent of Killihy to frame this Remonstrance of their own, were known to have on the very contradictory question refused to insert any.

Besides these omissions, his Grace considered several other things. As,

1. That the pretence of changing or varying from the first Remonstrance had been all along of every party for so many years no other, than to express the mat∣ter, substance or sense of it in more reverential terms, or words more full of respect to the Pope and Holy See, than they pretended the expressions of that first to be. And yet amongst so many other Formularies offered either by the Do∣minicans, or Jesuites, or Secular Priests, or Vicars General, or now at last by the Franciscans, not one of all was home in sense, or substance, as to the material points of assuring their fidelity to the King in such cases or contingencies where∣of the doubt might be: none of all, I say, near as home in that respect as the first was: nor any of all composed of words more reverential. And that there∣fore it appeared evidently, all their quarrel against that Formulary was for the matter it contain'd, i. e. for the faith and obedience it clearly promised in the controverted Cases; but not at all for less reverential expressions of such matter.

2. That were it certain the whole Franciscan Order in Ireland would be in such matters led by the example of their said Diffinitory (whereof yet there was no certainty) nay, were it also certain, that all the other, both Regular Orders, and Secular Clergy too of Ireland would in like manner be led by them to a con∣currence to, or subscription of their new Formulary (whereof questionless there was much less certainty than of the former:) yea, did it moreover appear evi∣dently (as it cannot by any argument) that this new Form amounted fully home to the sense or substance of the First, even in all things, or as to all points, or ca∣ses whatsoever: yet there was no reason to value it, or accept thereof, as coming from a Clergy who had now for so many years with so much obstinacy, contradi∣ction, clamour, and reproach, both resisted and aspersed the said First, as unlawful in point of conscience to be subscrib'd, and had, I say, both resisted and aspers'd it so upon this account onely, that either it was not approved, or was indeed posi∣tively reproved and condemned by the Court of Rome, and by its Ministers, or by their Letters; as likewise, at the desire of that Court, censured by the Faculty Theological of Louain. For so might this other new Formulary of theirs be condemned and censured at the instance of some of themselves, if, I mean, it were found by those of Rome to signifie any thing against their own pretences (for if it signified indeed no such thing, who sees not but that as this is against the above Supposition, so it must have been against all reason to value or accept such a Form as did not signifie much, nay, all that is material in the case against the vain preten∣ces of Rome to the Kingdoms of Ireland or England?) And therefore on the same former account in such case, they would either questionless retract their Sub∣scriptions to this of their own new Module, or certainly approve also of the First, and Subscriptions to it, even in plain express contradiction to all the Letters, De∣crees, and Censures of Rome. But had they been so resolved, or resolved, I mean for such approbation; and for such standing by either Formulary in plain opposition to the Roman Decrees, or Censures, who sees not, that they would not go so long about the Bush, but presently subscribe that which they saw already, and graciously too, accepted by the KING, and which withal themselves knew and confessed to contain no other evil or sin, properly such, against any Law of God or man, but its lying under the Censure of Rome, or displeasure of the Pope, albeit

the Divines of Louain, onely to please Rome, pretended I know not what Sacri∣ledge, &c? whence must follow, That on the contrary they are prepared in mind to quit also even this new Formulary of their own, how otherwise insignificant soever, and quit it, I say, on the very first intimation from Rome against it.

3. That from persons so prepared, principled, or resolved, it was to no purpose to receive any kind of Formulary or Profession, but such an one as plainly and ex∣presly declared, nay, protested against such resolutions, preparations and princi∣ples, which this new Formulary did not. For otherwise, how could the KING assure Himself of their Fidelity, I mean, assure Himself by any Oath of theirs, and with that assurance which an Oath could give Him? Certainly, while they had this reserve of quitting their Oath, Subscription, or Formulary, whensoever the Court of Rome declared it unlawful in point of Conscience, or of submitting calmly to such Declaration, it was so far from being to purpose, that it was meer folly to receive any from them.

4. That had the framers of this new one been honestly minded, either to satisfie the KING, and His Protestant Subjects, or even as much as do themselves and Countreymen of the Roman Communion, that right, which according to reason, and all circumstances considered, they ought to have done, He should expect they would rather in a new Formulary, mend the defects of the former old one, or of the foresaid First, than come short of it where it was any way satisfactory in any particular; being they could not but understand very well, that that very First came short (in some points) of the Doctrine of the very Gallican Church of their own communion.

5. That however, since His MAJESTY had been so long since graciously pleased to accept of the First Remonstrance, because so freely offered by well-meaning Church-men, and so great a number withal of the Nobility and Gentry of that Kingdom, there was no reason to admit now of a far worse from such ca∣pricious men, who had spent four years, considering onely how to frame an insig∣nificant one; and who had also, by mutual consultations of one Party with an∣other, changed nine or ten several times their unsatisfactory conceptions; but never coming to the point.

6. That moreover, it was unreasonable to admit any Formulary in contradiction to that which had been so long and learnedly both defended and illustrated by so many Books, since it came out in 1661. and more especially, excellently and diffusely by Father Caron in his (then) late Latin work against the University of Louain. (For that work of Caron, called, Remonstrantia Hibernorum, came forth but some few weeks before, and was by himself presented in several Copies to the KING, Duke of YORK, Archbishop of Canterbury, Duke of Ormond, then LORD LIEUTENANT of Ireland, &c.) Or if any change ought to be admitted, then surely this ought also to be to that which were better, and drew nearer in sense and substance to those Oaths warranted by Law, the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance; for the declining of which, and penalties of the decliners, the first well-meaning Irish, both Church-men and Lay-men, offered and subscribed the Remonstrance of 1661. and did so for the sake of their Countrey.

And finally, That otherwise there would never be an end or issue of the mat∣ter. For by the same reason, these Franciscan leaders could pretend a liberty to frame one from themselves, and not subscribe the First, upon the self-same, or like account, I say, the Dominicans might, and likely would pretend not to be tyed to any Formulary that opposed the constant doctrine of their Thomistical Schools, or of St. Thomas of Aquin, as that very last of the Franciscan Scotists seemed to do, how vain soever in it self otherwise. And the same liberty also upon the same, or some such ground, might, and probably would all and each of the other different or distinct parties of the Irish Clergy, whether Secular or Regular, as∣sume to themselves; whatever hopes, in the mean time, those of the Franciscan Diffinitory would amuse others with. And why not consequently upon the same grounds come at last to the late and wicked Paradox of some of those very Irish

Jesuitical Anti-Remonstrants, viz.* 72.1 That it was to no purpose to expect any Pro∣fession, Declaration, or Oath of Allegiance, Fidelity or Obedience from them in any certain (nay, or even in any uncertain) form of words; being it was in point of Conscience, lawful enough for such as would, or did take such Oath, to decline from, retract and break it even the very next day, or next hour after ha∣ving taken it so; provided onely they followed herein the Doctrine of the Pro∣bablists, i. e. they had known, or did sufficiently understand there had been, or were then at present some Divines (nay, one single Divine would serve for need) who held such Formulary or Oath to be unsafe, or unsound in Catholick Reli∣gion, or otherwise unlawful or sinful. Now who doubts, they could find not on∣ly one, but hundreds of Divines (though otherwise not worthy that name) of their own Party, who hold,* 72.2 That any kind of Oath of Allegiance to an Heretick, either Prince or State, is unlawful, because against so many Papal Canons? but more especially such Form or Oath as expresly bound bound them to be faithful and obedient to the King (though but in temporal matters) in opposition to the Pope? and most of all, such Form or Oath, as had been already con∣demn••d for such by the Censure of a Roman-Catholick Uni∣versity, and Letters also of Internuncio's and Cardinals, de∣claring that His Holiness too had condemn'd it for such? Or, who moreover doubts, whether the Protestants of England, or King, or State thereof, be either in the judgment of those hundreds of very zealous Roman-Catholick Divines, or in that of the Pope Himself, and all His Courts, Consistories, and Tribunals at Rome, or elsewhere, esteemed, reputed, and without any contradiction or question judged, as to all intents and purposes, to be Hereticks, and to lie under all the solemn Curses, Excommunications, and Anathe∣ma••s pronounced yearly on Maundy Thursday, at Rome, not only against all sorts of Hereticks, and Believers of Hereticks, and their Receivers, Favourers, Abet∣tors, &c. and all sorts also of Schismaticks, but even against so many other sorts of Transgressors, especially in the point of Ecclesiastical Immunity? nay, and to lie also under all the other penalties of the Papal Canon Law, and conse∣quently under that of the loss of all dominion or property in Lands or Goods; being all such of Hereticks, are ipso Jure, and before any sentence of a Judge, confiscated? For so hath Boniface the VIII long since determined the case, cap. cum secundum leges. de Haereticis. in 6. Certainly no man conversant in the Roman either Canonists or Divines, can justly say, those Anti-Remonstrants could want the patronage and warranty of some hundreds of such Authors or Divines, to maintain the above wicked Paradox. And therefore yet in the more wicked practice of the same Paradox (and practice I say thereof in the present matters) and pursuant to it, together with their other Tenets, they would be ready enough to alledge in defence thereof, 1. That reason of Innocentius the III. the Roman Pontiff, to the King of Arragon (cap. Quanto. de Jure-jurando.) cum juramentum, non ut esset iniquitatis vinculum, fuerit institutum. 2. That other passage also of the same Pope (in cap. Venientes. eod. tit.) to the Consuls and People of Tudertum, where he declares, and gives a leading Rule, That no Oath binds to the prejudice of a superiour Power, especially that of His own Papal See, and that this of the Apostolical See must be alwayes under∣stood to be excepted in every kind of Oath made to any others whatsoever; this being the meaning (as appears in that whole Chapter) of these words of that Pope to them, cum praedictum ••••ramentum vos excusare non possit, in quo debet intel∣ligi jus Superiorit exceptum. 3. This also of the very same Innocent (writing to the Archbishop of Naplos, cap. Ad nostram eod. tit.) Nec tu quando sub praemisso tenore jurasti••, habebas in mente, ut propteren venires contrae canonicas sanctiones: alio∣quin non juramentum, sed perjurium potius extitisset: nec esset aliqua ratione fer∣vandum. 4. Moreover yet, this other of the same great Pontiff (writing to a certain Judge, Judici Carolitano, cap. Ea. eod. tit.) Cum igitur nobis & Ecclesiae

Romanae fidelitatem facere tenearis, si praestitum juramentum ei, quod a tè nobis tam∣quam debitum est praestandum, contrarium reputes, illudillicitum judicabis: & illicito non obstante quod licite, immo ex debito petitur, exhibebis. 5. Further yet this also of the very same Innocent, to another Bishop, Episcopo Ameliensi (as you find it in cap. Sicut. eod. tit.) Quia non juramenta, sed perjuria potius sunt dicenda, quae contra utilitatem Ecclesiasticam attentantur; Because (sayes he) they are not to be called Oaths, but rather Perjuries, which are taken against the utility or profit Ec∣clesiastical. 6. And lastly, what you read in cap. Nimis. eod. tit. (attributed by Gregory the IX. to his Uncle, the foresaid Innocent, as Decreed by Him in the Fourth and great Council of Lateran, and by the joint authority also of the same Council Decreed (which yet is very false, as you have before seen in this work:) Nimis de jure divino quidam Laici usurpare nituntur, cum viros Ecclesiasticos nihil temporale obtinentes ab eis, ad praestandum sibi fidelitatis juramenta compellunt. Quia vero secundum Apostolum servus suo Domino stat aut cadit, Sacri authoritate Concilii prohibemus, ne tales Clerici personis saecularibus praestare cogantur hujusmodi juramenta. (Of which Canon, see more at large, Sect. Lxiv. pag. 154. and pag. 159. &c. As also of all other Canons of Discipline attributed to the said Fourth Council of La∣toran, see Sect. Xxx. pag. 65, 66, 67, 68, and 69.) So many specious arguments or pretences (besides many others) out of the known Papal Canons would, and could the Anti-Remonstrants have ready at hand (such of them I mean as are conversant in the Canons) to justifie even the practice of that before said very wickedest Paradox in the world.

But however this matter be, or (I mean) whatever those very worst of the An∣ti-Remonstrants would, or could alledge for a Paradox or Position, and practice thereof so nefariously dangerous: those seven preceding considerations, together with the five omissions (given also before the same considerations) wrought so powerfully on his foresaid Grace the Duke of Ormond then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, that all the other reasons and importunities either of Father Patrick, or Father Walsh the Procurator, could not move his Grace to accept of the said Fran∣ciscan Formulary, as any way sufficient to assure His Majesty, or His Majesties Pro∣testant Subjects, either of the true Loyalty, or candid Ingenuity of those Franciscan framers, or contrivers and offerers of it: nor could persuade his Grace of as much as the reasonableness of either accepting, or seeming to accept it, not even I say, for any other ends; or of presenting, much less recommending it in any man∣ner to His Majesty. Which his Graces judgment, and unalterably fix'd resolution, himself did, in plain terms, at his own foresaid house of Moor-Park (after some few dayes thoughts) in the month of July 1665. declare to both the said Irish Ecclesiasticks, Patrick Maginn, and Peter Walsh, to the end they should give him no further trouble on that Subject.

About this time the Court being removed to Salisbury, and his said Grace (the Duke of Ormond then Lord Lieutenant) being immediately after the said Answer given, parted thither, and from thence soon after (but carrying the new Expla∣natory Bill with him, and having likewise, amongst others, the said Father Patrick in his Train) pass'd through Wales, and ship••d for Waterford in Ireland; and Fa∣ther Walsh the Procurator, having taken his way back to London, thence to Holy-Head, and so to Dublin: what moreover ensued, or what (I mean) the further Consultations (and those not of the Franciscan Order onely, but) of the very whole body in general of the Roman Catholick Clergy of Ireland, both Regular and Secular, of all Orders, Dignities and Degrees were, and were, I say, upon that Subject of Remonstrating (by Instrument, and Subscriptions) their Allegi∣ance, or Faithfulness, and Obedience to the King, you shall now see in the Second Part of this same First Treatise. For here at last I end the former Part thereof. Which former, or First Part, my necessary Disputes therein against the Four main grounds of the Louain Censure, have made so prolix; albeit, I hope, not more pro∣lix, than useful.

TH•• SECOND PART OF THE First Treatise.

THE ARGUMENT.

Indiction of the National Assembly. Scheme of the Irish Clergy then. Why so great numbers of them formerly opposed the Nuncio, and so few now appeared for the Remonstrance. Endeavours to hinder that National Assembly from meeting. Archbishop of Tuam's Letters to that purpose. What Kilmore did. An Account of Primate Reilly, and his Letters. Bishop of Ferns; and his Letters also. Kilfinuran. What John Burgat signified from Rome. Cardinal Barberin, and Internuncio Rospigliosi, their several Letters by an Express. Notwithstand∣ing all which, nay, and Ardagh's very strange contrivance too, the Fathers (al∣though with extreme prejudice and prepossession) meet, and sit on the day appointed, being June the xi. 1666. Speaker and Secretary chosen. Ardagh, and Kil∣finuran admitted to and admonish••d by the Lord Lieutenant. Tumult on the xiii ditto, happen'd about Precedency, or the Chair. The Lord Lieutenant's first Message delivered the same xiii day. Procurator's Speech, &c. What the Primate, and Father Nettervil replied. The Primate introduced to the Lord Lieutenant, &c. Second Message on the xv. The Procurator withdraws; and why. Committees sent unto him from the Congregation; but prevail not with him. Yet of himself returns to the Congregation on the xvi, and at their desires, signs their new insignificant Recognition. Three first Sorbon Decla∣rations (as applied to His Majesty, &c.) signed by the Fathers in a different Paper. Both, together with a Petition, presented to the Lord Lieutenant on the xvi at Night, by Ardagh and Kilfinuran. On the xviii a third Message to the Congregation. Burk and Fogerty, on the xx, present a second Petition to the Lord Lieutenant, with a Paper of Reasons why the Fathers would not sign the other three Sorbon Declarations, as applied, &c. The Lord Lieutenant's Answer being reported, they, or at least the chief of them, are startled, desire more time to sit and deliberate; obtain it, and yet conclude at last in the Negative. Dr. Daly's exception. Letter to them from the Subscribers of the first Remonstrance. On the xxv their last sitting was. Wherein the Procurator tells them first of the Lord Lieutenant's positive Commands to dissolve. Next, contradicts the relation of Ardagh. Then refuses their offer both of Money, and commendatory Letters. In the fourth place, gives a large account of the famed wonder-working Priest, James Finachty. Lastly, moves for, and procures their condemnation of two Books, the one of C. M. the Jesuite, and the other of R. F. the Cappuccin. Some other passages relating to the Lord Lieutenant and Bishops, which happen'd immediately after the Congregation was dissolv'd. The Procurator's judgment of this Congregation, leading Members thereof, and of their several interests and ends. After their dissolution, the Doctrine of Allegiance in fifteen several Propositions debated for a whole Month by a Select number of Divines. A Paper of Animadversions given to the Lord Lieutenant: and his Graces com∣mands laid on the Procurator.

I.

IN September, 1665. the Duke of Ormond, then Lord Lieutenant of Ire∣land, having landed at Waterford, passed to Kilkenny, and there continuing some Weeks, Father Patrick Maginn, one of Her Majesties Chaplains, who had from England (as I noted before) waited on his Grace, to take that good opportunity of crossing the Sea safely, came from Kilkenny to Dublin some Weeks before his Grace; but in order to a further Journey to see his Friends in the North of Ireland. Being come to Dublin, and the Procurator Father Peter Walsh (who was about that time also landed from Holy-head) giving him a visit, for their acquaintance, and some small friendship lately before contracted in Eng∣land, Father Patrick offered his own endeavours to work his Countreymen of the North to a Subscription of the Remonstrance, hoping thereby to make them, and consequently the rest of the Roman-Catholick Irish, more capable of His Majesties future Favours, and abate somewhat of the rigour of the Court of Claims pursu∣ing the new Explanatory Act, which the Lord Lieutenant had then brought with him from the King and Council of England, to pass in this Parliament of Ireland. In particular, he promised to persuade his own Brother Ronan Maginn, a Priest, Doctor of Divinity, bred in Italy, and then (by a Roman Bull or Papal) Dean of Dromore, to subscribe: and that him, and Dr. Patrick Daly Vicar-General of Ard∣magh, and under the Archbishop Edmund Reilly (a banish'd man living then in France) Judge Delegate of that whole Province, he would bring to Dublin, to con∣fer with the Procurator, in order to a general Subscription. Pursuant to his pro∣mise, Father Patrick being immediately departed to the North, persuades Dr. Daly to come to Dublin; as likewise he brought in his own company his Brother Ronan.

And indeed Ronan, after some Weeks conference with the Procurator, and study of such Books as he had from him, especially Father Caron's Remonstrantia Hi∣bernorum, at last, having fully satisfied his own judgment, did both freely and heartily Subscribe. But for Dr. Daly he was still where he formerly was, viz. at the desires of a National Synod or Congregation before he could resolve. See the First Part, Sect. IX. pag. 27. num. 16. and Sect. X. pag. 40. num. 16. and Sect. XVI. pag. 48. near the bottom; where you have not only those desires of a National Congregation urg'd anno 1662. by the Bishop of Meath, by the Vicar Apostolical of Dublin, and some other such Vicars too from several parts of Ireland; but also (in the above page 40, and page 50.) the Procurator's answer at large, shewing the unreasonableness of those desires then.

However now, or in the year 1665. the Procurator, seeing no remedy, i. e. no other way to cure their obstinacy, thought fit at last to try this, by conde∣scending to their demand. What reasons induced him now to yield herein, more than before, were these.

1. That the Primate of Ardmagh, Edmund Reilly, and the Bishop of Ferns, Nicholas French, such leading men (especially the one in the North, and the other in Leinster, if not all over Ireland) seem••d, by their frequent Letters from be∣yond Seas to the Procurator, desirous to come home upon any reasonable account, and submission also to His Majesty, and to the Lord Lieutenant, for past offences in the time of War, and not to disallow, but rather allow of the Remonstrance; and not they alone, but also the Bishop of Kilfinuran.

2. That now His Majesty having been engaged in a War both with Holland and France, some of the discontented Irish had been tampering with France for creating new Troubles in Ireland, either by an Invasion, or Insurrection, or rather both: and that, the exiled Bishops, if returned home, although on pretence only of such a Congregation, their very coming home so, whatever otherwise they in∣tended really, would much weaken and discountenance any such either hostile or rebellious design; being the end of such a Meeting was generally and evidently

known out of the very Letters of Indiction, to be no other than to assure the King of their indispensable fidelity in all cases and after-times.

3. That the doctrine of the Remonstrance, and good opinion of that Formula∣ry, had even at home in Ireland, many more Favourers and Abettors now in 1665. than it had some three years before: many even learned and pious Churchmen out of several parts of Ireland, though not called upon, having since that time come of purpose freely and affectionately to Dublin to sign it, besides those of the Nobility, and Gentry, and some others too of the Commons, as you may see page 47. 95. and 99. of the First Part of this First Treatise: where also page 13. you may see the Bishop of Ardagh (then in 1665. at home in Ireland) ap∣proving it under his hand from Seez in France, Dec. 2. 1662. in his Letter to Sir Nicholas Plunket; and page 93. Father Antony Docharty Minister Provincial of the Franciscan Order in Ireland, likewise under his own hand (to the Lord Lieu∣tenant) concurring to it.

4. That by this time the Procurator himself, who chiefly promoted that work, had as by many others endeavours, so in a special manner by his then late Reply to the Person of Quality, not onely endeared himself to the Nation in general, but even to many of his former opposers amongst them, and much confounded the most malicious and inveterate of those who were his old profess'd enemies upon the Nuncio's account, or that of his writings and actings against the Nuncio, and Owen O Neill's party.

5. That in all likelihood, if the Congregation were held at Dublin (as he was resolved it should be, or not be at all) and in such a publick conjuncture, when the discontents of the ancient Proprietors were so general, and so known; the Tories (in great Numbers, and several Provinces) out, and headed by Colonel Costelogh in Connaught; War with Holland, and France; and consequently when the generality of the Roman-Catholicks of Ireland, but more especially of their Ecclesiasticks (who had for so many years of late opposed with so much heat, (that I may not say malice) so innocent a profession of their Allegiance to the King) lay under great jealousies and suspitions; that in all likelihood, I say, the members convening in such a conjuncture, would be more wary now, than at other times, to increase or strengthen those jealousies, by refusing to subscribe any For∣mulary, professing Allegiance and Obedience onely in meer temporal, and civil things, according to the Laws of the Land.

6. And lastly, that however they would resolve, yet they could no longer abuse the people with their till then ordinary excuse, viz. That indeed they never refu∣sed to sign any Remonstrance of their Allegiance, or Fidelity and Obedience in meer temporals to the King; but only delayed their signature to that presented at London, until a National Assembly debated it, to see whether any more was therein contained.

And these indeed were the true genuine reasons, as that of Father Patrick Ma∣ginn's offer, was the immediate occasion of the Procurator's yielding at last to the pretended desires of a National Congregation; albeit so much against his former both resolution and ratiocination, as you have seen already page 50. Therefore to come to the speediest issue could be of his new determination, he invited to a confe∣rence in his own Chamber in Dublin, the Bishop of Ardagh, Patrick Plunket, the Vicar Apostolick of Dublin, and Capitulary of Kildare, James Dempsy, the Vicar-General of Meath, Oliver Dese, and the foresaid Vicar-General and Judge Dele∣gate of the North Patrick Daly. For they had also come then to Dublin about their several occasions; the Bishop only excepted, who lived constantly in Town with his Brother Sir Nicholas Plunket, notwithstanding the next part of his Diocess of Ardagh, had been forty Miles, or thereabouts, from Dublin. Being met together, the Procurator told them, he had at last obtained the Lord Lieutenant's permission for them, and rest of the Heads of the Irish Clergy of the Roman Communion, to assemble in a National Congregation, for deliberating and resolving together on the point of a general signature of the Remonstrance. Whereunto he added all con∣venient Arguments to move them to that Resolve had been so long expected from

them. Telling them withal, the place of their meeting must be that capital and populous City, because there, whether from all parts of the Kingdom people of all sorts came in such great numbers, especially in Term, or Parliament time (and the Parliament was then to meet again suddenly) they might come and assemble with less noise or notice taken of them, than would be in any other place. That he would assure them from any danger both in their coming, continuing together, and return, whatever they concluded. That he had prepared a Letter of Indi∣ction, or rather invitation of all concern'd to sit in the Congregation, for them to sign: and had a Messenger ready to send with such Letters all about the Kingdom to every one who should be summon'd. And finally, That it seem'd to him ex∣pedient, as matters stood, they should delay that general Congregation no further than to next Candlemas, or Hilary Term, being three months off; which might be time enough for the Fathers to prepare themselves, and come from all Parts to it.

With this Speech of the Procurator, all seem'd well pleased, onely the foresaid Father Dempsy excepted. For he could not but betray both in his looks and words his inward reluctance against any such meeting for such an end in any place or time whatsoever. But the Procurator having produced his own several Letters written in 1662. pressing earnestly for such a National Congregation, he had no more to say, onely he excepted for some dayes against the place. Herein also he was at last over-rul'd, much against his will: for he urg••d mightily, it should not be in Dublin, nor any City, nor near any such; but in some remote place far from the Court, and all garrison'd Towns and Fortresses. But in this also he was over-ruled, not being able to answer any thing to the reasons of the other side, and his ends in making, and so long and earnestly insisting on this unreasonable excepti∣on, being too apparent. Now there remain'd onely the time to be discussed. A∣gainst which, both he and Daly with him excepted, as being for the season of the year inconvenient. And Daly added, That the Lent time, and from thence till Ascension, was the harvest of the Clergy, when they gather'd their subsistence for the whole year. And that the Bishops, and Vicars, both Apostolical and Capitu∣lary of the vacant Sees, kept their Diocesan Synods commonly 'twixt Easter and May. Whence, and because Horse-meat would be then scarce, they insisted upon the xi of June, as a time when the weather being warm, and grass of some growth, they might Travel with more conveniency. These Reasons appearing also both to the Bishop and Vicar-General of Meath very probable and specious, the Pro∣curator thought fit to yield in so much to their judgment. And yet he was not void of Jealousies of a latent design, i. e. That by so long a delay, the exceptors against the time, would give themselves and their Friends beyond Sea time enough to procure Letters from Rome against any such meeting, and thereby frustrate the Indiction. And that besides they might within that time rationally judge of the success of the War, and accordingly guide themselves when or if assembled in June. However, not thinking fit to frame his Jealousies into an Objection, he consented the Indiction should be for the xi of June, next following, in the year 1666.

So at last all things having been, after two or three dayes conference in the Pro∣curator's Lodging, unanimously concluded betwixt those four chief Superiours of the Clergy and him, he produced his rough draught of the Indiction, leaving it to them to add or alter therein what they thought fit. And they, having peru∣sed and debated it, would not, did not either add or change not even as much as one word or tittle; but desired it should be ingross'd without addition or altera∣tion. Which being done, I mean as many fair Copies thereof prepared as there were Archbishops, Bishops, and Vicars Apostolick or General of vacant Metropo∣litan or Archiepiscopal Sees, and as many more yet as there were Provincial Supe∣riours of Regular Orders to be summoned or invited (mutatis mutandis, there∣in, viz. according to the different dignities or offices of such Prelates, and other Superiours) all the Copies were at last sign'd by those four above specified, name∣ly, Patrick Bishop of Ardagh, Patrick Daly D.V.J. Vicar-General of Ardmagh,

James Dempsy Vicar-Apostolical of Dublin, and Capitulary of Kildare, and Oliver Dese Vicar-General, or Capitulary of Meath. It being further (and upon the motion of the said Dr. Daly) agreed betwixt them before the Signature, that all the Letters should be by one express Messenger delivered into the proper hands of each and every Prelate or person respectively concern'd, and that the said Messenger should appear at and on the first day of the National Congregation, to make affidavit there in publick against any that should perhaps fail to appear in his own person, or by his lawful proxy. As for the Vicars-General or Capitu∣lary of other vacant Sees besides the Metropolitical or Archiepiscopal, the sum∣moning of them was left to the Metropolitans, and Apostolical Vicars of such Me∣tropolitical Sees as had no Bishops living or residing in that Kingdom. And so was the fixing or naming of the Divines (who were to assist and vote also in Congregation) left to the discretion of the respective Ordinaries and Provincial Superiours. All which, and whatever else belongs to this matter, will be better understood out of the tenour of the Indiction, or letter of Intimation. To which purpose I give here a true Copy of that was sent to John Burk Archbishop of Tu∣am, who was the onely Archbishop then at home in Ireland, though decrepid, if not bedrid. I am sure when he landed at Dublin from S. Mal••'s in the year 1662. he was not able to go otherwise to Connaught, but in a Litter. An ori∣ginal Duplicat of the Letter inviting him, and by him the Vicars-General, Aposto∣lical, or Capitulary of the vacant Sees of his Province, viz. Cluanfert, Elphin, Killala, and Killmaduaoh (for Mayo is of late by prescription annexed to Tuam) I have with me still, and word by word as followetth.

Most Reverend, and our very good Lord,

HAving met here, though accidentally, and upon other occasions, some being in before, and others of late come to this Town, we thought it nevertheless our greatest Concern to consult together, think upon, and find out some expedi∣ent, the best we could, and as far as in us lies, to procure some ease, and some peace, or liberty to the Catholicks in general of this Nation, and more especially to the Ecclesiasticks, for what relates to the publick, and free exercise, or toleration of Ca∣tholick Religion to all, and use of their functions to the Clergy. And when we had seriously considered all the causes of both our fears and hopes in the present conjun∣cture: and what passed in relation to us since our good Kings happy Restauration: and what is continually ever since, and even at present, expected from us; as withal the suspitions we lie under still, especially the greater part, if not the generality of our Ecclesiasticks: and what causes we, or many, or some at least of us have, or are thought to have given for such prejudicial Opinions, as yet harboured by those in power against us: and how we conceive our selves; and all other Pastors of their respective Flocks, bound in Conscience to do what they, or we may, with a safe Conscience, to wash away all evil stains, or scandals from our communion and profession: and that this is pleasing to God, and by consequence must be to his Church in general: and therefore how we further conceive our selves, and all the rest of the Irish Clergy bound to remove by all just wayes the jealousies entertained of us, out of His Maje∣sties, and my Lord Lieutenants breasts: We resolved at last to write to the respective Lords-Bishops, Vicars-Apostolick and General, as likewise to all the Provincial Su∣periours of Regular Orders: humbly and earnestly intimating unto all, as we do by these presents to your Lordship in particular, our sense of the expediency, and neces∣sty of a general meeting of the said Lords-Bishops, Vicars-Apostolick and General, and of the said Provincial Superiours, all by themselves personally, such as may, or, such as may not, by their Proctors, sufficiently instructed and authorized to conclude what the major part shall agree upon, for giving His Majesty those rational assuran∣ces of our future fidelity to Him in all Temporal causes and contingencies whatso∣ever, which we may. And our further sense of ten such persons only out of each Province, whether Prelates, or Proctors, or Divines, Commissioned by the respective

Prelates and Vicars-Apostolick or General. So that the whole number of the Convo∣cation exceed not Forty; only the Superiours Provincial added to that number, and two Divines more with each of these Provincials. Intimating further our sense of the place and day we have found necessary to fix upon: which is Dublin, and the 11th of June, next year of our Lord, being 1666. desiring all most earnestly, and in particular, and above all others, your Lordship to concur with our sense in all these porticulars, and that your Lordship, and all the rest will believe we had sufficient grounds for each. As also assuring all that shall there and then meet of the above Prelates, Vicars, Superiours, Proctors, or other Divines, that they shall be free to come and return again to their respective places. And that we have no other end herein but the general good. And therefore that we for our own parts shall not fail, with Gods good pleasure, to meet at the said place, and day, and at the residence of the Parish-Priest of St. Owens Church.

Which being all we have to say in writing on this Subject, we pray your Lordship may be pleased to communicate this Letter to your own Suffragants, or Vicars-Apostolick and General of your Province, to whom in particular we thought it needless to write, otherwise than by this to your Lordship, and them all. Yet earnestly entreat them, and every one of them hereby, and by your Lordships power with, and influence upon them, to concur with us, and bring their number for that Province to the said place, and at the said day. And so we heartily commend your Lordship, and them all, to the protection of God, and most holy direction of his Spirit in all things,

Dublin, Nov. 18. 1665.

Your Lordships Most humble and most affectionate Servants,

• Patrick Ardagh.
• Pat: Daly Vic: Ardmachanus ac Totius Provinciae Judex delegatus.
• Oliverus Desse Vic: Ger. Miden. & Claun.
• Ja: Dempsy Vic: Applicus Dub: & Capitularis Kild.

Such another was subscribed and endorsed to Dr. Owen O Swiny Bishop of Kilmore, who had been questionless for many years before bedrid, and unable to exercise very scarce any part of his Function. And yet besides Tuam and Ardagh was the onely Bishop (of the Roman Communion) then at home in Ireland. For Antony MaGeoghegan the late Bishop of Meath (who was the first that in his several Letters to the Procurator in the year 1662. pretended as his onely excuse for not signing the Remonstrance, and, gave his earnest desires of a Natio∣nal Congregation to be held first, viz. to consult of the lawfulness or expediency of such signing) was now dead. A third Letter also (the stile onely of the ad∣dress changed) for the Province of Ardmagh was to the foresaid Dr. Patrick Daly himself, as exercising the exiled Archbishop and Primate Edmund Reilly's Jurisdi∣ction over the whole Province of Ardmagh, containing in all ten Diocesses, to wit, Ardmagh, Clogher, Dune, Con••er, Derry, Raphoe, Kilmore, Ardagh, Meath, and Clua••macnoise. Fourth Letter to the foresaid James Dempsy; as likewise, during the vacancy, exercising Metropolitical Jurisdiction in the whole Province of Leinster, i.e. the five several Diocesses of Dublin, Kildare, Leighlin, Ferns, and Ossory; all those Sees being then vacant, except onely Ferns: the Bishop whereof, Nicholas French, having retired in the War-time about the year 1650. and as yet in 1665. living in S. Jago of Galicia in Spain, thought not fit to re∣turn home to his charge in Ireland, without first having obtained His Majesties, or the Lord Lieutenants Licence to that purpose. Fifth Letter was to another John Burk, then Vicar-Apostolick of the Archiepiscopal See of Cashil in Munster, to

be in the same manner (as the other Letters were to be to those of other Provin∣ces respectively) communicated to the several Vicars-General of all the vacant Sees under the Jurisdiction of Cashil, which are Imly, Waterford and Lismore, Cork, Rosse, Cluan, Limmerick, Acadensis in Kerry, Killaloe, and Finiborensis or Kilfinuran in Tomond. For albeit the Bishop of this last See was then, as he is still alive; yet being in France, and so in effect vacant, his Vicar-General was to have particular intimation. As for all and every of the other Sees of the Pro∣vince, they were absolutely vacant, their Bishops being all dead before that time, whereof the last was Robert Barry of Cork, who also (however in former times an earnest zealous Nuntiotist) upon receipt of Letters and Books from London (in the year 1662.) giving an account of the Remonstrance, approved it: as you have seen before, Sect. V. page 13. of the First Part of this Treatise. Sixth Letter was to Antony Docharty Minister Provincial of the Franciscans, the most numerous Order in Ireland, as being even at that time (so soon after the Tyranny of the late Usurping powers) at least 400 at home, besides those not only in their own Irish Collegiate Convents at Rome, Prague, and Louain, but dispersed in other Convents amongst the Native Italians, French, Spaniards, Germans, &c. in the se∣veral Kingdoms, States, and Nations of Europe. Seventh Letter to John O Hairt Prior Provincial of the Dominicans, the Order for number in that Kingdom, next to the Franciscans, even at that time being near 200. Eighth Letter to Stephen Lynch Prior Provincial of the Augustinians (or those called Hermits of St. Au∣gustine) in all about an Hundred. Ninth Letter to _____ _____ Sall Superiour Pro∣vincial of the Jesuits, some 25, or thereabouts in number. Tenth Letter to Tho∣mas Dillon Prior Provincial of the Discalceat Carmelites, much about the number of the Jesuits, or rather not so many. Eleventh Letter to Gregory Mulchonry Commissary, or Superiour of the Mission of Cappuccins, making in all about some Twenty, or near. Twelfth Letter to _____ _____ Abbot of _____ _____ Superintendent of the Monks of St. Bernard's Order, in all a few Titular Abbots, Nine or Ten perhaps, or thereabouts, who served in some Parishes as Curates, or Parish-Priests. But who that Superiour of theirs was, I do not remember now; yet remember notwithstanding that one Father Bartholomew Fitz-Gerrald, titular Abbot of Bal∣tinglass, appeared in the Congregation, and none other of them.

As for the Calceat Carmelites, there was but one onely of them in the King∣dom; as of the Chanons Regular of St. Austin, but peradventure three or four Titular Priors, and then officiating as Parish-Priests, tyed to the Cure of Souls in one Parish onely; for those others then at home in Ireland, called Titular Priors of some of the anciently great and rich Monasteries of the Order of Chanons Regular, we know to have been onely such by Commendam, as not otherwise pro∣fessed Chanons, but onely Priests of the Secular Clergy, who had got Bulls from the Pope to be Priors of such or such of those rich Cloysters, hoping one day or other to enjoy the Revenues of them. Of this sort I knew one, and but one; yet withal such an one as truly was unworthy the name not only of Prior, but even of either Chanon-Priest, or Clerk. Others said they knew two or three more such, in other remote parts of the Kingdom; I mean such as to the Title of Commenda∣tory Priors, though not as to the indignity of their persons or qualities, however otherwise for parts obscure enough. And in the last place, for what concerns the Benedictin Monks (who if I had ranked the Orders according to their Antiqui∣ty, should be, together with those Chanons-Regular, Treated of before any of the Mendicant Orders.) they were not known to be above two or three in the whole Kingdom, if so many. Which paucity, and withal obscurity there and then of these three Orders lastly Treated of, viz. Calceat Carmelites, Chanons Regular of St. Augustin, and Monks of St. Benedict's Institute, was the reason there was no particular Letter of intimation to them, or any of them.

But for the Bishop of Ardagh himself, who sign'd the Letters, being he was to reside constantly in Dublin, where the Congregation was to meet, and that he pre∣tended no Jurisdiction over any other Diocess but his own of Ardagh, he would have none to himself, but excused that needless trouble of having a Copy written

and sign'd for himself, promising nevertheless to acquaint his own Vicar-General and Clergy with the tenour and purpose of such Letter.

And for the other Bishops then surviving and remaining in forreign Parts, viz. Edmund Reilly Archbishop of Ardmagh, and Primat of all Ireland, Nicholas French Bishop of Ferns, and Andrew Lynch Bishop of Kilfinuran, they were only by the Procurator's own Letters (or perhaps moreover by some Duplicats of that to Tuam) to be acquainted with the whole design and transaction of it, and to be so invited home to that National meeting, if themselves should think fit to ven∣ture coming, and the Procurator promise them protection, or a safe connivence from the Lord Lieutenant.

Those Twelve Letters, and some Duplicats also of that to Tuam being at last sign'd by all four, and by their own proper hands, and consequently even by James Dempsy himself, the most reluctant of all (and so reluctant verily) that after expressing his consent, as being over-rul'd, yet he declined signing all he could, and therefore chang'd his Lodging, and writ a Letter excusing himself as necessi∣tated to depart suddenly out of Town; but withal pretending, that he would Cemmission some other to sign in his name; although being found out, and the originals sign'd by the other three brought to him, he could not for shame but sign also with his own hand (as he did then presently:) those original Letters and Du∣plicats (I say) being so sign'd, and endorsed, and by the said Bishop of Ardagh sealed with a flying Seal; being also ordered by all the Signers to remain in the Procurator's hands, to be by him sent as soon, or when he thought fit, by an Ex∣press to the several Provinces, Diocesses, Orders, Prelates and Superiors respective∣ly concern'd: he judg'd it expedient, for some reasons, to keep them till the be∣ginning of February next following. By which time he dispatch'd them, with the Express agreed upon.

Now, forasmuch as peradventure some Readers, observing how occasionally I have here given the number as well of Bishops then however living, viz. Three at home in Ireland, and Three more abroad in forreign Parts, as of those Irish Churchmen at that same time professing, and tyed to Regular Orders by solemn Vows, in all about 800, may think it some oversight if I give not also the Total number (that is, my best conjecture of the number) of the Secular Clergy throughout all the several Diocesses of that Kingdom at that very time; and not this onely, but how many of the Bishops, Vicars-General, and Provincials too of Regular Orders then also governing, had been of the Nuncio Party or Faction, and consequently either principled against, or, out of interest, averse from the Remon∣strance: I can say to the former, that the Secular Priests then at home were betwixt a Thousand and Eleven hundred; though I cannot say the exact number. But now in 1672. I doubt not they are well nigh so many more, by reason of the indiscreet laying of hands even since 1666. by the Bishop of Ardagh till 1669. on all persons that were presented to him, and since 1669. to this present 1672. not only by the same Bishop Translated to Meath, but by so many other Bishops and Archbishops, who have been made since by new Creations from Rome. To the latter, That of the whole number of those either Diocesan or Provincial Gover∣nours, Archbishops and Bishops, whether at home or abroad, Vicars of vacant Sees and Regular Prelates, two Bishops onely, i. e. Tuam and Ardagh, and one Vicar-General onely, by name Oliver Dese Vicar-General of Meath, sided with the Supreme Council against the Censures of the Nuncio in the year 1648. That is, in effect, sided with the Royal party, to reduce the Nation, and bring it back to its former due Allegiance and Obedience to the King. And besides them, one Vicar Provincial onely, I mean Thomas Dillon the Carmelite, albeit no Pro∣vincial Superiour of his Order in that time of great contest in the Nation about the said Censures. For in so many years past, from 1648, to 1665. when the above Letters were sign'd, all the other Bishops, and Vicars-General of the Clergy who in that Controversie sided with the Supreme Council, dyed, and Rome, and the Nuntiotist Clergy at home, provided men of other principles to supply their places. I am sure Rome hath at least since 1669. more than abundantly done its work that way in Ireland.

As for a third question, which perhaps may be here put by a curious searcher into those affairs, how many I mean, or whether any of the said actual, either Diocesan or Provincial Governours of the Irish Clergy Secular or Regular, had peradventure at any time before 1665. or then signed the Remonstrance, about which all the dispute was since 1661? The answer is in brief, That of all such, onely Ronan Maginn, Vicar-General of Dromore, had signed that Instrument, though he was not Vicar-General when he sign'd it, but soon after chosen. Indeed the Bishop of Ardagh, as was said before, approved of it by Letter from Seez in France, to his Brother at London, but sign'd not the Instrument it self. And Kilfinu∣ran at St. Malo's in the year 1662. got about a dozen hands of Irish Ecclesiasticks to it there; but suppress'd all, as soon as he or they heard of the displeasure of Rome against it, which they suddenly did within some few weeks after. Lastly, Father Antony Docharty Minister Provincial then of the numerous Order of Franciscans, writ to the Lord Lieutenant the Letter you have already seen page 62. but this he would not own to any but to him that made him write that Letter, that dictated it to him, that carried it from him to and had it back again from the Duke. To all others, Docharty would seem to be, as he really was for his own ends, Anti-Remonstrant, playing so, fast and loose, with both sides conti∣nually.

And this is a perfect Scheme (as to those affairs) of the chief Rulers of the Roman-Catholick Clergy, Regular and Secular of Ireland, at that time, or year 1665. What number of other Ecclesiasticks, who either had no command of others, or, if they or some of them had, was restraint to less districts, i. e. to the title and thing too either of Local Superiors of Convents, or of Rectors of Pa∣rishes (albeit many of them incomparably better in all respects of learning, ver∣tue, and other parts qualified for the higher employments of their Church in that Nation, than many of those that enjoy'd them) what number of all such, I say, did before that time sign the Remonstrance, I need not repeat here again, since you have it page 9. and page 47. of the First Part of this First Treatise: where, if I mistake not, the whole number that was then of Ecclesiastical Subscribers of that Instrument, is Threescore and Nine, taking in this number the deceased Bishop of Dromore, Oliver Darcy, who was the chief (though not first in time) of them, but dyed about the end of the year 1663. if I remember the time justly. A small number indeed, if onely as to the number, compared to their opposers of the same Irish Clergy, even but those at home in Ireland then, who certainly were 2000, or thereabouts; besides all others in the Irish Colledges, Seminaries, Con∣vents, and other Colledges and Cloysters too amongst the Natives of several Countreys beyond Seas; besides also the University of Louain, and above all the Court of Rome, its Ministers, Internuncio's, Nuncio's, Cardinals, Congregations of Cardinals; yea, and the most Holy Father himself, though he appear'd not as Pope, and ex Cathedra formally and absolutely defining against the Remonstrants, or their often mention'd Formulary; and consequently too besides, not only, and in a very extraordinary manner, all the Generals of Regular Orders, but even all whatsoever the dependents of the Roman Court in all Countries of Europe, es∣pecially in those of His Majesties Dominions, all the pretendents, candidats, ex∣pectants of Mitres, or other dignities or offices from that holy place, and City of fortune. Questionless if bare number, nay, if also worldly power, dignity, au∣thority, and (the most prevalent of all) interest were to be regarded by the Priests of God, followers of the Apostles, all and each should have born down the Scales on this side without any compare. Even interest it self, I say: because the Irish Anti-Remonstrants, notwithstanding their opposition, lost nothing, either of liberty, or other benefits or favours at home from the civil Magistrate, from the Lord Lieutenant, or Kings Majesty, or His Court, Council, or Parliament; being equal in all such (for any material thing) to the Remonstrants: and on the other side were sure of all even extraordinary favours, advantages, preferments, offices, titles, mitres from their own Church, and from the Court of Rome abroad, while the Remonstrants were sure of nothing from either, but slight from the one,

and extreme persecution from the other. And these five last years, from 1667, to the end of the present year 1672. have given sufficient Arguments of both the one and the other. During which time, those poor Remonstrants had nothing to ballance all their Sufferings, but the bare satisfaction of Conscience, to be slight∣ed so by their Friends, and persecuted so by their Enemies, for professing and per∣forming their duty to the King, according to the Laws of God.

And yet I must here advertise the Reader, That the Procurator when he yield∣ed to the Indiction of such a General or National Congregation, had moreover considered, how of that same very number of 69 Remonstrants, so small (com∣paratively taken) some had fallen off immediately after their signing in the year 1662. at the very first intimation of displeasure from the Bruxel Internuncio de Vecchiis, and their general Superiours beyond Seas, yea, not staying for either the Letters of Cardinal Barberin that same year from Rome, or the Louain Censure against our Formulary; others, and some of those too being of the most learned of the Subscribers had been lately dead, and the chiefest of all for authority, the onely Bishop who had so heartily in their presence, and for their encouragement, sign'd the very original Instrument, and stood to it constantly even to his last breath. Others were content only to have sign'd it like so many Nicodemus's de nocte; not acknowledging amongst the opposers what they had done. Many, who albeit they were not so cowardly, yet were content with having done their own duty in that respect onely, without giving themselves any further trouble to reason with any of the Factious, for bringing them either to conformity, or take them off their fierce and factious opposition. Some, who albeit they had sufficient judg∣ment to guide themselves, or their own personal duty in order to themselves alone; yet had not those abilities requisite either to persuade or satisfie others. And finally, how there was not wanting amongst them a false and treacherous, and troublesom, nay, and impudent Brother, who (after heading first the dissenters in London) thrust, yea, forc'd himself upon them, of purpose, if thereby he attain'd not his own ambitious ends, to sowe all the division he could, and discover all might do them prejudice, and betray them too whereinsoever he might; and then when he saw them advancing most, and their Adversaries yielding, for a Sum of money to offer his service to the same adverse party, and assure them that through the favour of both the Queens, and some other powerful Courtiers, he would procure the Kings Letters and Commands in their behalf, to stop the pro∣gress of the Remonstrants: and finally, when he found it seasonable, i. e. when they had no longer support from the Court of England, but should rather hap∣pen to be there discountenanced, upon assurance of a greater reward and Episco∣pal preferment from the Court of Rome, to declare himself over-board for those. For so it was at least to the Procurator, but too well known of the honest man from the beginning, and so it did to others also both manifestly and manifestly soon after appear, &c. All these circumstances, all this weakness of his own side or party, the Procurator considered, when he yielded to the calling (as before) of the National Congregation: as he likewise considered, not only that the Supe∣riours of the Clergy, Secular and Regular, being almost all Nuntiotists and Anti-Remonstrants, would very scarce any of them choose other Divines to sit with them in the said Congregation, than such as were, and would continue to be of their own way; but also, what was consequential, That the whole stress of con∣vincing, persuading, or working this Congregation to any reason at all, though for their own sole good, must have lain upon himself, and peradventure besides on a very few others of the foresaid small number of 69. And yet, for the Reasons given before in the beginning of this Section, he judg'd it both expedient and neces∣sary to try the issue of even such a National Congregation, as the publick affairs then stood in the years 1665. and 1666.

II.

BUT if any demand how it came to pass, That in the year 1648. there was so great and numerous a party of the Roman-Catholick Clergymen of Ireland, who, together with Father Peter Walsh, appeared so really, zealously, constantly, and successfully too for the King against the Nuncio's Censures of Ex∣communication and Interdict, that they quite worsted the other side, and prevail'd, even for and to the actual reduction of the Confederates to an absolute submission to the King, and His Lieutenant in that Kingdom; and yet now since His Majesties happy Restauration, Sixty nine onely of a great body of 2000 Clergymen at home in Ireland, should be found to appear professing so their Allegiance to His Majesty? and yet also those very few so professing to be therefore, and onely therefore by their Adversaries without any fear or shame opposed, yea, to their power, persecuted?

To these Queries, and for the satisfaction of such Readers, who having not been much conversant hitherto in those Irish affairs, desire nevertheless now, or per∣haps the rather now to be informed, how these things came to pass: I answer, as followeth, here, and as briefly as I can.

1. And first, as to the former Querie, That indeed the party of Ecclesiasticks who in the year 1648. and cause of the Royal Interest, appeared against the Nuntiotists and Owen-Roists, were more even in number than all those of the Irish Clergy surviving, or in being, either when His Majesty was restored in the year 1660, or at any time after till 1666.

2. That besides eleven or twelve Bishops, and two Archbishops, and all the Se∣cular Clergy governed by those Prelates respectively (except a very few dissen∣ters, who yet dared not gainsay publickly) and besides the two Provincials, and whole two Orders of the Jesuites, and Excalceat Carmelites (except also as far as I can remember, some two persons onely of the Jesuites, and one onely too of the Carmelites, who was my own Cousin-German) and besides moreover two whole Convents, and some others also in other Convents of the Augustinians; lastly, besides five or six, but the very ablest men of the whole Dominican Order then in that Kingdom, there were at least 500 of the sole Franciscan Order, and were at least 30 whole Convents of it (that is, about the one moyety of the whole very number too of this Order, as it was then flourishing above all others in Ire∣land) actual Diffinitors, Guardians, Readers of Divinity, Preachers, Confessors, Priests, Clerks, Lay-Brethren, and amongst them, several of those who had before been Ministers Provincial, and many, even to a vast number, who had in former times been Diffinitors, Guardians, Confessors to the Cloystered Nunns, and (which was above all) even very many esteemed even by their Enemies till then, the most regular, observant, strict and holy in their conversation, and exemplar life of all whatsoever of that Irish Franciscan Province, as for example, Valentin Brown, Thomas Babe, the whole Convent of Wexford, &c. who against the Nuncio ap∣peared over-board for the Supreme Council and General Assembly of the Con∣federates in so good and just a quarrel in the said year 1648. and continued so constantly, until they had compassed what they intended.

3. That together with their own strength of number, zeal, learning, industry, and pains taken by Preaching, and otherwise, against their perjur'd Adversaries, and wicked Cause, they had the Arms and Armies, and all whatever Authority both of the Supreme Council, and (soon after) following General Assembly of the Confederate Catholick States of the Kingdom, to encourage, support, and further them.

4. That as to those Arms and Armies, to which the Army also of the then Baron (now Earl) of Inchiquin, was join'd, the matter is too well known out of Hi∣story, which records how immediately after the Nuncio's Censures fulminated, the Confederates came to unsheath their Swords in a Civil War, one against another, divided into the Royal and Nuncio Parties.

5. And that as to what further provision by a publick Engagement or Declara∣tion, or Instrument of Protection, the Supreme Council thought fit to make for the security of those Loyal Ecclesiasticks, who had declared for them, and stood the shock against all the fury of the Nuncio, and other Prelates, Secular and Re∣gular joining with him; the ensuing Copy of that Instrument, under the great Seal of the Confederates, dated June 3. and immediately after printed at Kilkenny that same year 1648. will give the Reader what he may demand.

[illustration] legal seal

C (Locus Sigilli) R

By the SUPREME COUNCIL of the CONFEDERATE CATHOLICKS of IRELAND.

THE deep Sense which we have of the sad condition the Kingdom is at present reduced unto, by the unadvised proceedings of some Prelats, Secular and Regu∣lar, and more especially of some Provincial Superiors of Regular Orders in this Kingdom, together with our just fears, that unless a timely course be taken to stop the violence of those unwarrantable wayes, the whole Body of the Confederates may run irrecoverable hazard; These with the conscience of doing an act most Religious, by safeguarding Innocence (though no common danger were suspected) moving us to reflect on the Duty we owe to the Publick, and on the strait tye which the Oath of Association binds us unto, for its preservation: therefore, and for discharge of our Duty in both, and stopping the current of evils which we sadly behold flowing out of the above source (though the Laws, both divine and natural, edge us to use all extremity in business of so great concernment, whereon the safety and lives of the whole Nation depends; yet being unwilling to fix on any course which might seem harsh, even to the offenders themselves) we thought good, first to admonish and desire all and eve∣ry the said Prelates of what degrees soever, Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Vicars, Generals, Deans and Chapters, Provincials, Priors, Guardians, and all other Supe∣riours, conjuring them by the Sacred bond of the Oath of Association, and strictly charging them, on their due Allegiance to His Majesty, His Crown, His Kingdom, and unto us as Supreme Council of the Confederate Catholicks, that they shall in no wise molest any of their respective Subjects, Priests, or Religious, for persevering in their Loyalty, or (in pursuance thereof) for approving the late Cessation made by us with the Lord Baron of Inchiquin; and that they shall not command, sollicite, desire, or induce, by word, writing, or deed, publickly or privately, any of their said Subjects to oppose the said Cessation, or any other our just Commands, in pursuance of it, for the publick safety, or to infuse into the people any disobedience to our Aut∣thority, upon any pretence whatsoever, even of the Declaration made, or Censures now issued, or hereafter to be issued by the Lord Nuncio, and his four Bishops, on the same ground: From all which (as both groundless and unlawful) we have (according to the rule of Sacred Canons) legally appealed to His Holiness, and by that our Address, not only suspended the past Sentences and Censures, but also his Graces whole Jurisdiction, and the said four Bishops (if any they had) from pro∣ceeding any further therein, until His Holiness's pleasure be known.

AND furthermore, we require (by vertue of the said Oath, and upon their Allegiance) all inferiours of both Clergies, Dignitaries, Curates, Preachers, Con∣fessors, and all others, of what condition soever they be, that they shall not, on any pretence (even of the said Censures) withdraw any Confederate from approving

the said Cessation, or obeying our Orders and Decrees, made and to be made, in pursu∣ance thereof, but rather endeavour, in their publick Sermons, private Conferences, and upon each occasion offer'd, to confirm them in their Allegiance to His Majesty, and our just Decrees and Orders.

BESIDES, We thought it most necessary and just, to receive (as we do by these, and from this instant) into the special, and immediate protection of the Crown, and of His Majesty (the administration of whose Rights, even in this particular, is in our hands towards the Confederate Catholicks) all Church-men, both Secular and Regular, of what degree soever, who hither to have declared them∣selves faithful and obedient to the Government of this Kingdom, and who have there∣fore, and for opposing sinister and dangerous practises against us, and such as are in Authority, been heretofore, are for the present, or shall hereafter be persecuted by their Superiours, vexed, hindred, suspended, deprived, or any way molested; Protest∣ing, and publishing to the World, That we will use all the extent of our power to support, and defend their innocence herein, against the Lord Nuncio, and such their Superiours, until His Holiness and General Superiours of Institutes (being suffi∣ciently informed) provide further for the affairs of the Church, and true Disci∣pline of Regular Orders in Ireland.

LASTLY, We Declare unto the said Prelates and Superiours, and likewise unto all Inferiours of either Clergy, That if henceforth any Church-men be found seducing the People, as aforesaid, or countenancing either Seducers, or the Seduced, we must, and will presently, upon notice given, proceed against such, as enemies of the common good, and injurious to the Government; the suddenness and greatness of the present fatal dangers necessitating us thereunto.

HENCE it is, that none is to conceive, we intend hereby (since both are per viam facti, and for our natural and necessary defence, in assuming into our protection the unjustly oppressed Ecclesiasticks) to usurp an illegal power, jurisdiction, or un∣warrantable prerogative, or to intrench upon the immunities of the Church: being so far from either, as we are certain, our Decree in all and every the aforesaid particu∣lars, doth not swerve from the square of Sacred Canons, from the consent of great Divines and Canonists, from the practice of most Catholick Nations (and amongst the rest of England before the Schism without controulment of the Clergy) nay, we are undoubtedly possessed, the Law of Nature (which is above all Canons) doth approve and command it so strictly, as we cannot otherwise answer the Trust reposed in us, when by our negligence herein, the Lives and Fortunes of the Confederate Catholicks would be exposed to most inevitable and evident danger. Given at Kilken∣ny Castle, the Third day of June 1648. and in the Four and twentieth year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord CHARLES, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland.

• Mountgarret.
• Athunry.
• Donboyne.
• Lucas Dillon.
• Rob: Linch.
• Rich: Barnewall.
• Rich: Everard.
• Rich: Bellings.
• Patr: Gough.
• John Walsh.
• Gerrald Fennell.
• Patrick Brian.
• Robert Deuereax.
• George Commin.

GOD SAVE THE KING.

6. That, next Winter following, the General Assembly of all the Three Estates of the Confederates, being conven'd from all parts of the Kingdom at Kilkenny, in order to conclude the Second Peace, or it called the Peace of 1648.) with His Majesties Lord Lieutenant, and great Commissioner, the then Marquess, now Duke of Ormond (as they did indeed before that year ended conclude it) they took into their special care to second the foresaid publick Declaration of the Supreme Council: and that by another as publick of their own, fix'd up publickly to the

great Gate (as the manner was) of their Assembly-house, and to several other places in Town, under the hand of their Speaker, Sir Richard Blake. In which Assembly, Declaration and Act, the Estates, amongst other things, took notice, first, of the designs of the rebellious Clergymen, especially Regulars (who even contrary to the Oath of Association, took part with the Nuncio, Owen O Neill, and others proscrib'd by publick and lawful Authority) to hold meetings, and celebrate even Provincial Chapters in the woody, mountainous, boggy, or other unaccessible places possess'd by Owen O Neill; and that too partly, nay, princi∣pally of purpose to proceed against those other good and loyal Churchmen, who for His Majesties service, obeyed the Supreme Authority of the Confederates; yea, to displace and deprive them of their respective local Superiourships, Guardian∣ships, or other offices, and to name Malignants in their stead. And therefore in the next place they strictly commanded all such rebellious Out-lawed Ecclesi∣asticks, of what dignity or title, or office soever, at their utmost peril, not to hold any kind of Meeting or Chapter upon any account whatsoever. And Thirdly also, they no less strictly enjoin'd all and every the loyal Ecclesiasticks, and on their Allegiance to the King, and likewise at their utmost peril commanded them, not to assemble with, nor receive or obey any Summons, Orders, Precepts, Sentences, Institutions, Destitutions, Statutes, &c. of or from all, or any of the adverse party, but to continue their respective offices, and other matters, as formerly, until His Holiness, or other general Superiours beyond Seas, should upon, or after full in∣formation, send persons duly qualified and empower'd to rectifie all abuses, and punish (in their way) according to their demerits, those fire-brands of rebelli∣on and civil War.

7. That accordingly all Ecclesiasticks adhering to, and obeying the said Su∣preme Authority, behaved themselves; but more especially those of the Francis∣can Order, being they were above others concern'd, forasmuch as Father Thomas Makiernan, their Minister Provincial, and his Diffinitory (all and every of them declared Enemies to, and by the said Supreme Authority) had within Owen O Neill's Quarters, presumed to hold a Chapter or Congregation intermedia, as they call it, and therein authoritatively, as much as in them lay, displaced all the loyal Guardians throughout the whole Province, and order'd Malignants to succeed them.

8. That by such means used, and care taken that year 1648. the loyal Ec∣clesiasticks of Ireland then came to be and continue still so numerous, until they got the upper hand in all parts, even amongst the common people, and quite run down their Adversaries; and so, for what belong••d to them, enabled the very same foresaid Supreme Council and General Assembly, to reduce that Irish Nation once more unto their due obedience to His Majesty, by treating and concluding (as they did) within a few Months after, the second Peace, or that of 1648. with His Majesties foresaid great Commissioner.

9. That after this Peace concluded, and the Government thereby placed in, and executed by the said Commissioner the Duke of Ormond, as under the King Lord Lieutenant, those same loyal Ecclesiasticks, having in all respects the same countenance and protection from his Excellency, which was before given them by the Confederate Council and Assembly (witness in particular, among an hundred other examples, which I could alledge, Father Redmund Caron, come and sent from Flanders, as upon the Letters and Complaints of the foresaid Council and Assemb∣ly, delegated by the Highest power general then of the Franciscan Order, the most Reverend Peter Marchant, of purpose to reform the abuses of his Order in Ireland, and either to reduce, or depose the rebellious Provincial and Diffinitory) they, I mean, the above loyal Ecclesiasticks, encreased daily more and more, both in number, strength, and credit, until the two Sieges of Londonderry and Dublin, had been raised, and the fate of Rathmines happen'd, and Cromwel with a great Army landed, and the strong Sea-towns of Munster betrayed, and Droghedagh and Wexford stormed, and Rosse taken, and the repulse at Carrig, and the trea∣chery at Waterford, and Owen O Neill, with his Forces, being rejected by the Par∣liament

of England, condition'd (but too late) with, and submitted to the Lord Lieutenant and (Owen O Neil dying at the very time) the Bishop of Clogher Ewer m•••• Maho•• made General of the same Northern Army.

Then it was that the Nuntio party of the Ecclesiasticks, being (on the late sub∣mission) mix'd with the Royalists, reassum'd new courage, and gain'd ground by sowing new divisions, and playing over again their former Game.

Then that, after the Appeal to Innocent the Tenth sent to and prosecuted at Rome by Father John Roe Provincial of the Irish Carmelites, the same Nuntio part∣ty first began to speak big and Triumph also in that Court; the said Father Roe, without any satisfaction or positive answer, being forced to leave off his prosecution, and depart if not steal away privily, viz. when the news of Rathmi∣ne•• and the consequences thereof had been with so much gladness and excess of joy come to and proclaimed in Rome.

Then it was that all means and devices had been ordered there to make use of the present occasion (of the Royals Powers declining in Ireland) for either the re∣duction or destruction of the Anti-Nuntiotist Irish Ecclesiasticks; as being the time expected when these could have but little or no support from a tottering Go∣vernment; a Government undermin'd hourly by its own seeming friends, and therefore even professed Subjects, and at the same time overpowred by a declared Forraign Enemy. And that, amongst other such means and devices, First, the Commissary General, (alias Commissarius Generalis Familiae) of the Franciscan Order in Spaine, by name Pedro Mannero, sent immediately into Ireland new Parents revoking and annulling the delegat Authority of Father Redmund Caron over all the Irish Franciscans of that Kingdom, to take thereby all support of Church-Authority from the numerous party of them that were and would be still to the very last opposers of the Nuntio's Faction, of those who design'd to alie∣nat Ireland totally and utterly for ever from the Crown of England; although it was then, and now likewise clear, enough, that even according to the very Ge∣neral Statutes of that Order, neither the said Manero nor any other in his Office had or could have (by vertue only of such Office, or without special Commissi∣on from Rome, which yet he did not specifie or allude unto) any kind of Authority over the above Redmund's Commissariat Power delegated unto him by the Bel∣gian Commissary General of the North-west Nations. Next, (and soon after that) Daniel••a Dungo, an Italian being chosen Vicar General of the whole Franciscen Or∣der throughout the World (for the Minister General had been dead some moneths before, during the vacancy of whose place the Belgick Commissary Reverendissi∣mus Marchantius when he had no Superiour in the Order above him, sent and delegated the foresaid Redmund with full Authority into Ireland) commanded by the Supream Power at Rome, sent a second Patent of his own, whereby not only the Supream Power at Rome, sent a second Patent of his own, whereby not only the said Father Caron's delegation was totally extinct, but a fierce Irish Nuntiotist by name Eugenius Fildeus, or Owen O Fihilly, put in the same power (which Caron had) over all his Order in that Kingdome.

And then also it was, that wicked Cabals were every day a forming both in Camps and Cities, amongst many both Ecclesiasticks and Laicks against the King's Lieutenant the Marquess of Ormond; the Nuntiotist Clergy-men of Owen Oneills Party, being indefatigable in making use of the Argument of ill success; not con∣sidering they had themselves been the only chief and first causes of that very suc∣cess; nor scrupling once to mix truth and lies indifferently, so they could, as indeed they did corrupt thereby but too too many.

Then I say, it was that Limmerick and Galway plaid their prizes, and when so many Troops, and Regiments, so many even of Horse and Foot in every Province seduced into private Confederacies and correspondencies to undoe themselves, expecting every day to see Emerus mac Mahon the Bishop of Clogher, (then General only of the Ʋlster Army) to be declared by himself, and others of his way in the other several Provinces, and really to command as Generalissimo of all Ireland, and to see presently Armes and Money arrived to him as such out of Spain, by the Agency of Patrick O Duff a Franciscan, (now at the writing hereof in the

year 1672. arrived in London as a Successor to the said Emerus in that Bisho∣prick of Clogher) employed sometimes before out of Ireland into Spain for that purpose; and consequently to see moreover a Forreign Protector of the Roman Catholick Religion, &c. But God otherwise provided, the said Emerus's Ʋlster Army being defeated by the Parliament Forces in that Province, and he himself taken, and put to death by them. An accident, which I also my self bewailed, though I had little reason, if I had considered onely my self. For no sooner had that Army come in upon capitulation, on the death of Owen O Neill, to the Duke of Ormond, and march'd up to Kilkenny, and with them the said Clogher, and that he was made there one of the Twelve Commissioners of Peace in be∣half of the former Confederates of Ireland, and sate with the rest in that City (before he was made General by the King's Lieutenant) no sooner invited in by my self, and sent by the rest of those Commissioners to the Franciscan Monastery, where I my self was then Superior, and a great company (before him, and Bishop al∣so of Dromore) reasoning together of some differences in order to compose them by the mediation of the foresaid Twelve Commissioners of Peace, he, upon my answering modestly enough some things alledged, falling suddenly into a violent and extravagant passion, and converting his face and speech to me by my own name, then calling me Apostate, and great Writer of Books (though he mean't onely the little Book of Queries written against the Censures of the Nuncio) and withal vehemently striking his hand on the Table (at which he, Dromore, and many more of the company sate) took a solemn bloody Oath, That al∣though it happen'd that all the rest of Ireland might peradventure be forgiven, yet I never should.

But however these private matters were, I return to what more to my present purpose happen'd then, or immediately before and after that defeat and death of Clogher. For a little before that (as far as I can remember) it was,

1. That the rest of all, or very near all the Archbishops and Bishops, hoping all to be their own, now that they had the Bishop of Clogher made General of the confident victorious Catholick Army of the North, as they call'd it, and amongst them even many of those Bishops too that so lately before appeared against the Nuncio's Censures, met together at Jamestown in Connaught, and together also with some other Clergymen, Secular and Regular, assumed to themselves the Su∣preme civil power, by declaring, and that by a publick Instrument (dated at Jamestown in the Convent of the Franciscans there, Aug. 12. an. 1650.) against the Kings Lieutenant General, and General Governour of that Kingdom, by resto∣ring the former Confederacy, and by excommunicating also all persons whatsoever that would any more obey him, &c.

2. That the five other Bishops, and one Vicar Apostolick remaining at Galway, did on August 23. of the said month and year, confirm under their hands too, and as to every particular what those of Jamestown had done.

3. That the new Commissary Visitator of the Franciscan Order, Eugenius Fil∣deus, having before summon'd a Provincial Chapter to the Convent of Kilconel in Connaught, and holding it the 17 of August that same year 1650. at such time as most of the other temporal Provinces of Ireland had been over-run by the Parliament Forces, and yet encourag'd by the example of the Bishops, and the Nuntiotists of that Order convening there in great numbers, and such as were for His Maiesties Lieutenant, and yet came thither (for all came not) being not only deprived of voices, and otherwise too proceeded against contrary to all form of Justice, even their Enemies also being made their Judges; but moreover (with Threats, and actual violence used to the chief of them, Father Valentine Brown Professor Jubilat of Divinity, and a holy man, and a man also who had been Pro∣vincial near Thirty years before) being frighted to an unworthy submission un∣der their own hands writing; and a new Provincial and Diffinitory chosen, all of them Nuntiotists, and all the Guardians likewise either titular or real, made of that Party; and in the last place, Fifteen severe and publick Statutes voted, and established for perpetual Laws against all the Anti-Nuntiotists; the said Commis∣sary

Visitator confirm'd all, and so discharged his duty to Rome, which had him for those ends, and no other, Commission'd.

4. That after the defeat of the foresaid Bishop of Clogher, and the excommu∣nication too of the rest of the Bishops, and of their other assistants of the Cler∣gy both Secular and Regular, against all who should thenceforth obey or acknow∣ledge the King's Lieutenant, came to be generally known; and the Lord Lieu∣tenant had thereupon thought fit to withdraw out of the Kingdom: and never∣theless, and at the importunity of the more loyal part of the Nobility and Gen∣try, having thought also fit to leave the Kings Authority in the hands of the truly loyal Marquess of Clanrickard, a Roman Catholick; yet even under this very Ca∣tholick Deputy, the Nuntiotists, not regarding neither him (no more indeed then they did the Protestant Marquess of Ormond) nor the common Enemy, studied nothing more than how in the few places, how in the very Mountains, Boggs and Woods (which only at last through their own disobedience and division were left them, and that too but a little longer free, if yet free from the Parliament Forces) to persecute those other Clergymen, who as well in their latter, as former ex∣communication, opposed them still; but chiefly to persecute their more leading, or more resolute men, and above all others, Father Peter Walsh, who records this now to Posterity. And that him, the said Father Walsh, they persecuted so mali∣ciously, inveterately, continually, and in many respects inhumanely ••oo, through∣out all Provinces, Counties, Places, whither at any time he withdrew, or wherever he sheltred himself from the common Enemy the Parliament Forces, that at last, in the year 1651. and then in a Provincial Synod, held in the woods of Clan∣malira, in the Province of Leinster, where he then was by chance, they not only solemnly, and by name, denounc'd him excommunicated, but interdicted even also the victualling Folks that should for as much as his money dare to suffer him en∣ter into their houses, or sell him meat or drink; nay further, that some of that very meeting (though not by a publick Act) encourag'd the looser Souldiery to kill him, telling them, it was lawful so to do, being he was excommunicated as disobedient to, and an Enemy of the Church.

What he suffered lately before at Kilkenny, Limmerick, Killaloe, Galway, Inishbofin, &c, what hazards he run often in the very High-wayes Travelling, were too long, and not proper here to be related. It sufficeth to let the Reader guess hence how it was about this time (everywhere throughout Ireland) with the generality of such loyal Ecclesiasticks as with him stood out so many furious shocks, and weather'd so great and long, and continual storms, after the Royal Go∣vernment began to decline in August 1649. but much more after the Lord Lieu∣tenant had by Jamestown Excommunication been forc'd away for France about the end of the year 1650. And yet I must confess they were much weakned too before then by the loss of such numbers of them, and of the holiest of them, as were kill'd at Wexford* 74.1, by the Parliament Forces, when the Town was taken by storm, and some also at Droghedagh, and others elsewhere; albeit the adverse Ecclesiasticks, or Nuncio party, cryed down those true and holy Martyrs for tru∣ly cursed and excommunicated persons, and refused to pray for them, as having condignly suffer'd death, because, forsooth, obnoxious to the Nuncio's Excommu∣nication, they lived and dyed out of the Church. And I must confess also, that some others, of their best, ablest, and holiest Fathers too, at Waterford, during the Siege thereof, at Dublin in Prison, and elsewhere in several parts of the Kingdom, dyed of the great Plague, which begun in the year 1649 and continued above Three years, running over all parts and corners of the Island, except onely the North.

As for the Nuncio's unheard of proceedings against Valentine Brown and George Dillon at Galway, such qualified persons, the one Reader Jubilate of Divinity, and Father of the Province, as who had not only often been Guardian, and Com∣missary thereof, but also Minister Provincial above Twenty years before, the other, a Noble-man's son, and then actual Guardian of the Town, as he had for∣merly been Diffinitor, and several times Guardian of some other Convents, and both of them most virtuous and exemplar men, how the Nuncio himself in per∣son jointly with their own Provincial Thomas Makiernan, suspended, and both removed and reduced them to the communion of Laicks publickly before the People, and this only for refusing to approve of his former Excommunication fulminated against the adherers to the Cessation of Arms concluded with the Baron of Inchiquin in May 1648: I say, that as for this albeit so unjust, so unheard of, so uncanonical procedure (wherein moreover the Nuncio himself denied them even a Copy of their sentence) I will say nothing here, because not∣withstanding it (and many other such of the said Provincial Makiernan against some others then, and for some months before and after, in such parts of the Kingdom where he and his Faction were rampant) the opposers of the Censures, adherers to the Cessation and Appeal, and consequently also the said Valentine and George, within some few months more, got clearly the better every way of all their Adversaries (albeit these advantages were lost again by such degrees and means, as I have said before.) And for the same Reason, I will not mention here.

Neither (1.) The Provincial Chapter of the Franciscan Order at Rosserial, in the year 1647. where, at the Nuncio's beck, and by his and the Ʋlster parties contrive∣ment both Provincial, Diffinitors, Custos, and all the Guardians generally through∣out the whole Kingdom, only a very few of these last (excepted) were chosen out of that sole Faction which had devoted it self to the said Nuncio, and Owen O Neill, for obstructing any kind of Peace with the Protestant Royal Party, nay, where all the whole Diffinitory, consisting then of nine Vocals, was only of those called (by way of distinction) the meer (or more ancient) Irish; not as much as one of those other of the old English blood or name, being elected or admit∣ted; but by a wicked Conspiracy (and for the ends of the Nuncio, and Owen O Neill) laid by: the Nuncio himself having stayed Three months at Galway, i. e. near Rosserial, of purpose to see all this done, as himself gloried to Thomas Dese then Bishop of Meath; and yet a Conspiracy never before hapned, not even since the Franciscan Order was introduced into Ireland (in St. Francis's own dayes) by an English Nobleman, Morris Fitz-Gerrald, near 500 years since.

Nor (2.) The great storm immediately after that Chapter, and that same year 1647. raised at Kilkenny against Peter Walsh (i. e. my self at that time one of the two actual Professors, or Readers of Divinity in the Franciscan Monastery there) a storm which continued against him even in that very place for seven Months; which suspended him first from Preaching, then prepared a Domus Dis∣ciplinae for him, and this not only after a formal Appeal made to the Commissary General, but also both by an express command of the Nuncio himself, and by a formal sentence too of the above Diffinitory with their Provincial Makiernan, come of purpose thither; next dissolved the Philosophy School, and presently af∣ter even also the other of Divinity; then seemingly dispersed the very Professors, in all six, to try whether that would make him they aimed at retire; at last, and when he would not otherwise, forc'd him by a formal Precept, and under Excom∣munication, to depart within Twenty four hours as a banish••d man, and not enter any Sea-town, or other place that had a Library; yea, never more to return with∣out special Licence. There having been no other true cause, no nor as much as pretence or colour of all that not only severe and violent prosecution of me, but utter confusion and total cessation also even of the publick Studies of the Pro∣vince, but that in a Sermon preached by me at a publick Exposition of the Sacra∣ment, I preached in general terms against those more publick Sins of all degrees of people, and more especially the Sins of Perjury against the Oath of Associa∣tion,

and consequently those of Disobedience and Rebellion against the Supreme Authority; and that to my purpose of shewing the Judgments of God inflict∣ed even on Christian and Catholick Nations, in former times, I produced some ex∣amples out of ancient History, particularly out of Gildas Sapiens, in his Book de Excidio Britannico, which were thought to have reflected on the Nuncio, and his party of Irish Ecclesiasticks: and that I refused to retract that Sermon, or re∣flection, and retract it (I mean) in such form as they would have me do; but rather, when they forced me again into the Pulpit, confirm'd all again (though only in general terms, as in the former Sermon) against all such of whatever degree as found themselves guilty. Behold the onely true cause, or as much as pretence (though somewhat strengthned as they would make themselves believe, by objecting further to me, but most falsly, on the very moment wherein my sen∣tence of Banishment was pronounced, that they were informed I was then writing a Book for the Press.) And yet I confess it was a Cause which the Nuncio took so much to heart, that himself in person, accompanied with the Bishop of Ferns, not being able to press in to the Chappel through the croud, endeavoured never∣theless to send in through them to silence me in the very Pulpit, and then also when I was in the heat of my exaggerations and applications. And that besides, when Sermon was done, and his Lordship retired to his own house in great trouble, and that I was by a Messenger call'd, and appear'd that very Evening, his Lordship gave me this short applause and entertainment, Pater Valesi, hodie infecisti totam Nobilitatem Hiberniae, & perdidisti rem nostram; nimium pupugisti nos. And so turn'd his back, withdrawing from me.

Nor (3.) Constantinus Mahony, alias Cornelius a Sancto Patricio, the Irish Jesuits Book dispersed privily that same year, or precedent in all parts of that Kingdom, against any Right in the Kings of England in or to Ireland; whereof more hereafter in its due place.

Nor (4.) The surprisal of the Castle of Athlone, that same very year too by the Nuncio's Party; and his Lordships refusing to give any effectual com¦mands for the restoring it; as he refused also to give up to secular justice Joh-Bane, Parish-Priest then of Athlone, in whose hands the foresaid Book against then King was found.

Nor (5.) in the year 1649. the popular Sedition, and both furious, dange∣rous, and memorable Tumult at Kilkenny, of a rascal plebeian multitude of some Hundreds (if not Thousands) of men and women in the dusk of an Evening called together, and wrought upon by the circumvention and manifest lyes of seven or eight Franciscans of the Nuncio's declared party, to attempt by plain force, and this even within the Franciscan Monastery there, the murdering of the Reverend Commissary Caron, and other Fathers with him, viz. John Barnwall Reader of Divinity, Antony Gearnon Guardian of Dundalk, James Fitz-Simon Guardian of Montifernan, Patrick Plunket Confessor to the poor Clares of Ath∣lone, and Peter Walsh actual Reader of Divinity then in that very Convent, and one who so lately before, viz. in the year 1646. sav'd both Mayor and Alder∣men from being hang'd, and the City from being plunder'd by Owen O Neill.

All these five several and notable matters, with many other such, I pass over (as I have said) for the same reason I had not to insist on the Nuncio's own uncanoni∣cal procedure at Galway against Brown and Dillon: viz. because that after all such, the Royal Party, i. e. the loyal Ecclesiasticks, had clearly got the better of all their Adversaries, and that too in all respects, and kept it, until the disastrous fate of Rathmines Camp put all things again into confusion. What therefore must be more proper to my present purpose, is to let the Reader know,

10. That if all things went so ill and cross, and sadly with the loyal Eccle∣siasticks at home in Ireland, and worse and worse every day since the fatal chance at Rathmines in August 1649. until the whole Kingdom was utterly subdued, through their own division, by the Parliament Armies in 1652. (even Limmerick and Galway having then yielded, and the Regiments and Legions, Horse and Foot, of the several Provinces, upon capitulation to be Transported for

Spain, having also then (though but in several parties) laid down their Arms, and accordingly been Transported, and with them all such Ecclesiasticks (survivers of the dead and of either party as could go, or had the courage to go) except a few ancient men, and very few others that either chose to run all hazards at home amongst their miserable Relations, or were actual Prisoners to the Parliament, or peradventure expected (at least some of them) a better opportunity to go, if they could not stay: That if (I say) for so long time at home after Rathmines Fate, mat∣ters went so ill with all those were against the Nuncio and his censures, and Owen O Neil, and were for the Cessation, Appeal, Peace, Ormond, and consequently for the King, much more ill must all things have gone after, and accordingly did go with them abroad in all Forraign Countries of the Roman Communion, and in all pla∣ces, and amongst all people wheresoever the Roman Court had any jurisdiction, power, authority, or influence. Their fellow exiles of the Nuncio party, howe∣ver Countrey-men, and many of them also neighbours and kinsfolks, having their hearts hardned against any commiseration, and their understandings not at all (as it would seem) enlightned by so many and such prodigious calamities so lately be∣fallen their common Countrey and themselves, proved even in those Forraign Parts as cruel foes to them as when at home, or rather yet far more cruel, even in very deed as cruel as Tygers. In Spain, Portugal, France, Flanders, Germany, Italy, nay as far as Hungary, wheresoever any of the Appellants, those peaceable but unfortunate Irishmen, were retired to live and die in Peace if they could, the Nun∣tiotist's (who were in far greater numbers every where dispersed, and well enter∣tained, yea and of far more credit also, as having the speciousness of a Papal Nun∣tio's cause against Hereticks, and recommendations of Rome, and consequently of all other both Forraign Bishops, and General Superiours of Orders, to gain them credit) informing the Natives and possessing them with sundry abominable wick∣ed lies, not only to hinder those more then afflicted men from any kind of har∣bour, entertainment, relief, or even Almes given to the miserablest of beggars, but also to perswade all the said Natives even to persecute them as Ormonians, ene∣mes of their own Countrey, Antinuntiotists, Antipapists, Anticatholicks, ex∣communicat persons, favourers of Hereticks, and in plain terms, at last, both Schis∣maticks and Hereticks too themselves. The great plotters, furtherers, encouragers, actors of all such evil and inhuman designs against them (next after some of the Nuntiotist exiled Bishops, and Paul King at Rome, and Dionisius Masarius Dean of Firmo, but at that time Secretary also at Rome to the Congregation of Cardi∣nals de propaganda Fide, as he had formerly been the chief man with his Lord the Nuncio in Ireland) were in general the three Irish Franciscan Cloysters and Col∣ledges, the first in Louain, second at Prague in Bohemia, third in Rome, and the Dominican Irish Colledge at Louain too, and besides these, all other the several Se∣minaries of the Irish Secular Priests and Students in Flanders, France, Spain, and Portugal. In all which, as the exiled Nuntiotists had good reception, so the other side had none at all: both the natural inclination and worldly interests of such per∣sons as even all along the time of the War in Ireland (and much more after) pos∣sessed these Colledges and Seminaries, rendring the very name of Antinuntiotists odious to them. Besides that the Divinity Principles commonly taught in their Schools, entituled the Pope to the temporals of all the World, and not only to Ire∣land or England, &c. though more especially to these, and such other Countries whose Kings or chief Governours fell off from acknowledging the Holy See: and consequently, that the very intellect of such possessors of those Houses, at least generally taking them, was wholly prepossest against that name rendred so odious.

To descend to particular instances of those Antinuntiotists that found by sad ex∣perience in their own persons, how cruel their foresaid opposite brethren were abroad, and made others also be, were it my design here, I could manifoldly. For, to pass over now so may young Fathers and Students, Nicholas Archbold, Christopher Plunket, Thomas Shortal, John Shortal, &c. at Louain, and so many others elsewhere, albeit the ornament of their Colledges, yet about the Year, 1650

turned out of the Colledges, only because they had either a little before studied under Father Walsh at Kilkenny, or for some other cause or jealousie had been but suspected to be Ormonians:

I could name but too too many, even of the more ancient, known, and esteemed honest men, against whom, being exiled to Forraign Parts, the greatest malice of the Nuntiotists displayed it self (though in several places and Countries) open∣ly, professedly, and only on account of their having approved by signature un∣der their hands my Book of Queries (Printed at Kilkenny in 1648.) though only a Book against the Nuncio's censures, and for the Appeal of the Supreme Coun∣cil to Pope Innocent the Tenth; and amongst them particularly Father John Barn∣wal of St. Francis's Order, Reader of Divinity, denyed even so little as one nights lodging in the Count of Louain; and Father _____ _____ Brown the Carmelit suffi∣ciently vexed by those of his own Order; Laurence Archbold, lately before Vi∣car General of the Archbishoprick of Dublin; and Doctor _____ _____ Taylor, two secular Priests, so much malign'd in France, of purpose to hinder them even from any kind of livelihood or charity of strangers; and Father Laurence Tan∣kard shut up in the Prison of Ara caeli at Rome.

I could also name Redmund Caron Reader of Divinity, the late Commissary of his Order in Ireland, Anthony Gearnon, Matthias Barnwal, Anthony Conmeus Rea∣der of Divinity, Morice Fitz Gerrald, Francis Dillon, all of them qualified and good men of the Franciscan Order, all of them living religiously in their seve∣ral Convents in the Low-countries, except only Francis Dillon, who continued still in France and Anthony Gearnon that was at all adventures return'd to his missi∣on in Ireland, by permission of his General Superiour: and I could tell how all these were used, in the Year 1653. that is, how by a notoriously and ma∣nifoldly both false and wicked information, sent expresly and purposely from Rome by two furios Zealots (the one an Irishman, the other an Italian) against them to the Spanish General of the Franciscans Fray Pedro Manero at Madrid in Spain, they were all immediately thereupon, by a special Letter even from his Catholick Majesty himself to the Archduke Leopoldo at Brussels, ordered to be Banished pre∣sently, and perpetually out of all and every of the Dominions of the Spanish Mo∣narchy: the true and only cause indeed (though not represented to his Catholick Majesty, nor perhaps to Manero) being that they also either maintain'd or were known to be for the Doctrine and cause which that Book asserted. Nor doth it lessen the malice of their Adversaries, that the information being found in all particulars very false, that sentence was suspended.

I could moreover (and without any question) name the Author of that Book, i. e. my self, as who partly on that very occasion, I mean of that Letter for Ba∣nishing sent to Leopoldo, signified to me (being returned from Ireland to London) by Father Caron from Flanders, and partly to justifie my self and the general Cause, (even before the most partial and prepossessed of my Forraign Judges Fray Pedro Manero a Spaniard, and Minister General of the whole Franciscan Or∣der throughout the World) ventur'd in September 1654. from London to Ma∣drid, though neither summon'd, nor otherwise sent for. And I could alledge not only the injustice and inhumanity of my Imprisonment for Nine weeks and four days in the Convent of St. Francis there, with all other even the most un∣canonical circumstantials of it, and whole procedure concerning it, but also the malicious and cruel endeavours used by those Irish Fathers that acted then and there in behalf of their whole Party (either at home in Ireland, or abroad in For∣raign parts) against me, to force me even out of that Conventural Prison to an other incomparably worse, i.e. to that of the Inquisition; having to this end drawn a Petition to the Supream Inquisitor of Spain, and gone about Madrid to get hands to their said Petition; as they did in particular goe to the Lord of Louth, and to Lieutenant General Richard Ferral, both Irishmen, and to Don Diego de La Torres and his Lady, both Spaniards, who had been (because Don Diego had been Agent for His Catholick Majesty at Kilkenny) in Ireland, and known me very well, when I appeared there publickly against the Popes Nuncio.

Many other circumstances of Injustice, besides the substance of the grand Charge against me, I could alledge. And yet my having overcome all without yielding in any one tittle to my Enemies, or made any kind of submission, or admitted of, or received directly or indirectly as much as a conditional absoluti∣on ad cautelam, from the Church-censures, which they (but falsly) alledg'd, I had incurred. And yet also my Commitment the second time to Prison there (viz. after I had been for some weeks set free, and wholly cleared from the perso∣nal Charges against my self) nay, my Commitment this time to a formal and horrible Prison indeed, onely for expostulating with the above General Manero, in the case or behalf of Father Caron, and the other six or seven Fathers (against whom so far absent, unsummon'd, unexamin'd, unacquainted with, and wholly ignorant of the matter and lying information, the very same Manero procured His Catholick Majesties Letters to proscribe, or banish them, as is before said) and for telling him to his face, That in the said case, he had neither behaved himself as a Father, nor as a Judge. And how my own constancy and truth, and justice of what I said so, opened this Prison also for me, even the very next day, yea, without any application made by my self for being so delivered or set at liberty from it. And how after this also immediately, and notwithstanding all opposers I address'd my self personally with a large Petition to His Catholick Majesty, not only in behalf of the said proscribed Fathers, but even of all others of their way, both Ecclesiasticks, and the Lay-Nobility, and Gentry of Ireland, then exi∣led in any parts of His Catholick Ma••esties Dominions, and prevail'd therein so far, as to obtain even the abovementioned Letter to Leopoldo, to be revoked by His Catholick Ma••esty. And how, notwithstanding I was set free from restraint, not only my Adversaries, but Manero himself endeavoured to stay me in Spain; though Manero had a quite different end therein from that which they had; he intending, because of Cromwell's warring on Spain at that time, to employ me to our Gracious King, then forced out of France; but they intending onely new afflictions to me, by a new intervention of the Court of Rome in my case. And how fearing this latter, and having on some other accounts, I mean, other reasons which he could not answer, or contradict with any colour, procured my Licence from the said General Manero, to retire to Biscay, and Bilbao, I procured a second Licence by Letters Patent from the Spanish Provincial of that Countrey, to depart for Ireland, taking Flanders and England in my way. And moreover, how being come to Flanders the second time, although I had Friends enough of the Dutch of my own Order there, I was notwithstanding within a few weeks warn'd to depart, because they were not able to protect me from new Thunders and Prosecutions from Rome then again newly contriving against me. And finally how therefore, and because the Commissioners of Parliament (with whose Pass I twice before departed) who govern'd Ireland, to whom I then writ for their third permission to return home, being I was not suffer'd to live abroad any where safely, refused me in plain terms (and this because I also had so obstinately refused them to serve the Parliament) I was necessitated for so many years after, almost till the Kings most happy Restauration, to shift and lurk in England the best way I could; having but once in that interim gone to Paris for a month, not daring then to stay not even there any longer. All these things, I say, and many more, which are omitted, I could alledge as proofs of my own sufferings (in that general Cause onely against the Nuncio) as well abroad from 1652. to 1660, after that Ireland had been totally and utterly subdued by the Parliament, as before at home from the year 1646. to the year 1652. For that also I can truly say, that as it fared in those latter years (viz. from August 1659. to the 1652.) at home with any either chief Governour of the Kingdom, or General of an Army, or Colonel, Captain, or private Gentleman, or other person, with whomsoever I liv••d or sojourned, or who protected, favoured, or harboured me in that time of Tryal, i. e. as it fared much the worse; the zealous Nuntiotists looking even therefore the much more malignly upon every such (which indeed was one of the chief causes moved me at last in the said year 1652. to write

to the Commissioners of Parliament to Dublin, and desire their Pass for depart∣ing the Kingdom out of some of their Havens) even so it did after abroad, and even also with Strangers or Forreigners and would much more if I had been so indiscreet, as by making any great experiment either of their justice, love, or com∣passion, to expose them for my sake to the uttermost of malice. Nor truly was it my indiscretion of that kind, or any way so much my own desire or inclination (as matters stood in the winter of year 1650. after the Marquess of Ormond went away to France and Clanrickard took the Government) as it was the ex∣traordinary kindness of the Earl of Castlehaven, then General under Clanrick∣ard, of the Munster Army, that made me at that time stay with his Lordship as his Chaplain and Confessor. For I well foresaw what happen'd thereupon, viz. Terlagh O Brien the great Nuntiotist Bishop of Imly's coming to his Lordship at Limmerick, and in behalf also of other Prelates of his way in that Province, telling him plainly, They would rend the Army from him, if his Lordship dismis∣sed not me immediately. The same was the Bishop, that a little before (or after, for I remember not exactly which) at a set meeting in Galway with the then new pretended Provincial Francis Suillevan (whom I acknowledg'd not canonically, nor validly chosen, as neither did I the Provincial Chapter of Kilconel, whereby he was chosen, to have been legal, or canonical, or at all of force) and a meeting held also in presence of the Archbishop of Dublin Thomas Flemming, and the Bi∣shop of Cluanmacnoise Antony Mageoghegan, besides himself the said Imly, and after his demanding of me, whether I had not written in my Book of Queries, That even in case the Pope had given sentence against the Appeal of the Supreme Council, yet it might and should be lawful and just for them to oppose such a sen∣tence, and proceed as if it never had been given, and after I had acknowledg'd this passage to be in my Book, rose up presently, and retorting only in a furious manner, That surely the Devil was in me when I writ those lines, departed immedi∣ately without staying for answer (though I often pray'd him to stay, and hear pa∣tiently what I could say for answer) nay, without coming any more to that meeting.

But now to return to my discourse of the sufferings abroad, and to conclude it for the present with one instance more.

I could in the last place very particularly and singularly name Edmund O Duyr Bishop of Limmerick, who not even after his death at Brussels, no not even for the point of Christian burial there, could be secured against the eternal malice of those no less ignorant, than inhumane Nuntiotist zealots. They would have hinder'd his dead Corps, and labour'd mightily for hindring it from being buried in Church, or Church-yard, or any consecrated ground at all; pretending, for∣sooth, he had formerly fallen into the Nuncio's Excommunication, and Interdict fulminated in Ireland, in the year 1648. against all those adhered to the Cessa∣tion of Arms concluded with the Baron of Inchiquin; and that he had never been in his life absolved from those Censures. Whereby you see 1. That neither quick nor dead could scape their malice. 2. That no other expiation of so great a crime, as they pretended in that opposition (though in it self both Loyal and Christian) made to the Nuncio, could prevail to asswage their malice, but onely such expiation as they themselves would prescribe, viz. to acknowledge at the Bar, and to be absolved in forma Ecclesia consueta. And what this would amount unto, few are so ignorant as not to know. For if any other expiation might, surely that should, which the Bishops, formerly adhering to the Supreme Council in that opposition, gave sufficient testimonies of in concurring at Jamestown in the year 1650. with the other Bishops that had been alwayes of the Nuncio par∣ty, and concurring with them both in their Declaration against the Kings Lieu∣tenant, and their Excommunication too against all Roman-Catholicks obeying him any longer. And it was, and is manifest, That the foresaid Bishop of Lim∣merick, had been one of the five Bishops remaining or continuing at, or come to Galway, when or after the Congregation of the rest at Jamestown was held, who in that very Town of Galway, and on August 23. 1650, sign'd both In∣struments,

dated before by the rest at Jamestown, on the 12 of the same Month. 3. How ignorant also in the Canons of the very Pope, those fiery Zealots were in this matter against the said Bishop. For by those Canons, no Ecclesiastical cen∣sure of either Excommunication or Interdict, generally fulminated, comprehends or touches any Bishop, unless Bishops be in the sentence specifically express••d, as concern'd and commanded in such censure or sentence; and under it, to observe it. But it is manifest out of the very form of that sentence of the Nuncio, and of his few associate pretended Delegates of Irish Bishops, there was no such speci∣fical extension therein. Nor can it be alledged, That participatio in crimine cri∣minoso (as the Canonists and Summists speak) not even, I say, albeit such parti∣cipation were granted in the case, could excuse their said enormous fact against the dead Bishop. Because it is too well known, that neither he, nor indeed any other, at least, any other of all the Bishops had ever been nominatim denounced excommunicate: and because that with any, whether living or dead, not so de∣nounc'd nominatim, it is lawful ever since the extravagant of Martin the V. in the Council of Constance (that which begins Ad evitanda scandala) to communi∣cate even in all divine Things, Rites, and the very Sacraments too. So that of ne∣cessity it must follow, That those fiery Zealots, have been in that barbarous inhu∣mane Act, either shamefully ignorant of the very known Laws of their own Church, or (which is yet far worse) even to a prodigious excess superlatively both malicious and impudent, in pretending Conscience (though a cruel, hideous, savage one) where themselves knew there was no cause at all to pretend any.

I could further add one memorable instance more of the enraged malice of those hypocritical Irish Nuntiotist Zealots at Rome, against even Father Luke Wadding himself. Even (I say) against that very Wadding, who had been for so many years before continually at Rome, and both for his writings and prudence (besides other Books, he writ eight Tomes (in fol.) of the Franciscan Orders History, which are call'd Annales Minorum) the most famous, the most esteem'd and honour'd Ecclesiastick of the Irish Nation; and that both by Cardinals, Em∣bassadors of Princes and States, and by the Popes themselves. Who had been so long the onely chief man, that above any other, in the Affairs of Ireland, was consulted by them. Who had so often, even in former times, excused himself from accepting not only any titular Bishoprick or Archbishoprick of those in his own Countrey Ireland, but not even any of those other really and richly bene∣ficed and endowed which were offered him elsewhere. Who at least for Thirty years, had been in the vogue of the Papal Courtiers, as having both highly meri∣ted, and been designed for a Cardinalship. And (which is above all) who in his own dayes, and at least continually for Thirty years of them, had seen and heard his own Annals with so much esteem daily read (during that long extent of time) in the publick Refectory Pulpits of above Forty thousand Franciscan Monasteries, throughout all Parts of the Christian world. Good God! that the hoary hairs of so venerable, so great and good a man, should be led to the Grave in grief? aspersed even with the blackest of Calumnies, which the malice of those ungrate∣ful Nuntiotists, even of those also, I mean, who had otherwise been educated by himself, bred in his own bosome, and lived by his industry, care and study, and labours, could invent. Yet so it was Witness the wicked Troop of some Irish Franciscans of his own Colledge of St. Isidore, others young, others old, but all headed by Francis MaGruairck, who placing themselves on their knees in a pub∣lick way, where Pope Innocent the X. was to pass, cryed to His Holiness against him, Justitia Pater Sancte, and together exhibited a Memorial, accusing him not only in general of being a Correspondent of the English Hereticks, Patron of Apostates, Enemy to the Catholick King, but in particular also of other several, even the most infamous personal Crimes. For albeit his own true innocency, and strong belief thereof amongst the generality even of the great Ministers at Rome, as also the inward guilt of those Calumniators, and other the Diabolical contrivers of their malice, soon dispersed both the raisers and contrivers, and the cloud it self of infamy which they had so gathered and raised against him; yet he took

this procedure of his Countreymen so to heart, that he carried the grief thereof with him not long after to his Grave. And yet, I must here tell my Reader that the onely true original motive of so vile an enterprize against him, was no other, but a Letter they understood to have been written out of Ireland to him, in the year 1649. by the Marquess of Ormond, then Lord Lieutenant of that King∣dom, wherein he was desired, That in pursuance of his other good offices for His King and Court, he would take also special care thenceforth, to see the abuses both of the Irish Clergy in general, and particularly of those of his own Order, recti∣fied by more religious and loyal Superiours than those were that of late times had by their unchristian doctrine, and bad example, well nigh utterly ruin'd their Countrey, and mightily scandal'd their Church.

And so having done with those Heads of some few particular instances, which out of a far greater, nay indeed prodigious number, if all were known of those of persecution abroad, I thought fit to give here, as they occurr'd to remembrance: now I proceed to the remainder of the more general causes of that paucity en∣quired after. Wherefore you are now to observe,

11. That in the year 1655. the said Nuntiotist party, having (as to the af∣fairs of their own Countrey) all power at Rome, prevail'd, at last, with His Ho∣liness (then sitting in the Chair) Alexander the VII. to grant a Bull of extra∣ordinary Delegation dated at Rome, Aug. 27. 1655. directed to and for the most vehement, and thorow-paced of all the Irish Bishops of the Nuncio's party then surviving; except peradventure Antony Mageoghan the Franciscan Bishop, formerly of Cluanmacnoise, but now about this time Translated to Meath. But it was supposed his own act to be left out of that Bull, because not only that he foresaw the employment might prove in time, if not invidious, at least very odi∣ous; but also that himself living then at Rome, and indeed the onely Irish Bishop at that time there, was the chief procurer of it. However, to these four, viz. one of each, either Temporal or Ecclesiastical Province of Ireland, John (sirnamed Cullenan, if I be not mistaken) Bishop of Raphoe in Ʋlster, Walter Lynch Bi∣shop of Cluanfert in Connaught, Edmund Dempsy, alias Deemusvy Bishop of Leghlin in Leinster, and Robert Barry Bishop of Cork in Munster, though all four even that very time (as alwayes after, till they all every one dyed) living abroad in Banishment, and wide enough dispersed, and separated, the first in Brussels, se∣cond in Hungary, third in Galicia, or elsewhere in Spain, and fourth at St. Malos in France, to these four, I say, a plenary Apostolical power was delegated and given by the said Bull, to reconcile and absolve in forma Ecclesiae consueta, all Irish whatsoever, that appearing penitent, for having opposed the Nuncio in Ireland, or consequently incurr'd his Censures, would come to any of them, humbly sub∣mit, crave absolution, and perform what the Delegate should impose. This Bull (although granted through several false Informations, besides many more false suppositions: as out of the very tenour thereof, was and is manifest to such as knew the Transactions either of the grand Controversie at home in Ireland, or of the prosecution of the Appeal at Rome: but more especially granted through that of those two notoriously false informations, 1. That the Nuncio had to his Excommunication and Interdict, the concurrence of the lawful Delegates, and Sub-delegates then of the other Irish Archbishops, and Bishops in general, 2. That Innocent the X. had rejected, or condemned the Appeal as frivolous; both which material falsities rendred that whole Bull void; yet) the foresaid John, Bishop of Raphoe, living then at Bruxels, and entituling himself Vice-Primate of all Ireland, by the advice of his factious Party in Flanders, caused to be immediately Printed with a Preface, or Admonition, prefixed to it, Ad populares Hibernos ex∣communicatos, both in his own name, and in that also of his other Three fellow Delegates; but a Preface much yet more injurious, false, injurious, and malicious too than the Bull it self, as either in it self, or as proceeding from the Informers, Procurers, or Framers of it considered. For as for the Pope himself that grant∣ed it, we must suppose neither injury, nor falsity, nor malice in him as to his grant; but that injury only of granting any such Bull, at the instance, or upon

the information of one side. But for the admonishing Delegates (or rather perhaps the onely one of them that in the name of all the rest prefix••d the said Preface or Admonition) you may judge of their justice and charity, and some∣what also of the whole of that excellent piece of theirs and may judge of all, I say, out of this one passage of it paraphrasing on the words in forma Ecclesiae con∣sueta, inserted in that Bull. Upon which words they speak thus: Quinto denique ut alia omittam) in eodem Brevi habetur, poenitentes debere absolvi in forma Ecclesiae consueta, ut scilicet denudatis scapulis virgas excipiant, pro offensa ad∣missa satisfaciant, aliasque subeant poenas, quae in Rituali Romano exprimuntur. And yet that Bull, although so plainly subreptitious and void, and although more∣over so paraphrased all along, as (tamquam ex ungue Leonem) you may judge out of that one passage; yet being Printed, published and dispersed amongst all the Irish in all parts of Europe, and not only in Flanders, or at home in Ireland, amongst the miserable, but still divided both Ecclesiasticks and Laicks, and in such a time, and conjuncture of things, when there was no hopes of better dayes for those against whom it was procured: we must not wonder much, if it, and the other endeavours of the Publishers join'd with it, made them but too too many Proselytes (though rather for fear, and out of despair, than love, or inward persuasion:) nor wonder if those Proselytes, having purchased some little quiet (though but little credit or trust thereby, not even amongst their Adversaries) were loth even after the Kings Restauration, or by signing the Remonstrance, to hazard that quiet any more, until they were sure to be protected by the King, and his Laws, against the insulting power of Rome, and malice of its Clients in Ireland, or elsewhere.

12. That further, in or about the year 1658. Richard Ferral, an Irish Ca∣puccin, did present at Rome to the Congregation of Cardinals de propaganda Fide, the wicked Book attributed to him: The Book of Lyes, of Malice, and of the very grand mystery of all mischief, and of the very original, inveterate, and fatal division, no less unhappily, than cursedly renewed so often these 500 years, and last of all by this Firebrand, 'twixt those of the meer, or more ancient Irish ex∣traction, and those of the latter, or (as they are called) of the ancient English Conquerours of that Kingdom under Henry the II. or after in the following Ages. And the Book presented of purpose to be as a standing Rule or Module to the said Congregation, for governing thenceforward the affairs of Ireland: as shewing them in effect, and plainly enough, 1. That no Families, not even of the very eldest English extraction, in Ireland, how Catholick soever in their formal profession, were to be trusted with any Prelacies, or other at least chief offices, in governing the Clergy either Secular or Regular. 2. Declaring in express terms all such to be wicked Politicians, addicted wholly to the Protestant Kings and State of England. 3. On that account falling also fouly even both upon the Right Reve∣rend Nicholas French Bishop of Ferns, and Sir Nicholas Plunket, although for∣merly both of them in such esteem with, and so beloved of the Nuncio, that they were his Darlings, and the two Embassadors, recommended so specially by him, as by his approbation sent from the Irish Confederates to Rome in the year 1646. And 4. suggesting further, That none of those, either Bishops, or others (Secular, or Regular (who had at any time opposed the Nuncio, or Owen O Neill, and his Army (the onely Catholick Army with this Author) ought to have permission from Rome to return home, lest they should again corrupt the People, and hinder them from the new Catholick Confederacy which the Author so expresly drives at there∣in. Now that such a Book, so plainly discovering to the world what the ultimate designs of the Irish Nuncio Party had been still from the beginning, and conti∣nued yet so to be even in the general desolation of Ireland, should be so received and countenanced by that Congregation of Cardinals at Rome, as it was then (and so indeed, that it seem'd in effect to have been their Rule both some years be∣fore it was heard of publickly, and after too for some other years) could not but make the small remainder of the Appellant (or peaceable Irish Clergy) to despair utterly.

It is true indeed, that now since the years 1668. the Court of Rome seems not so much to regard that National distinction (which hath been the old bane of Ireland these 500 years.) But to their own purpose, the Romans have neverthe∣less effectually regarded even so lately, and do still, and will evermore while they can a far more advantagious to themselves, and much more underminingly dange∣rous to the rights of the Crown of England, and peace of the People, not only of Ireland, but of other Nations subject to the Imperial Crown of England. They have lately made some of English, and other Forreign Extraction (such as Ferral counts them to be) even some of those very Families whom this Author expresly and specifically maligns in the highest degree, and have lately (I say) made some of them even Bishops and Archbishops; but nevertheless upon full assurance that they have been alwayes, and would hereafter unalterably continue fix••d even in all respects to all the very temporal interests and pretences of the great Pontiff. And they have thereby impos'd on the generality of those who consider no more but bare names, and know not the Romans, have only seem'd at present, for a time only, and some few persons only to have quitted that so odious and invidious charge of that national and fatal distinction, and this onely too because it was of no more use to them, at least not of so much universal use in the present con∣juncture. The Romans, far more politick than Ferral, had seen by experience of how great use a few Prelates of that extraction, which he decryes, had been to them in Ireland, even upon the very first insurrection in Octob. 1641. and much more both in forming the Confederacy at Kilkenny _____ _____ in 1642, and in re∣jecting the first peace at Waterford in 1646. and in opposing the Cessation first, and second peace after in 1648; and finally, in the fatal meetings of the Arch∣bishops, Bishops, and other Ecclesiasticks at Jamestown and Galway in 1650, to overthrow again the said second Peace. The Romans knew full well, the argu∣ment was derived from the conjunction of some few eminent Ecclesiasticks of that extraction with those others (albeit the only Catholicks in the said Ferral's Book) and the great and effectual use indeed was made (in Ireland) of that argument, to persuade the men of Arms, and other Laicks, Noblemen, Gentlemen, and all sorts of that same English, or other Forreign extraction. For the argument was this in short. If (said those onely Catholicks) it had been lawful in point of Religi∣on or Conscience, to oppose the first taking of Arms, or the following Confede∣racy, or the rejection of the first Peace, or the Censures against the Cessation fol∣lowing, or Owen O Neill's holding out so long even against this second Peace, or at last the Declaration and Excommunication of the Bishops against that very second Peace; or if these matters look'd finally upon the setting up a native of the more ancient Irish extraction, or bringing in a Forreign Prince, or quitting any due Allegiance to the King of Great Britain; then surely Thomas Flemming Archbishop of Dublin, Thomas Walsh of Cashel, Robert Barry Bishop of Cork, Comerford of Waterford, Nicholas French of Ferns, &c. and so many other good men also even of the inferiour Clergy, Regular and Secular, of that ex∣traction, whose name or relations cannot pretend to a foot of Land, or House to inhabit in Ireland, but by or from the Crown and Laws of England, had never join'd with those others. And this was the argument, that in Ireland was more useful to the ends both of the Romans, and first Irish, either Insurrecters, or Oppo∣sers of the following Cessation or Peace, than any other; than even the very un∣just designs of the Lords Justices, Parsons, and Borlacy; yea also, than any strength after of those very first or grand designers of the meer, or more ancient Irish ex∣traction. For it is well known, that these had never signified any thing considera∣ble in any of the foresaid undertakings, but had been crush'd presently, if the English Colonies, persuaded by that argument, had not join'd with, and supported them. As even it is no less, and even consequentially known by experience, that any one Prelate or Churchman, at least, of parts and repute, extracted from the old English stock, both hath been heretofore, and is at present, more able to work the Lay-people of the same extraction, to any design of such nature, than a whole

Hundred, if not than a Thousand of the other could or can. Which, being well enough known to the Roman Court, is it indeed, and no other consideration at all of justice or equity in the case hath made that Court, as sometimes infor∣mer dayes (when the carrying on of their designs requir'd it) so lately again since the year 1668. seemingly (for some part, and only for the present occa∣sion and necessity) decline Ferral's advice in that one point of such a National distinction so universally taken, or observed without any discretion.

But to leave this digression (how useful soever) and come to a conclusion of all I would be at to answer the first Querie proposed in the beginning of this Section, you are now in the last place to observe what did, and must have followed or been annexed to so many other causes, or so many other previous influential and effectual both dispositions and predeterminations, viz.

13. That while those Loyal Irish Ecclesiasticks (who in the grand Controver∣sie with the Nuncio, declared, and stood firmly against him) were every day more and more wasting and decaying at home, since the coming in of Owen O Neill••s Party, about the end of the year 1649. but much more also abroad, since they had been forc'd to Forreign Countries: on the other side, the Nuncio Party, both Regular and Secular, not only at home for the generality of them, preserved them∣selves from the undistinguishing Sword of the Parliament Souldiery, by retiring still into the fastnesses of the Countrey Boggs, and Woods, and Mountains in their own quarters (when the former, as being most of them Natives and Inhabitants of the Cities, Corporations, and other the more civilized Champion Countries seized first by the Parliament, could not, or would not do so:) but abroad in other Countries recruited mightily as having all the Superiours of their Faction, and all the Irish Monasteries and Seminaries in their possession, and all the authori∣ty and power of the Court of Rome to favour them: and recruited so mightily (I say) by a young Frye of their own inclinations received into the Monasteries, Colledges, and Seminaries, bred and brought up throughly paced in their Princi∣ples; than ordered Priests, Professors, Confessors, Preachers, &c. and after that (besides very many of the old ones their masters) sent home as so many Apostles into Ireland, one after another, as soon as there seem'd any quiet or harbour for them there; even many of them before the King had been restored, but in far greater numbers immediately after His Restauration.

Behold Reader, in Thirteen several Heads (and most of them complex, and all mark'd or distinguish'd by so many arithmetical numbers in the margin) a final, full, and satisfactory Answer to the former of the two Queries, you have in the be∣ginning of this incidental, or occasional Section; that former being in effect this, How it came to pass that so many Irish Ecclesiasticks of the Roman Communion, both appeared and prevail'd so as they did against the Pope••s Nuncio in Ireland, and all his Party and Censures in the year 1648. and yet now, for so many years after His Majesties happy Restauration, of so great a Body as at least 2000 Irish Ecclesiasticks at home in Ireland, Sixty nine onely have been found to appear professing openly as much as in Temporals their due Allegiance to His Majesty, by Signing the Loyal Irish Remonstrance presented to His Majesty in the year 1661? For although I have (of purpose, and to avoid too much prolixity) omitted many things more which might have been truly and materially said in answer; yet I am sure I have said enough here to inform any rational indifferent person, how, or by what means that which is demanded, or enquir'd after, came to pass on either side: and how so great a change of the Irish Clergy happen'd in Four∣teen years, from 1648. to 1662. (for in this year 1662. the grand op∣position, which continues ever since against the Remonstrance begun.) And, have given enough of the true motives, occasions, causes, and degrees of that change. And further yet, have said enough to persuade any indifferent man, that the whole of those very motives, occasions, means, causes and degrees of either side, may be reduced to, or referr'd, as springing from one of these two more general causes.

1. The Civil Magistrates Authority, Power, Sword, being careful and vigorous, and executive, in supporting and protecting those Ecclesiasticks that stood firmly for it against the usurpations and encroachments of Rome, and likewise in prosecu∣ting and punishing all other Ecclesiasticks, who being meer dependents of, and Emissaries from the Roman Court, were manifestly known to undermine the Civil Power and Magistracy.

2. The same Temporal Magistrates or Governours being grown careless or remiss therein, or having not force or strength enough left to execute, and having at last through Gods unsearchable pleasure or permission, been utterly disabled, ru∣ined, and come to be no more (if not in title only) the Magistrate or Go∣vernour.

The former is sufficiently grounded in what you have before from number the 1. to number the 6. And albeit the latter even as to all Parts, be also in the fol∣lowing numbers or paragraphs abundantly shewn; yet I think it not amiss to give more particularly yet of the First Part, and perhaps Second too thereof, the very first original, and manifest proof (whence all the rest followed) which I my self, as having been singularly concern'd, have observed, when it was but yet un∣der deliberation. It is and was the weakness of our Temporal Government, in yielding in the year 1648. to Owen O Neill, and Bishop of Clogher's demand, as the first preliminary Article of their Treaty with the Marquess of Ormond, then His Majesties Lieutenant of Ireland, That all who had opposed the Nuncio's Censures, or in their behalf, the Twelve Roman-Catholick Commissioners of Peace, should humbly Petition the Pope for a general Absolution from the said Censures. Indeed Ferral sayes in his Book to the Congregation de propaganda, it was abso∣lutely the very first of the Articles concluded then by Owen O Neill's Party, with∣out mentioning whether it was only preliminary, or otherwise. This much I know, That when after the fatal breach at Rathmines, and taking of Droghedagh by storm, and the revolt of the Sea Ports in Munster, and the march to and storm, and sur∣prizal of Wexford by Cromwel, and consequently after Owen O Neill's further application to the Parliament of England, had been rejected, and the Cessation with him, notwithstanding his service to them, had expired: that, when I say, in this conjuncture, the Lord Lieutenant, then Marquess of Ormond, had sent the Bishop of Ferns, and Sir Nicholas Plunket, as Commissioners, to offer Conditions to, and treat and conclude with Owen O Neill, and the Army and Party till then siding with him, these two Commissioners writ back to Kilkenny, and either to his Excellency, or to the rest of those called the Twelve Catholick Commissioners of Peace, That Owen O Neill, or his Commissioners, insisted positively on that Article. And I remember very well, That hereupon the Council Board (I mean, those Twelve Catholick Commissioners of Peace) at Kilkenny, acquainted immedi∣ately David Roth Bishop of Kilkenny (alias of Ossory) and Patrick Plunket Bishop of Ardagh (the only Bishops then in Town) and my self as the third man, with what on the subject had been written by the foresaid Bishop of Ferns, and Sir Nicholas. That they withal desired us to consult together, and give them our resolution on the point, or what answer we thought fitting to return. That we did accordingly consult: and, in regard of the fatal conjuncture, and conse∣quent necessity, for the Publicks sake, to yield almost to any terms, and because that a general Absolution, and this ad cautelam onely, implyed no acknowledg∣ment of guilt on our side, or of justice or validity of the Censures on the other, did consent of our part unto the said Article, so cautiously and restringently as here to be framed. All this I remember very well; but withal my own extreme regret in yielding herein, or even (I mean) as much as with such caution and re∣striction, because I clearly saw what would follow. And yet because I also knew, That if I had resisted, and the Treaty thereupon chanc'd to be either broken, or delayed, I alone, at least principally, should have born all the blame and odium of whatever dismal consequences: I consented so as I have said. Nay rather, because I likewise knew, that as matters happen'd to be then, whatever I did resolve, the

Commissioners had not resolution enough to resist; I yielded so, though with very much inward reluctance: yea, notwithstanding (I say) all that very caution and restriction used by me; for I my self alone was the first Author or Suggester of it upon the debate.

But however my either inward thoughts or outward expressions were on that subject, nothing of this nature can be clearer to me, than that the said Twelve Commissioners, their want of resolution to oppose that Article, was the very im∣mediate original spring whence flowed all the other following breaches, and the several degrees of their Ecclesiastical Party's declination; and consequently also of that of their Laick Party's: the other side preaching loudly everywhere, and with much advantage amongst the vulgar (though otherwise falsly as to the thing in it self) that it could be no less than inward guilt made the Anti-Nuntio∣tists yield to the Petition of an Absolution from the Pope; whereby as this side lost daily much of their reputation amongst the populace, so that other gained more and more credit. From thence (i. e. from that weakness of yielding in the said Twelve Commissioners of Peace) flowed the vapouring and passionate Threats of Clogher against me, and to my own face immediately after at Kilkenny, which I touch'd before (albeit I did well enough with him then: having presently, but withal civilly, desired him to withdraw out of that House where I had autho∣rity, and to tell the Commissioners I had done so.) From thence the manifest in∣justice of the National Congregation of the Bishops of both sides met, and held at Cluanmacnoise that very Winter of the year 1649. soon after Owen O Neill's Army was upon conditions come in to my Lord Lieutenant (Owen O Neill himself, their General, being dead immediately after the Articles signed) wherein the Nuntiotist party prevailing, Father Thomas Makiernan, the late and great Nun∣tiotist Provincial of the Franciscans, was received as Provincial to sit and vote, notwithstanding that he had been so lately, i. e. some months before, by Father Redmund Caron (Judge Delegate from the highest power general then in the Franciscan Order beyond Seas) canonically and sententially both deposed and excommunicated; yea, notwithstanding that Father Caron himself, being also pre∣sent in the said Congregation, interceded on that account, and by such arguments too, as were unanswerable, against his reception (to mention nothing at present how the said sentences of Caron against Makiernan, were soon after confirmed also beyond Seas at Gant, and by the General Delegant the Right Reverend General Commissary Petrus Marchantius himself.) From thence further proceeded, that presently after this, the said Father Caron Commissary, and Judge Delegate, was meerly Hector'd to the yielding up some of his obedient Convents to the absolute disposal of this Makiernan. Nay, that Rome, within some further time, under∣standing of this regaining of ground in Ireland by the Nuntiotist Party, com∣manded Daniel a Dungo (as I have said before) to revoke Father Caron, and institute in his place Fildeus. But most particularly it was from thence flowed the boldness and impudence of procuring that subreptitious and injurious Bull of A∣lexander the VII. a Bull, not of a general and conditional absolution, ad cautelam onely, as was consented unto by the foresaid Commissioners; but for such particu∣lar and penitential absolutions, as both supposed absolutely the Censures contract∣ed, and was required also to be in forma Ecclesiae consueta performed. And generally in a word, it was from thence that all evils whatsoever flowed, which at any time after 1649. did in any place fall upon the Royal Party of Irish Ecclesiasticks, until they were at last utterly sunk. A fate that certainly attended all others of them as soon as the numerous and resolute body of the Franciscans, that appea∣red so eminently and couragiously leading them on, had been (and by such means and degrees as we have seen) broken in shivers, and reduced almost to nothing.

Where I cannot but observe the worldly prudence of the Court of Rome, that attempted not the revocation of Caron, and annullation of all his Acts, or the substitution of another (i. e. of a known and zealous Nuntiotist) in his

place, until they had been sure the Civil Government had fainted, and the Nuncio Party was grown head-strong enough to back their new Commission, and support their new Commissary Fildeus, whiles he proceeded not only contrary to all Church Canons, and Statutes of his own Order, but by plain force and violence also against those Loyal persons of his Order that should dare oppose him in any thing. And the like prudence observed by them in that Bull of Alexanders; which, as being of far greater (i. e. more general and perpetual) consequence, they would never grant until the year 1654. By which time they persuaded themselves, it was impossible the King, or His Royal Party, should ever return, or be in any such condition as might encourage their reflection on the manifest in∣justice and encroachment of that Bull so directly and plainly overthrowing all the props of Allegiance to His Majesty amongst the Roman-Catholicks of Ireland. The like also, in effect, and as to their main ends (albeit they saw the Scene of Affairs in these Kingdoms somewhat altered) they have pursued against the Irish Remonstrants now lately since His Majesties happy Restauration. For albeit the Internuncio's of Bruxels, and Cardinal Barberin, and some Generals of Orders had by the direction of that Court sent many Letters and Instructions, and by their procurement also the University of Louain had given their Theological Censure against those Remonstrators, and the Remonstrance it self, some early enough, and others at several times after all along from the year 1661. for seven or eight years more continually; yet until they knew for certain that the Duke of Ormond, who took that matter, and the protection of the said Remonstrants to heart, was totally removed from the Government of Ireland, and matters as to that affair also of the Remonstrance, wholly altered, or not look't upon here in England at Court, they never attempted to proceed further. But then immedi∣ately, as knowing and finding their seconds both in Ireland and England, what engine have they not made use of to destroy those Remonstrators, and suppress their wicked Heresie? What numerous Orcations of Archbishops, Bishops, Vicars Apostolical, Provincials of Regular Orders, &c. for and in Ireland, and of men by inclination, or for interest, or out of ignorance (or some perhaps out of all three) professed, sworn, devoted Anti-Remonstrants? What Citations, Deposi∣tions, and Excommunications? What Denunciations and Affixions of the Remon∣strants, or the chief of them? Nay, what other hellish inventions too by the Ita∣lianated Engineers here at home against the same impious Hereticks forsooth, that deny the Pope to be either Dominus Deus noster Papa, or King of the world, or as much as Supreme Lord of poor Ireland? Nor have the Roman Courtiers failed in timing not even this their last persecution from the year 1669. to this pre∣sent 1673. against those men. For therein also they have prospered; yea, it would seem they have had here at home even from great men in power, all furthe∣rance and favours to prosper so, i. e. to oppress and suppress utterly those Remon∣strators, nay, and the very doctrine of that Remonstrance: certainly much beyond either my expectation or opinion in the year 1661. when I had it sign'd and presented to, and was also so graciously accepted by His Majesty; though not against my then also expresly resolved preparation of mind, and resignation of soul, and constancy of heart, and exhortation to others too (as you may see evidently in my More Ample Account, pag. 45. 48, 49. and) against all such even extraor∣dinary contingencies or persecutions, even, I mean, from either, or any side what∣soever, Court of Rome, or Court of England, or both. My good Angel, some secret instinct from God (I doubt not) having even then so particularly both forewarn••d and forearm'd me against all such future events, how improbable soever they seem'd to be then; and my own reason also telling me from the beginning, the Roman Court would leave no stone unremoved to work the Court of England against me, and my Friends, and that very Formulary too (however this last of the Formulary might seem impossible, if not peradventure to those only who are reported to have a constant Council sitting to reconcile contradictions, and render impossibilities possible) quia filii hujus Saeculi prudentiores filiis lucis in generatione sua sunt, Luc. 14.8.

Hitherto whatever I intended either by anticipation, or otherwise, in pro∣secuting of my Answers to the first Querie, put in the beginning of this Section.

As for the second Querie there (viz. How it came to pass that those few Remostrants, professing so as they should and ought, their Allegiance to the King in all Temporal Affairs, and onely in such Affairs, have been nevertheless, as they are even at present, therefore, and onely therefore, by their Adversaries at home, though otherwise Fellow-subjects, without any fear or shame so vehemently, obstinately, and openly opposed, yea, to their power, persecuted?) needs but little to be said here, if any thing after or besides what you have already in the First Part, Sect. ix. from page 21. to 27. where you have Sixteen several Allegations of the Anti-Remonstrants to excuse themselves; though all and each fully answered in the Tenth Section immediately following, and beginning page 27. And therefore at present I will in answer to that second Querie, add here to those former Allega∣tions, That the said Anti-Remonstrants being sure of all the authority, power, and favour of the Court of Rome, both to back them in such not only their opposition, but persecution; yea, and to reward them in due time with Mitres, and all other Dignities, Benefices, Offices, extraordinary Missions, Commissions, Faculties, &c. each one proportionably to his degree, zeal and merit in behaving himself man∣fully against those Remonstrants (those Ʋnderminers forsooth of the Holy See) they were also both encouraged and assured by private Agents, and other Friends at His Majesties Court, That even also this very Court of England should be made for them ere long, and against the Remonstrators. And that in the mean time surely, and however they behaved themselves, they should fare no worse than the great body of Protestant Nonconformists overspreading the Three Nations. And lastly, That there should never be any difference or distinction made by any fu∣ture favourable Edict, Statute, Law, or otherwise in England or Ireland, betwixt any two Parties of Roman-Catholicks, however either of them the one way or other, well or ill principled in order to the Pope or King.

Besides, they were told by some disaffected cunning Lawyers their Friends, That the Lord Lieutenant dared not own the urging them to sign the Remonstrance, much less the forcing them by any kind of punishment to allow, or approve there∣of, because there was no Law for doing so; that Formulary it self not being legal, nor in any wise taken notice of in Law, but varying in many respects from the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance. That the tendring of these legal Oaths in∣deed the Lord Lieutenant might by Law justifie, and according to Law punish the refusers of them; but that nevertheless he would be wary enough to tender these, lest he should meet with a general repulse, and have no thanks neither in the Court of England for his zeal.

Moreover, there wanted not leading men amongst them, who, albeit they laugh'd in their sleeves at the Cheats of the Roman and Louain Censures, procured against the Remonstrance, and acknowledg'd ingenuously, there was nothing in that For∣mulary against either Catholick Revelation, or Religion, or indeed in any point so against conscience or justice, that people might not (if they pleased to renounce their own liberty) without any sin subscribe their names to it; yet after all were as zealously and even inwardly both affected and principled for the freedom of their Native Countrey from a Forreign yoke (for such they call the English Rule there) as ever Judas Galilaeus (Acts 5.) was in former times for his own be∣loved Countrey of Palestine, to free it from subjection to the Roman Eagles Men that holding as mean an opinion of all kind of Papal pretences either from divine or humane right to the Temporal Monarchy, I say not either of the whole Earth, or of Christendom alone (I say) but of as much as poor Ireland onely, nay, and as mean of his pretences to that other kind of Monarchy which is pure∣ly spiritual, as ever any of the Doctors of Sorbon, or Fathers of Constance, or Basil held, men, I say, that being so principled and affected in order to the Pope, were, and are still nevertheless some of them true Disciples to C.M. the Irish Jesu∣ite, and to R. F. the Irish Cappuccin. Yea, men that look'd with contempt and

scorn both on Gratianus Lucius (alias Joannes Lynchius) and Joannes Sin∣michius for altering or suppressing the designs they had formerly had in writing, the one his Cambrensis Eversus, the other his Saulus Ex Rex, before the King's Restauration; but most particularly and singularly on Lucius for his pains, and even ridiculous pains, say they, taken in his xxvii Chapter of his Cambrensis, &c. even (say they also) so quite contrary to his former design, or that he had while he dream'd not of the Kings Restauration. Lastly, men who had the con∣fidence some of them to speak personally, and some to write under concealed names to my self in the years 1663. and 1664. not only of Henry II. and of all his Successors, their want of true Title to Ireland; but such indignities and horrible blasphemies also of later Princes, as I thought better to pass over in si∣lence, than offend any with the relation, such men certainly were not wanting.

And so I end at last all my Answers to those two Queries, and with them this whole incidental or occasional Section, which I have given and inserted of purpose here, to make the Reader understand the more easily and clearly the true source and ground not only of all the opposition made (as you shall presently see) to frustrate the Indiction of the National Assembly or Congregation (I mean to hin∣der any such meeting at all, or any compliance with that Indiction) but also all the strange carriage of the Fathers in that Assembly, when notwithstanding all opposition to the contrary, they convened and sate.

III.

AS soon as the Letters of Indiction or Intimation (which you please to call them) were delivered, great were the Contrivements both at home in Ireland, and abroad in Forreign parts, amongst the disaffected party of Irish Ec∣clesiasticks, to hinder any such National meeting. But no visible opposition, save only, 1. From John Burk Archbishop of Tuam, then at home in Ireland, living somewhere in Connaught within his Diocess; and 2. From the Court of Rome by Cardinal Francis Barberin's Letters; and (which was consequent) 3. From the Bruxel Internuncio Jacobus Rospigliosi. These two last oppositions, because made last, in order of time, I will give in their proper place, viz. in the sixth Section. The first from the Archbishop, you have here in his own Let∣ters, together with an account of Kilmore, which take up this present Section.

But before I give these Letters of Tuam, I must desire you (Reader) for your own better information of this great, but infirm, and aged Prelate, to turn to the vi Section, pag. 23. 15, 57. of the First Part, and read my account there given of him. Besides know, That all the Clergymen, Seculars and Regulars then at home in Ireland, as many of them, I mean, as were unwilling to be put to the Test of their principles or affections in point of professing their due Allegiance to the King, made their applications, some by Letters, and some also in person to Him, as not only the onely Archbishop then at home in the Kingdom, but the onely Prelate also that by reason of his name or family, and of his having also formerly sided against the Nuncio (though after he join'd with the rest of the Prelates, in the Declaration and Excommunication of Jamestown) might with most authori∣ty hinder any such National Congregation agreed upon without his privity, and for such an end too as could not stand well with his credit, who but some years before in France, submitted to, and received an absolution from the Censures of the Nuncio. Moreover understand, he was in his later years wholly guided by a Nephew of his own, and a Regular of the Society of Jesuits (one also by sir∣name, Burk) and consequently guided both by the Provincial and General Cabal of that Order. Now whether his said Nephew minded him, or no, of his late submission and absolution in France, of the Prophecy of Jarlach, and such like other matters, I know not; but am sure he and others purposely filled the good Archbishops head with needless scruples or pretences against the design'd National Congregation: as you may now see in his own Letters to Dublin, answer∣ing the Bishop of Ardagh, &c. The first of which Letters, dated 13 March 1666. S. N. were superscribed thus: For the most Reverend Father in God, Patrick, &c. And the tenour of them as followeth.

My Lord,

YOur Lordships Letter signed also by my very worthy Friends Patrick Vicar of Ardmagh, James Vicar of Dublin, and Oliver Vicar of Meath, hath been in the way since the 18th of November, till the 11th of Feb∣ruary, that it reached to my hand. I am and was still very joyful to see your Lordships zeal, and most commendable design, to procure for our poor Ca∣tholick Clergy and Laity some ease and liberty to exercise those Functions of their respective Vocations which seem not consistent with the present Laws of the Land.

Since the receipt of your said Letter, I delayed my answer till now, and bor∣rowed this time to advise with some of my next neighbouring Friends whom I durst not assemble together. It is true, the end ye propound to your selves, and us all therein, needed not this circumspection; nay, is such as not only good Prelates must aim at, but also any well principled Catholick ought to have in his thoughts and care. Yet the medium to attain to it, by so general a meeting, and of the chiefest of our Clergy, without more assurance of their safety, than your Letter, may be very well scrupled by many, not without much reason. I grant ye have had, as to your selves, sufficient ground to write, nay, and for to ingage in calling and se∣curing the Parties ye invite by a certain day to Dublin: Is that enough to take away the fear from poor Souls that see unlawful meetings (such as this must be reputed) so constantly cryed against by the Government? I leave your selves to judge it.

If our King (God bless him) or his Lieutenant, were so jealous of our proceed∣ings (as some would make us believe they are) and did consequently exact a sin∣cere acknowledgment of our true Fidelity, that which we ought, and will make with our hearts and souls, questionless neither would deny a safe conduct for such as might meet to contrive it. But in the mean time as we are not put to it by the Ʋpper power, and with its allowance to assemble, it might seem overforwardness in our selves to venture upon a meeting, that, without special Authority, must run un∣der the notion of unlawful, and consequently (besides other inconveniencies) render our persons subject to the penalties of the Law.

I doubt not, but that when ye undertake to convoke your Brethren to meet, ye are very sure of my Lord Dukes connivence. But what if Phanaticks, Souldiers, or some malignant person or persons, taking no notice thereof, should, even to displease my Lord Lieutenant himself, molest honest People? Might not this happen very well, when nothing appeareth openly to warrant our meeting? That it may, is very clear; witness what has been done to the poor Franciscans in Dublin, on or about Christmas, anno 1663. notwithstanding their pretended connivence, which to this day (that I could ever learn) availed not one F. Tully apprehended in that occasion. And when people had not this president before their eyes, such as having been Prisoners some time, are now Bailed upon Bonds, to appear at a cer∣tain day after they are summoned, will be very shie to concur to a meeting, where∣in they may expose not only themselves to forfeiture of their Bonds, but also such as are engaged for them, to danger of great losses.

Further, I am satisfied, That if the distractions of this War newly declared be∣twixt us and France, had occurr'd at the time of your meeting in November, ye would not, without my Lord Lieutenants special permission in scriptis, offer to expose the chief of our poor Clergy to the mercy of many that have but little, or no affection for our wayes. For though our intentions were never so good, the ill affected might (as often they have done it with less ground) misconstrue them, and plead that our meet∣ing was to brew mischief, and to contrive a way to draw in the French (to assert and support Popery) in this Land. And why should not they suspect some sinister dealings, when they see People assemble without Authority, and in this conjuncture of a Settle∣ment, wherein most of our Natives have but little of satisfaction, whether right or wrong.

I offer these Reasons to your Lordships and my other worthy Friends considerati∣ons, praying, That ye be pleased to hammer upon them very seriously, before ye per∣suade people to that which is conceived, danger. Things done without mask, and above board, are more acceptable, and less subject to Calumny. Let us have my Lord Lieutenants safe conduct, and I am sure all will concur with hearts and hands to pleasure His Majesty, and his Grace too, or any other that may doubt of our Loy∣alty. His Grace cannot, deny this, if he wisheth our meeting; and less notice will be taken of his granting thereof now for a good end, than may be of his interposing his Authority for us after in case of any trouble or disturbance, such as we may not but fear.

My Lord, I plead not for my own self herein. I onely speak what I judge to be according to reason and discretion. It is well known I may not hazard my self in that meeting, as that am scarce able to peep out of my Chamber, much less to under∣go so long a Journey as hence to Dublin. Moreover, when more active and stronger, my propension to Loyalty was so well known, that I hope my Lord Duke will not suspect my integrity in my old Age. I ever loved to live in peace, and so still con∣tributed my best endeavours to forward it. Now there is nothing under Heaven, that in my judgment, may stand with a safe Conscience, but I shall be very apt to embrace, to give my King and His Lieutenant all becoming satisfaction. I will ex∣pect your answer to the premises, and timely notice, whether the above mentioned pass or safe conduct will be granted. In the mean time wishing the Holy Ghost in your counsels and consultations, I beg a share in your holy Prayers and Sacrifices, for,

(My Lord) Your Lordships most humble Servant, Jo: Archiepiscopus Tuamon.

1 March 1665.

POSTSCRIPT.

Inasmuch as of all likelihood, besides a Remonstrance of our Loyalty, other matters will be debated in the above meeting of ours, if it taketh effect; I shall desire that your Lordship be pleased to let me have the Heads of all, whereby people that have not means to stay long in Dublin, may have time to digest leasurely, their resolution against that occasion, and so hasten. I conceive this necessary, and to be sent to each of those that are expected in that meeting. This Letter should have been in your hand ere now; but it chanced to have had a lett by the way, that occasioned its return to my self again. Now I send it by the Post.

13 March 1665.

As soon as this Answer came to Ardagh's hands, his Lordship was pleased both to shew and leave it with me, having taken with himself along and enclosed, in his own Reply, to the Archbishop a fair Copy of a Petition, which, to satisfie such pretended Scruples, I drew, to be Signed by the Archbishop himself, and the four other Prelates, who had subscribed the Indiction. The tenour of that Peti∣tion was as followeth.

To his Grace, the Duke of ORMOND, Lord Lieutenant General, and general Gover∣nour of IRELAND.

The humble Petition of John Burk Archbishop of Tuam, Patrick Plunket Bishop of Ardagh, Patrick Daly Vicar General of Ard∣magh, James Dempsie Vicar Apostolick of Dublin, and Capitulary of Kildare, and of Oliver Dese Vicar General of Meath, in their own behalf, and that also, of all other Bishops, Vicars General and Provincial Superiours of regular Orders of the Roman Commu∣nion in Ireland.

HƲmbly sheweth, That your Petitioners finding the Professors of their Religion in this Kingdom, and especially the Clergy, to lie always under many jealousies, and suspitions of disloyal inten∣tions towards His Majesty, or State, Government, and Peace of this Kingdom, by reason partly of their supposed or known actings, ei∣ther of all or some of them, in the late unhappy War; and partly of some Tenets of Religion, relating to the Government, or power of Govern∣ment, which they are supposed (likewise by some) to hold: and by reason also of their so long demurring these three or four last years, upon a Concurrence by subscription to a Remonstrance of Loyaltie subscribed and presented at London to the King and your Grace, by the Catholick Bi∣shop of Dromore, and some other Divines, and by the Nobility and Gentry of their Nation and Religion, then at London; as after by some others also of the said Irish Roman Catholick Clergy, Nobility, and Gentry, at Dublin: and finally, by reason of divers, though in your Petitioners judgment, very groundless reports of several Plots con∣trived or designed by them since His Majestie's happy Restauration; but very particularly at present by occasion of the Forraign War declared by the French King against our Gracious Soveraign and his Dominions; as withal by occasion of this last report, though extreamly vain, of a Plot amongst the said Irish Catholicks, against the English, as pretended, to have been thought to be put in execution the last St. Patricks day in this very month.

And finding themselves obliged by their duty of Subjects and Allegi∣ance to His Majesty King Charles the Second of Great Britain and Ireland, and by that likewise of good Patriots to their Countrey, as by that also of Spiritual Pastors to their respective Flocks, and of conscien∣tious Christian Catholicks to their Religion and Communion in general, To endeavour as much as in them lies, to remove those jealousies and suspitions, by assuring His Majesty, and your Grace, and the State in general, and even all people too whatsoever, or of whatsoever Opinion or judgment in matters of Religion, and by assuring them also, in the best manner they can, of their at least present disposition, and firm resolution for ever hereafter to continue indispensably faithful to His Majestie and to your Grace, and to the State and present Government in this Kingdom, according to the Laws, in all temporal things; and to live peaceably and

neighbourly with their fellow Subjects of the Protestant Religion, of what Nation or Countrey soever they be originally:

And finding nevertheless, that by reason of some of the said Laws, still in force in this Kingdom, against men of their calling and Religion, and by reason too of several Proclamations issued since His Majesties Restau∣ration against any meetings to be held by them, or any of them, as also by reason of the aforesaid jealousies, suspitions and reports, they cannot safely, without your Graces known permission and licence, meet together in any place or in such a number as would be requisite, for the above end of assuring His Majesty and your Grace of their fidelitie, and that by a publick Instrument under all their own proper hands, to be after signed also by all the rest of the Roman Catholick Clergy under their charge: and that if they should otherwise attempt to meet, to what intent soever, they might not only be subject to misconstruction, but also run a very great hazard of bringing on themselves, and not on themselves alone, but on all others too of their Communion in this Kingdom, even on the Lay∣people instructed by them, unavoidable inconveniences, and all the dan∣gers of the Laws, and instead of lessening, heighten the jealousies conceiv∣ed against them:

Your Petitioners therefore most humbly beg, That your Grace may be pleased to License all your said Petitioners, the Roman Catho∣lick Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Vicars Apostolick and General, and all the Superiours Provincial of Regular Orders, with two Divines more of each or every such Regular Order, and such other Divines too as the said Archbishops, Bishops, or Vicars General shall think fit to bring along with them, and all such Proctors also, as the said respective Prelats as well of the Re∣gular as Secular Clergy, shall in case of sickness or other Legal disability, send in their own places; provided the whole number of the Congregation, or of all such Prelats, Proctours, and Di∣vines, exceed not seventy: And that your Grace may be plea∣sed to License them so to come freely, without Lett or Molesta∣tion, to Dublin, and meet there on the Eleventh of June, this present year 1666. and continue there together, where and when they shall, or as often as they shall think fit, for Twenty days, that is, until the first of July following: and to assure them Ten days more of Liberty and safety to return whence they came or whethersoever they please, without any Lett or Molestation, by any Offices Civil, or Martial, or any other whatsoever: to the end your Petitoners may give your Grace, and by your Grace to His Majesty that assurance as above, which they heartily desire.

And your Petitioners shall Pray, &c. Dat: Daly utrius{que} juris Doctor, Albas ac Vicarius generalis Ardmachanus, nec non totius Provinciae Judex delegatus.

Another fair Copy of this Petition I sent at the same time to the Vicar Ge∣neral of Ardmagh Patrick Daly (as to one of the four that sign'd the Indiction) to be likewise by him subscribed and sent back out of the North, by the same time we expected the Archbishops return. And Daly fail'd not, but (by next Post) sent it immediatly back subscribed with his own hand thus, (as you have already seen) Patricius Daly utrius{que} Juris Doctor, Abbas, ac Vicarius Generalis Ardmachanus, nec non totius Provinciae Judex Delegatus.

But the foresaid Archbishop of Tuam, guided as before by his Nephew Jesuit (who also was both his Secretary and Clerk) thought better, instead of Sub∣scription, to return this following rejoynder, Dated April 16. 1666. and su∣perscribed thus:

For the most Reverend, &c.

My Lord,

YOur Lordships Letters of the 3d. and 6th. of this moneth were in the way to the 12th. But this likely proceeded through my distance from the Post. The first brought inclosed a Petition intended for my Lord Duke in behalf of our Irish Roman Clergy, to obtain his Graces permission and safe Conduct for them to meet the 11th. of next June. The Second contained nothing but your Lordships Civility to me, for which special favour I may not but rest beholding to your Lordship.

As for the Petition, to tell your Lordship the plain truth of my opinion thereupon, I think it not proper we should prefer it. My reason: First, if my Lord Duke (of whose, and His Majesties good intentions towards us, no body indifferently knowing can doubt) were as desirous we should meet, as your Lordship seemeth to be perswaded, sure nothing would hinder his Grace of Commanding us to assemble independent of any Petition of ours: and his Letters of safe Conduct dispatched to that effect without our Addresses, would prove less subject to any inconveniences.

Secondly; If I might apprehend our preferring of a Petition expedient, sure I would also conceive necessary to have somethings altered in, and added to that which your Lordship was pleased to send me to be signed. Further, if your Lordship and I did sign to, and prefer the same ut jacet, no doubt it might be thought by others as much concerned therein as we P. W^ly. done of us to meddle with Petitioning in their behalfs, without their own privity or allowance. What have we to do with Cashel or its Province? What with Provincials of Regular Orders or their Divines, if (acting for them without Commission, though a thing usual in this age) we will not have our selves deemed over busie? quod omnes tangit ad omnibus debet ap∣probari, especially matters of such weight as this is.

When my Lord Lieutenant pleaseth to command us to meet with his pass for our safe∣ty; I dare say, (at least I hope so) there is none amongst us but will very readily obey his Orders. But if in the mean time his Grace countenanceth a motion or discourse of our Petitioning to that end, some are of strong belief it is rather to eschew the im∣portunity of some of our own, then out of any desire he entertaineth to see us together, whilst we demean our selves, (as I wish we should, and hope we do) without offence to the Government.

This My Lord (speaking sincerely my Conscience) is my sense of the Proposals of your Lordships Letters to me, and of the aforementioned Petition; and even as in all occasions I shall be found constantly willing to comply with, and to pleasure my Lord Duke; so will I ever continue

(My Lord)

Your Lordships humble Servant Jo. Archiepiscopus Tuamon.

April 16. 1666.

POSCRIPT.

I pray when henceforth your Lordship is disposed to honour me with your Letters, be pleased also to let me know how I may address my answer without troubling others.

This Second Letter from the Archbishop, being received by Ardach, and pre∣sently sent me by his Lordship, made me quit all thoughts not only of desiring either him or the other two, I mean Dese and Dempsy, to subscribe the said Petition, but even of giving the Lord Lieutenant any trouble at all by such, or other Peti∣tion to the foresaid end; yet nevertheless I took another effectual way, and of less noise to clear all such scruples and pretences as the Archbishop pleaded. So much concerning Tuams opposition.

How the other infirm, (nay besides Ardach the only other, either infirm or not infirm) Bishop then at home in Ireland Doctor Swiny Bishop of Kilmore behaved himself upon the receipt of the Indiction; how he approved thereof; and even committed to the foresaid Daly the summoning of the rest of that Province who were concerned to appear in the National Congregation: as also, how nevertheless he excepted both against the Indiction or Subscribers thereof; and against Daly in particular, for assuming even all other matters too of the Metropolitical jurisdiction: you may see in this following Letter of his, Dated Feb. 22. 1666, S. N. to the same Doctor Daly.

The Bishop of Kilmore's Letter to Doctor Patrick Daly (Vicar Ge∣neral of Ardmagh) concerning the Indiction.

Reverende admodum Domine,

HAS annexas per multos, presertim Dominationem Vestram (de quo miror) subscriptas, Authoritate praecipue Ardachadensis Episcopi (cujus monitis aut praeceptis, aut aliorum ibi subscribentium, nescio unde ego obedire debeam) recepi. Verumtamen quoniam charitative scribunt, ego certe eorum moni∣tis libenter obedirem. Sed quia nimia infirmitate impeditus, unde nec eques, nec pedes ad milliare unum incedere valeam, tibi (qui Metropolitani officium quoad omnia assumis, & utrum bene, an male, vide Concilium Tridentinum) committimus, ut juxta harum literarum tenorem omnes Vicarios Apostolicos, Episcopales, & reliquos qui adesse de∣berent, admoneas ut eidem Conventui adsint, vel se legitime excusent. Et sic Domi∣nationi Vestrae prospera cuncta optans cesso,

Vestrae Reverendae Dominationis amicus & servus Eugenius Killmorensis.

Dat. February 22. 1665. s. v.

And yet I must here advertise the Reader, that notwithstanding this Bishops fair compliance in so much; yet, as he came not, nor indeed could come himself in person to that National Assembly when they met, so neither did he send proxy to supply his place, or Letter to excuse either his absence or neglect in not Com∣missioning any other to supply it.

IV.

AS for the Three other Bishops, viz. Ardmagh, Ferns, and Kilfinuran, like∣wise the only Irish Bishops remaining at that time in Foraign parts (their banisht Brethren of Cashel, Limmerick, Cork, Cluanfert, Killala, Leighlin, &c. being all dead before in several Countries during their Banishment) how I say those three banish'd survivours stood affected or disaffected to the Indiction, when they received it, will best appear out of their following carriage in order to the ulti∣mat end for which that Indiction was. For I can not say, nor know that any of

them made other opposition, nor used any special endeavours to frustrate the im∣mediate end of this Indiction. Which immediate end was the meeting of the Fathers together at the time and place appointed them to meet, what ever they should chance to resolve upon when so Assembled. Yet because the first of those three, I mean Edmund Reilly Archbishop of Ardmagh and Primate of all Ireland must have been by his place the most eminent of all that were to meet, I will begin my account of him a little higher. I saw him first at Louain about the year 1637. when he was but lately arrived from Dublin, a Secular Priest Native of that Dio∣cess and somewhat elderly, having quitted the charge of Parish Priest in Ireland, to spend some little time in the University, studying Moral Divinity or Cases of Conscience undet the Jesuits, and some smattering in the Canon Law amongst the Jurists. During his abode there and his Residence in the Irish Colledge of Secu∣lar Students, whereof (if I remember well) he was made Prefect, he constantly re∣sorted to, and courted much, and insinuated himself wholly into the favour of one of my Masters in Philosophy and Divinity, Father Thomas Flemming an Irish Franciscan Professor in St. Anthonie's Colledge, he that was born eldest Son of the Baron of Slane, and exchang'd his Barony for a Cloyster. From this Father Flemming at Louain he obtain'd recommendations to an other Thomas Flemming at Dublin Uncle to the former, and of the same Franciscan Order, and Archbishop too of Dublin. Which prevailed so with the Uncle, that Edmund, though but meanly learned, having but very little of the Divine, nothing of a Preacher, nor much of the Canonist either, yet cunning, subtle, and a great temporizer, being returned into Ireland was a little before, or about the beginning of the fatal War (i. e. about 1641.) made by him Vicar General of his whole Diocess both in Spirituals and Temporals. The War advancing, and Confederacy being formed, and the said Archbishop, as one of the Supream Council, remaining still at Kil∣kenny, and Edmund Administring the whole Temporals of such part of that large Diocess as was not under the Power of the Protestant Garrisons, or within their quarters (and much the greater part was not) and giving but what pittance he pleased to his Arch-bishop, and so finding the sweet of the Church-livings, and benefit of the Rebellion, and consequently as out of Natural inclination, so for his interest joyned still with those that were against either Peace or Cessation; it was at last whispered during the first Cessation (of Arms) about the year 1644. or 45. twixt the Marquess of Ormond as the Kings Lieutenant, of one side, and the Irish Confederates of the other, that he the same Edmund Reylly Vicar General of Dublin had been the chief Author of the late horrid both breach of publick Faith and cruel Murders too committed by some Irish within the English Quarters in seizing the King's Castle at Wicklo, and burning it and all persons that lived then in it, both Protestants and Catholicks. However until 1648. and the Cessation agreed upon that year with the Baron of Inchiquin, and the Nuncio's censures thereupon fulminated, and the Civil Wars amongst the Confederates themselves commenced, and Owen O Neil's Army advanced against Kilkenny, and a League twixt him and Michael Jones the Parliament Commander at Dublin was formed, and his, i. e. Owen O Neils Letter to the said Jones's Brother, all written by the pro∣per Hand or Pen of our Edmund, though signed only by Owen O Neil himself, was intercepted, and the spy hang'd at Kilkenny: until then, I say, our said Father Edmund Reilly continued still as formerly Vicar General. But this Letter being so intercepted by the Supream Council, and sent by me from the great Castle of Kilkenny (where they sate) to the said Archbishop of Dublin remaining still in the Franciscan Convent of Kilkenny (which Convent together with the Dominicans then observed the Nuncio's censures) and the Archbishop acknowledging pre∣sently even to my self that he could not deny the whole Character or any part of it to be his Vicar Generals; a necessary sequel hereof was, that the Archbishop must have both for fear and shame chosen another Vicar General (as he did one Father Laurence Archbold, who amongst others had a little before sign'd my Book of Que∣ries) and so for a time Father Reilly was deposed from his Vicar Generalship. Thenceforth, until General Owen O Neils Army came in upon special capitulation

about the end of the year 1649. he was the chief Messenger, Minister, and Agent that passed too and fro twixt the said General and the foresaid Parliament Commander in chief Michael Jones at Dublin, albeit often with the hazard of his life, being way-laid by Scurlog. Restored then to his Vicargeneralship, in the year 1650. joyning with those of Jamestown, and continuing always an ear∣nest promoter of their designes against the Royal Government although now in Clanrickard, he made one of, and sate in that Provincial Synod of Dublin or Lein∣ster, held Anno 1652. in the woods of Clanmalira, which declared me Excom∣municated, &c. as before was said. Although I withal confess, he was much about that time, or certainly at least in the precedent year 1650. far more hu∣mane and good natur••d to me then others, when in the self same woods Collonel Luke (alias Fiacha) O Tool understanding where I was, and preparing a party of Horse and Foot to Seize and Murder me, he the said Vicar General was the only man that disswaded him. In the year 1653. being come with some Creights to live within the Parliaments Line of Communication, and both indiscreetly and unhappily appearing in the Courts of Justice at Dublin and in a case of Felony against a Roman Catholick Gentleman (by name Tool) of his own Diocess, and mak∣ing party against him before the Bench and Judge, one that knew him starts up presently, and desires the Judge to seize him as being Edmund Reilly the Irish Priest and Vicar General that was the chief Author of seizing and burning in Cessation time the black Castle of Wicklo, and consequently too, of Murdering all those were in it. Now whether this accusation was in it self true or false (for I know not) he was presently hurried away to Prison, pass'd after through much trou∣ble and tryal; but after all, and for his former services to the Parliament, espe∣cially that of betraying the Royal Camp at Rathmines to Jones (he having also plead∣ed this for himself, as all persons then at Dublin did talk) he was at last either quitted or pardoned, and withal either banished or with License departed to Flan∣ders; but with the hatred and exclamations of all sorts of Royallists, not only Protestants but Roman Catholicks even of his own Diocess. Yet soon after, and although he went himself no further then the Irish Colledge at Lile in Flanders, he puts in at Rome for the Archbishoprick of Ardmagh, (and for his former services to Owen O Neil against Ormond, and by the mediation of Dionisius Mas∣sarius Secretary then to the Congregation de Propaganda, the Dean of Fermo that formerly lived in Ireland with the Nuncio) obtains it immediately without noise or the knowledge of others. Being Consecrated no less suddenly (but yet privately in the Jesuits Sacristy or Vestry) at Bruxels, he makes no long stay in Flanders, but having Father T.T. and N.B. in his Company goes to Callice, is introduced by the Bishop of Dromore to Cardinal Mazarine, obtains some money and Letters of the Cardinal, comes for London in the year 1658. I being then at London, Fa∣ther T.T. one of his foresaid Companions plyed me six weeks continually to per∣swade me to give the Primat a meeting. To which end also he assured and swore to me at last, that by his own Mediation the King at Bruxels admitted him the said Primat to kiss his hand. Whereupon I yeilded (albeit they understood not my end in doing so) and after for some weeks did the Primat several kindnesses of impor∣tance to him at that time (and amongst the rest obtain'd leave for him of the Arch Priest or Dean of the English Chapter, my Friend Mr. Knightly, to use his Episcopal function here in England; which the said Knightly had before in plain terms refused him.) He pretending to requite my kindness attempted many times after to perswade me, by promises of future favour at Rome, to receive an abso∣lution of the Nuncio's censures from himself. When he saw nothing could move me; at last upon a day, after he had celebrated and confirmed several in my own Chamber and at my own Altar, and after all had also himself heard out my own Mass (as he often did in the same place before) and when I had done and was upon my knees turned to the Altar giving thanks, as the manner is after celebra∣tion, he suddenly stands up by my side, lays his hand on me, and pronounces the words of a formal Absolution from all censures, sive a Jure, sine ab homine, sed specia∣liter a censuris Illustrissimi Joannis Baptistae Rinuccini latis in causa Interstitii armorum,

&c. adding presently to my self in English, that he did so of purpose that he might have it to say and assure others he had absolved me. I could not but smile, replying only that it seem'd he understood well the Doctrin that says a man may be, even against his own will, both validly and lawfully absolved from Ecclesiasti∣cal Censures, but more especially when they signified nothing: and that, however, he seemed not by his extraordinary faculties to be tyed to the formalities of the Bull of Alexander the VII. for the four Delegates. Not long after this a bone of division was thrown twixt him and his Companion T. T. for it seems or at least it was said, that he had faithfully promised this Gentleman to recommend him to Rome for the Archbishoprick of Dublin, before any else should be by him recommended for any other See in Ireland. Now a discovery being made to T.T. that the Primat had then from London in most special manner, and upon considera∣tion too, recommended two several Persons or two other Sees, and not him for Dub∣lin, they fell to pieces, and all their other designs and projects with Secretary Thurlo and others came from either of them to be made known to me. Then indeed I repented to have had any Communion with them, especially the Primat.

1. Because (that whatever lye T.T. told me before, yet) he, I mean the Primat, brag'd that being offer'd to be admitted and introduced at Bruxels to kiss the Kings hand, he plainly refused it, nor ever did, nor would hereafter at any time either kiss his hand, or otherwise be presented to Him. 2. That in the hearing of many (whereof my self was one) and at a publick treat or dinner he was even so carelesly passionate as to boast also, That he had never been friend or well-willer to any of the four, naming the King and his Two Brothers with the Marquess of Ormond, nor would ever be. 3. That to ingratiate himself and his party with Thurlo and the young Protector, and to obtain favours and graces for them, even with the exclusion of the Royal Party of the Irish Catholicks, he amongst other arguments alledged, That to the Contrivances, Arms, and Divisions made by Owen O Neil the State of England owed their present Possession of Ireland: and that the same party of the Irish Natives ought to be, not only on that ac∣count favour'd and trusted, but because also they never had affection for the King or his Family. 4. Finally, that he writ Precepts under his Seal to all his Pro∣vince of Ardmagh to pray for the health, prosperity, and establishment of the said Protector, and State, and Government of England and Ireland, as they were then. To which four, I might have added, that N. B. as soon as he under∣stood of the Communication betwixt his other two Associats and me, advised them presently to have me secured by a Warrant from Thurlo; and that T.T. on my reasoning with himself in some case till I put him into passion, threatned to my face and in great fury too before a certain Lady, he would have me speedily fast enough by the heels. Yet not this, but the former four made me at last venture to acquaint my self with one of the Council of State, and so contrive their sudden dismiss out of England back to France, without other harm done them but that of an injunction to be immediatly gone at their peril. And forc'd so away to France they were all three suddenly when they least expected it.

In France the Primat stays not, but passes over thence immediately by Sea to Ire∣land: and there accosts or sends to his old friends Collonel Theophilus Jones, and his Brother Doctor Jones the Protestant Bishop of Clogher: roames up and down in several Provinces of that Kingdome: and so (and by what else, I know not the par∣ticulars) gives occasion to those that knew him well to inform against him to the En∣glish Court (in the Lowcountries then in the year 1659. and beginning of 1660) that he was endeavouring all he could to animate the Fanaticks and some other Prote∣stants in Ireland against the coming in, or admitting of the King to return or be restored at all, and that he promised them to that end great assistance from, or a conjunction of the stronger party of the Roman Catholick Irish. Immediatly before His Majesties departure out of Holland for England, Don Stephano de Gamarro (then Spanish Embassador with the States) is spoken to, desiring his Excellency to inform the Court of Rome. 1. of such a Bishop in Ireland, who if taken must suffer by the Law. 2. That His Majesty desired not to be put to the stress of

signing the Warrant of his Execution. 3. And therefore that even by com∣mands from Rome he should be revoked immediatly out of Ireland.

Next Winter after the Kings happy Restauration, and immediatly also after my Procuratorium sign••d by the same Prelat in the first place, and sent to me from Ire∣land, I received from some in England a Duplicat of Commands sent from Rome to him for retiring on sight. Upon receipt of these in Ireland, he passes thence again to France: writes to me from Roan a pittiful Letter, both denying flatly the last Accusation to have been true, and complaining that himself alone amongst the whole Irish Nation should be forc'd to mourn in those days of general Ju∣bilee for His Majesties Restauration: and therefore prays my Intercession for His Majesties unparallel••d Clemency and Mercy. I returned him the most comforta∣ble answer I could; but withal, advising him to patience for three years more, as also assuring him, that by that time, I hoped my intercession for him should be effectual. To Rome he goes, writes to me once or twice from thence, (see Sect. 6. pag. 14. of the First Part) and stays there till the beginning of the year 1665. when he returns back to France, and writes and minds me of my promise. And after some few exchanges more of Letters, at last, and according to my advice for addressing himself by Letter to his Grace the Duke of Or∣mond then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, he sent to me for the said Duke this fol∣lowing Letter of extraordinary great Repentance, Submission, and Prayer of Pardon from His Majesties mercy.

To his Excellency the Duke of ORMOND Lord Lieutenant General, and General Governour of His Majesties King∣dom of IRELAND.

May it please your Excellency,

I Am the Publican standing a far off, not daring to lift up mine eyes to the Heavens, and your Grace; but knocking my Breast, humbly pray your Excellency be pleased to be favourable to me, and make me partaker of His Majesties unparalle'ld mercies: promising in the sight of God and his Angels, that I will endeavour to comply in all points with his Soveraign Majesties most gracious Will, and your Ex∣cellencies commands, as far as shall become a modest, faithful, and thankful Subject. If otherwise, who am I? but a Worm, the reproach of Mankind, the vilitie of the People, a dead Dog, a Flea. And yet my gracious Lord,

Your Excellencies Most humble Servant Edmund Ardmach.

Paris, Aug. 31. 1665.

It is only to make the Reader understand first this Letter, next some other pas∣sages hereafter which relate to a man of so great dignity in the Church, and lastly what merits and considerations are most prevalent at Rome to procure the great∣est Ecclesiastical preferments within His Majesties Dominions, that I have given so large and particular account of this Prelate; and not any hatred to, or disesteem of his person, or want of due veneration to his memory, now that he is departed this life, and I hope in a place of happiness and glory before this time. I never had any private difference or quarrel with him in my life, nor he with me for ought I know; nay, I found alwayes as some esteem, and affection also in him for me, so in my self I am sure no less to serve him, where I could both unfeign∣edly and affectionately, as I did all along for many years in all occasions. And yet until the year 1669. a little before his death in France, and his very last Letter thence to me, I never knew of his having obliged me so much, as he did, hindring the Assassination, or murder of me, design'd, and so near execution in the Woods of Clanmalira, in the year 1650, or 51. with the particulars of which his Lordship acquainted me so lately.

To proceed; when the Duke of Ormond had, besides the above Letter of sub∣mission, and Petition of pardon, writ to himself, seen and read also many other Letters, come continually with every Packet from the same Prelate to me, importuning still a permission to return (besides some other contents, which are needless to be related:) and further had considered of what use it might be (if he proved honest) to suffer him to come to the National Congregation: at last, and (as I remember) about the beginning of March that same year 1665. S. V. (but 1666. S. N.) his Grace consented I should write to him (the said Primate) that he might safely come home, provided that he would promise to sign even the very individual disputed or controverted Remonstrance.

Which consent of the Lord Lieutenant, together with its signal proviso or condition I signified presently (and by four several Packets the consent, although but only by the second of them, that proviso or condition) to the Primate, then at Paris. On the 13th of April, he writes to my self his own good wishes of all expected success in the National Assembly then anneering, and, in that Let∣ter of mine another enclosed, but open, and with a flying Seal, to be delivered by me to all the Fathers when assembled. Whereof he sent me a Duplicat of the 16th, same month, at both times seeming not to know any thing of his own Li∣cence for coming home. However thus in Latin he writes to the Assembly.

Illustrissimi & Reverendissimi Domini,

EX vestris literis ad nos huc transmissis percepimus quod conventurae sitis qua∣draginta circiter personae die undecimo proxime subsequentis Junii, de modo, & methodo tractaturae, quae tum ad Deum, tum ad Regem, placandos, & con∣sequenter ad fideles tam in Fide Catholica quam in debita erga Serenissi∣mum nostrum Regem fidelitate instruendos maxime conducent. Proinde, primum, commendamus, ut salva semper, & in omnibus punctis illaesa fidei professione unam insignem nostrae omnium fidelitatis erga Regiam Majestatem, formulam componatis, eidem subscribentes, eamque ad amussim custodiatis, solvatis, & praestetis, ex necessi∣tate, non solum propter iram, & punitionem alioquin infligendam, sed etiam propter conscientiam, ne haec sit violata legis, & laesae Majestatis, etiam divinae, rea. De∣inde ut prosternentes vos ad pedes suae Regiae Serenitatis supplicetis humiliter pro plenaria condonatione, & indulgentia pro singulorum de Clero delictis, & offensis tam occultis, quam notoriis ab annis viginti quinque commissis, & patrati:; memores ejus, Quo se humiliat exaltabitur. In dicta fidelitate praeferte facem omnibus sub∣ditis Regiis tanquam veri, legitimi, & primogeniti SS. Apostolorum filii; ut inter optimi Regis meliores Vassallos anumerari possitis.

Tum commendamus ut inutiles, & odiosas quaestiones, quae lites movent, devitetis intra terminos fidei vos continentes: tales siquidem magis destruunt quam aedificant.

Ex sententiis inter doctores catholicos controversis saniores sequamini, sine juramento, censura, aut condemnatione aliarum, quamdiu ab Ecclesia tolleratarum. Ʋt oretis continuo pro Rege, ut Deus dignetur dirigere eum in eam viam pacis aeterna, ut donet ipsi prolem felicem qui sedeat post eum in ejus throno. Ʋt oretis etiam pro duce Eboracensi, & tota stirpe Regia, pro ducibus, exercitibus, & populo; ut ii qui adverso sunt vereantur nihil habentes malum dicere de nobis.

Postremo commendamus, ut consideretis (idemque expendant omnes Pastores per illud regnum dispersi) zelum, charitatem, expensas, ac labores Reverendi admodum Patris Fr: Petri Valesii pro vobis omnibus exantlantos. Cujus aliqua scripta licet videbantur quibusdam ingrata (sicut medicina, non raro amara, & insipida, evadit agris salutaris) tamen in vestram pacem, tranquillitatem, securitatem, & quietem, quibus impraesentiarum, laus Deo, fruimini collimarunt. Det quisque pro nunc ali∣quid condignum, & condecens boni Patris industriae, & expositis, additurus ultra sequentibus annis, quousque ad assem satisfactum fuerit saltim expensis: bonam illius voluntatem, & labores Deo relinquens. Ego in gratiarum actionem, numero ipsi ex mea absentis tenuitate pro praesenti libras sterlingas 13, & ultra non decrit bona voluntas superaddere, si media votis respondeant, orans meam objectam contri∣butionem apud eundem, & vestras Illustrissimas Dominationes excusatum iri. Reli∣quum est, ut, commendemus vos omnes sancto Dei Spiritui, & me vestris precibus. Parisiis Die 13 Aprilis 1666.

Illustrissimarum ac Reverendissimarum Dominationum Suarum Humillimus Servus, Edmundus Ardmachanus.

Wherein, because I saw that although some things were good, yet others were bad (as others impertinent, or at least superfluous, I am sure undesired and un∣expected by me) I judg'd the whole to be a piece of cunning and sophistry, as ab∣stracting still not only from the Remonstrance, but from any kind of Oath of Fi∣delity to the King, or even any Declaration that would censure the contrary per∣nicious either doctrines or practices. Indeed his exhorting the Fathers to petition humbly for a general pardon, and to pray for the King, seem'd both necessary and specious; but his desiring them to draw a new Formulary, with all the conditions added by him, was as much in effect as to exhort them not to sign at all the former. And the rest concerning me, was but an unwelcome cokeing of me; as will appear hereafter. For these Reasons, I resolved presently never to deliver such a Letter from him, whether he should chance to come timely himself in person after to the Assembly, or not to come at all. And this is all I knew then of the Primat's either approbation, or opposition of such a National Assembly. For until he landed when the Congregation was actually sitting, I suspected not his correspondence with Burgat at Rome, nor that he drove at procuring any Letters from Rome, to hinder the bare convening, or meeting of the Fathers.

V.

MUch less did I at any time suspect any opposition should proceed, as I think truly none did from the Bishop of Ferns, living then at St. James's in Ga∣licia in Spain, of whom I will give this short account, with all kind of respect to his person and dignity. I have seen him Rector of a Parish-Church at Wex∣ford, a little after the War began in 1641. a Native of that place, I think, but I am sure of so good repute there, both for elocution, behaviour, prudence, inte∣grity, that although a Churchman, yet he was chosen for, and sate as one of their Burgesses in the General Assembly of the Confederate Catholicks at Kil∣kenny,

during Petrus Franciscus Scarampus's Negotiation there from Pope Ʋrban the VIII. and before Rinuccini came under Innocent, he was created Bishop of Ferns. In the year 1666, when the fatal Congregation of the Irish Clergy assembled at Waterford under the said Nuncio Rinuccini for rejecting (as they did reject) the first Peace, he was Chancellor of that same Congregation. Soon after this it was that I had the honour of some little personal acquaintance with him, and that upon a very extraordinary occasion indeed. viz. The Nuncio having presently after both possessed himself of all even the very Supreme tem∣poral power of the Confederates, and (which was consequential) no less sud∣denly design'd the utter ruine of the King's Lieutenant at Dublin, resolved there∣fore to command away out of Dublin, and all the English quarters, every one of the Priests that lived there for the comfort of the Lay-Catholick inhabitants. For, besides many other motives, the Nuncio had heard that all the chief, if not every one of the Romish Priests remaining at Dublin, especially Mark Rochford a Dominican, Peter Darcy a Franciscan, Thomas Quin a Jesuite, three eminent men and famous Preachers, with some five more being sent for, had given the Lord Lieutenant un∣der their hands, That the Roman-Catholick Inhabitants of Dublin, not only might but ought in conscience to fight in defence of that Town against the Nuncio's Ar∣my, and to be in all such matters faithfully obedient to his Excellency. Where∣fore by command from the Nuncio (but by whose contrivement I know not) a small Committee of three was appointed, viz. our present Bishop of Ferns, Walter Enos Dr. of Divinity (Author of the Book against the Peace of 1646.) and my self, to consider of, and draw in writing a Formulary of precept and censures to command all the Romish Clergy Secular and Regular, every one residing either in Dublin, or elsewhere under the said Lord Lieutenants command or power, to withdraw totally out of all such quarters, and retire into those of the Catholick Confederates. On this occasion, and first of any time that I remember, my judg∣ment of and disaffection to the Nuncio's cause did appear to them. For I not only opposed that design with unanswerable reasons, and a plain assertion too, that there was no power from Christ not even in the universal Church of Chirst to lay such a command on the said Clergymen, or others in the case, but also broke it utterly, so that there was no more of any such general precept. Within some few months after, this Bishop* 80.1, and Nicholas Plunket Esq as persons in all respects worthy of, and answerable to the employment, were sent Ambassadors to Rome from the Confederates, to crave assistance from His Holiness Innocent X. for car∣rying on the War, now that to please that Court, they had rejected the first Peace, though otherwise concluded with the King, and even publish'd and accepted both at Dublin and Kilkenny. However, about the end of the year 1648, being return'd to Ireland, bringing with them some holy reliques, but no money, and finding the affairs of the Confederates wholly altered; the Nuncio, and Owen O Neal's party worsted; Inchiquin's Army declared for the King; the Marquess of Ormond, as the King's Lieutenant, living in his own Castle at Kilkenny; a general Assembly of the Confederate Catholicks sitting in that Town, and treating of, and concluding a second peace with his Excellency; the Nuncio retired, or rather forc'd to flie as far off as Galway, expecting only the issue of that general Assem∣bly; in a word, the generality of the Nation crying for Peace with the Prote∣stants of the Royal party: the said two Ambassadors, and consequently our Bishop of Ferns saw it was but reason to give immediately in person the best account they could of their Negotiation to those Estates assembled, in whose name they were sent to Rome; as only by Letters they did after to the Nuncio. And, if I be not mistaken, that given to the Assembly did either hasten or facilitate the conclu∣sion of the later Peace then concluded in 1648. This I remember well, that af∣ter all Articles thereof had been agreed upon in the Assembly, and that it was thought fit to call an Ecclesiastick Congregation of all the Prelates then at Kilken∣ny, and some other Divines, to give the Clergy in particular all the best satisfacti∣on could be, before all things had been finally determined, and this Congregation sate, my self being one of those Divines, and our Bishop of Ferns placed in the

Chair, he spoke excellently well, to allay the scruples of such Clergymen as seem'd to apprehend, or made a Bugbear of the Nuncio's dissent: nay (and to that end) amongst other Arguments, produced a Copy of the Articles of Peace lately before concluded between the great Catholick Emperour of Rome, and the Prote∣stants of Germany, Articles quitting even the very spiritual Jurisdiction of so many Churches to Lutherans; and yet Articles granted by the said Emperour, yea, notwithstanding an express Protestation made by the Popes Nuncio against them, and Peace founded on them. The later Peace of Ireland being hereupon immediately concluded, in pursuance of the Articles thereof, our Bishop of Ferns was made, and sate one of the Twelve Commissioners of Peace for the whole Catholick part of that Nation, as who were to abide in the nature of a Council with the Lord Lieutenant until Parliament, but invested with a greater power than that of bare Counsellors. In that quality, and while fortune smiled on the Royal Affairs in that Kingdom, for Six months after the conclusion of the second Peace, the Bishop seem'd constant enough to his new engagement. But after the breach of Rathmines, and so many other disasters which in the year Forty nine followed, and that he with Sir Nicholas Plunket being sent special Commissio∣ners from the Lord Lieutenant to Owen O Neill, had upon Treaty brought in the Northern Army, and yet nothing mended not even for so many Months after in the year 1650. but all things daily worse and worse: either the common cala∣mity of the Nation, or special and particular of his own beloved Diocess of Ferns, and County of Wexford (the County so considerable indeed in the dayes of the Confederacy, that it paid to the publick Threescore thousand pounds one year only; had the strong Fort of Duncannon, the great Towns of Wexford and Rosse, besides so many other Corporations, as together with the two Knights of the Shire made Eighteen Parliament and General Assembly men, and the County moreover wherein as he seemed to have been for many years the only chief and principal leading man, so whereby he was rendred throughout the whole Nation a man of more than ordinary credit and esteem) when, I say, the Bishop saw so great a change both in the publick and his own private Affairs, by the fortune of War, and division of minds, had hapned, he also thought fit to change parties, and look back towards the old Confederacy, and consequently to be as active as others in the unhappy Congregation of Bishops at Jamestown in the year 1650. signing both their Declaration against the King's Lieutenant, and Excommunication too against all that would any way obey his Excellency. This remedy not proving either useful or proper, but far more noxious, and the Parliament Forces gaining thereby, and by the Lord Lieutenant's departure, so much ground, that all seem••d very soon after to be in a desperate condition, and the Marquess of Clanrickard (by Ormond left Deputy for the King) in pursuance of Monsieur St. Katherin's negotiation with him from the Duke of Lorrain, having sent other Commissioners to Flanders to Treat with his said Highness of Lorrain, provided they had first the King's consent, our Bishop my Lord of Ferns, also departs the Kingdom to sol∣licit aids from Catholick Princes; but not otherwise authorized thereunto, than by the Letters of private persons, albeit otherwise some of them Bishops. Coming to Paris, and there denied access (which he desired) to His Majesty our Graci∣ous King, and attributing this affront to the Marquess of Ormond, he takes it to heart, and speaks, and both writes, and prints too a little piece, wherein he reflects too severely and unjustly on him the said Marquess of Ormond. Which, if I mi∣stake not, was it that occasion d those Books written after at Paris (in opposition and answer one to the other) by Father John Ponce, the zealous Nuntiotist Fran∣ciscan, and Richard Belings Esq that no less Ormonist, than known Royalist, al∣though in former times the first Legat to Rome from the Confederates, and other Princes of Italy, and the very man that occasion'd the sending of the Nuncio to Ireland. The negotiation with the Duke of Lorrain having come to nothing, and Limmerick and Galway surrendred, and consequently (soon after) the whole Kingdom submitted to the Parliament of England, the afflicted Bishop knowing, that by reason of his having on his return from Rome immediately quitted the

Nuncio party, and both submitted to, and promoted the Peace of 1648, and of his consequential being blasted ever since by the factious Irish at Rome as an Or∣monist, there could be no favourable reception or accomodation expected for him in that Court, he shifts the best he can for himself in several places, until at last the Archbishop of St. Jago in Galicia in Spain harbour'd him generously and boun∣tifully, according to his dignity, and merits: where continuing for some years, and officiating as a Suffragan Bishop, he begun a correspondence with me by Letters soon after His Majesties happy Restauration (as together with his Lordship, did the good Irish Father of the Society of Jesus, Father William St. Leger) and ei∣ther by James Cusack a Secular Priest, and Doctor of Divinity, or by Father George Gould a Franciscan (both which came from him directly, and brought me Letters hither to London) he sent me some writings of his own against Ferral's Book. The Book (as I have noted before) which not only bastardizing all those Irish not descended of the more ancient Septs or Names that possess'd Ire∣land even before any Invasion either of English or Danes, nor only in general in∣volving all that later brood under the Title of wicked Politicians, Anti-Catholicks, &c. but particularly and singularly falling on the Two Ambassadors, yea, and tax∣ing them with having of set purpose all along betrayed the Nuncio, and his cause, the Book, I say, that by such precious Contents from the first line to the last of it, both opened our good Bishop's eyes, more then any other argument could, to see clearly the ultimate designs of that Party which led him blindfold so long, and so often, especially at Waterford in 1646. and Jamestown in the year 1650. and (if I be not very much out in my conjecture) was at least partly either the cause or the occasion of his beginning so, and desiring a correspondence with me then anno 1662. at London, he himself remaining at St. Jago. What followed after his first Letters to me, i. e. after what Dr. Cusack (one of the first Subscribers of the Remonstrance) writ him back; what he return'd in the year 1662. to this Doctor; what to the Duke of Ormond and me in 1665, pro or con upon the Subject of the Remonstrance; what to me again in May 1666. from St. Sebastian, viz. after he had received the Indiction, and (presuming licence to re∣turn home) had quitted his good condition at St. Jago; what I to him in answer; and finally, what he replyed to me in July that same year from Paris, will best ap∣pear out of the Bishops own Letters. Whereof I give here as many as I judg'd material or useful to any design of this First Tome: and much the rather, because he is not only the onely Bishop yet alive of those of the Irish Nation that were made before Nuncio Rinuccini's time, but the onely also that endeavoured to give the best reasons he could for himself or for his own dissent, as to that expected or de∣sired from him. And I must say this besides, that surely had he the writer of them had as good a cause, and been as much conversant in the Gallican Theology (which in the point controverted is that of the Primitive Fathers of Christianity) as he is both a good Orator, and (laying the Affairs of Ireland aside) a very pious and exemplar Prelate, the Irish Nation generally had never been as unhappy as it is even at this present.

The Roman-Catholick Bishop of Fern's Letter from St. Jago, 18 Junii 1662. To the Reverend James Cusack, Doctor of Di∣vinity, at London.

SIR,

BY the four last Letters I had from you (to which I have heretofore answered) you demand from me two things, to wit, an approbation of a Protestation signed by L. B. of Dromore, your self, and other Divines of our Nation in that City, and that I would give you a power to sign a Procuratorium Fa∣ther Peter Walsh hath from the Clergy of Ireland, whereunto Edmund Reilly, Antony Geoghegan, James Dempsy, and others, have consented, as you write to me.

To the same I also willingly consent, and do hereby impower you to sign in my 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the said Procuratorium, but with this limitation, the said Father Walsh shall do nothing for me, nor in my name, touching the above mentioned Protestation, until he shall receive my own express sense and answer. That Protestation seems a Rock to the Divines of our Nation in this Kingdom, and they wonder ye there made so easie a work of it: yet, of your good intentions in illo facto, most of them rest well sa∣tisfied, persuading themselves there was a necessity of undeceiving the Prince, and clearing our Clergy from black Calumnies; but they differ from you in the judgment of the matter, and lawfulness of the said Protestation. Briefly, the opinion of the Divines here, as well of our Nation, as others, is quod sit potestas in summo Pon∣tifice puniendi omnes mortales ratione delicti, which they aver to be St. Thomas his opinion, & speciatim in cap. decimo de Institutione Principis. This, say they, is the power Innocentius III. meant, when intermedling between the Kings of France and England (nimirum quando ad illum Rex Angliae detulit Regem Galliae) he said non intendimus judicare de feudo, sed decernere de peccato, cujus ad nos pertinet sine dubitatione censura, quam in quemlibet exercere pos∣sumus, & debemus. For further proof of this power, they produce Translationem Imperii, and affirm this power of the Pope hath taken prescription for many Ages which they declare out of several Historians. Many of them will not be persuaded that ye have a probable opinion for your doings. But I have (as I think) manifest∣ly shewed out of the little Book you saw with me, called Strena Catholica, that the learned School of Paris holds the same opinion you relie upon in the signature of your Protestation. This being so, it could not be denied (I conceived it so) but the opinion was probable, that had for it the authority of so famous a School, quia pro∣babilitas opinionis desumenda est ex principiis extrinsecis. After a view of what I pointed out in the said Book, some of them held that the said opinion had lost its probability by what Paulus V. declared in duobus Brevibus contra juramentum fidelitatis Regis Angliae, tanquam continens multa quae saluti & fidei adversan∣tur. Now your Protestation being the said in substance, cum isto juramento fide∣litatis, that Declaration of Paulus Quintus, is against your Protestation, as well as against the said Oath. What shall I say more? the Schoolmen of France and Spain (if I rightly understand them) disagree as much about the lawfulness, and matter of the Protestation, as both the Nations do in their humors. For my part, I confess learned Suarez his Arguments and Reasons, in defensione fidei, adversus er∣rores Secta Anglicanae, & praecipue quae ab eo dicuntur in lib. tertio de primatu Pontificis, & lib. 6. de juramento fidelitatis Regis Angliae, are of great strength and force. Yet for all that I am ready, and heartily willing to yield my Prince all obedience and fidelity, all honest Bishops and Priests have done to their Princes in all ages and times, keeping ever to that old and sound rule of Tertullian, nimirum, sic colere Imperatorem, quomodo Christianis licet. & illi expedit; and I abhor and detest from my heart, that impious and heretical Doctrine of John Wickliff, to wit, That a Prince, if he rule ill, or fall into mortal sin, is no longer Prince; but that his Subjects may rise against him and punish him at their pleasures. Is it not a wonder the Kings Bishops do not pull this Hypocrite out of their Calendar of Saints (where Fox placed him in red Letters for a Martyr, though he dyed upon his Bed) for being Author of so pestiferous a Doctrine? I also abhor the impious dogma of the great Rabin of Geneva, teaching, That Princes Laws bind not Subjects to obedience in Conscience, but only for external, and temporal respect, whereby this precious Doctor of the Protestants sets the People loose for a Rebellion, when they shall please and find an occasion, expresly against St. Pauls doctrine,* 81.1 cap. 13. ad Rom. Ideo necessitate Subditi estote non solum propter iram sed etiam propter conscientiam. This is the man so much esteemed by the Protestant Di∣vines of England, who notwithstanding, dared pronounce that dangerous position for Princes in his expounding the Prophet Daniel, Abdicant se (saith he) terreni Principes dum insurgunt contra Deum; imo indigni sunt qui censeantur in homi∣num numero. Potius ergo conspuere oportet in illorum capita, quam illis parere,

ubi sic proterviunt, & velint spoliare Deum suo jure. The world may see, how civil a man this delicate Prophet using this fine phrase, conspuere oportet in prin∣cipum capita, and is not this a learned Homily to teach Subjects obedience? but if a man ask Calvin who shall be Judge between God and Kings, an insurgunt in Deum & spoliant eum jure suo, he will allow of no Judge in this high matter but himself all one, and consequently when he shall so please, will stir the people to a rebellion against their King, and depose, or make Him away as they list, because Calvin told them, spoliavit Deum jure suo, which is a sad lesson for Kings.

A late Letter from France, tells, that Tuam, and the rest of my Brethren there, have consented to subscribe your Protestation. Believe me, they would not do so here, nor dare do it, for many reasons I think not fit to commit to this Paper, but you may believe me it is so, & hoc sapienti sat est, &c. For the rest were onely private business, and salutes to Friends. After which, he subscribes thus:

My dear Companion,

Your ever true Friend to serve you, Nico: Fernen.

His Letter to my self from the said place, dated 19 Sept. 1665.

Reverend Father Walsh,

THither goeth the submissive Letter, that lay upon my hands hard upon Twen∣ty months waiting for a sercue conveyance. The Contents thereof are, I conceive, reasonable, and sufficient to give his Grace the contentment I de∣sire. I am able to say no more against my self, then said Letter doth express, without belying my Conscience, and betraying my Fame, which I presume his Grace would not have me do. Ʋpon this affair, that is, of so tender a concernment, I make this Discourse. Or the Letter will give clear satisfaction, or it will not. If the first, I shall be much joyed, and do my best to be there soon, depending with all con∣fidence upon his Graces clemency and protection (as by your Letter you have in∣sinuated I well may) of me, and mine, whereof my upright dealing and demeanour will still keep me capable, exercising secretly and warily my Function, and giving by Gods blessing no kind of occasion of disturbing the peace of the Countrey, or offend∣ing the State and Government; and so shall all do, upon whom I shall have influence; and if any change or revolution shall happen in the Land (it may happen so, though I have no ground at present for divining such a matter) his Excellency will find me as trusty as any of the Kings own Bishops. I bring not with me the spirit of Dissention or Ambition, I aim not at Honour, or worldly Commodities (for I enjoy more here for subsisting me, than I can do there.) that I seek after (God is my witness) is onely and solely my dear Lambs and Flock (their fleece and milk are in another hand, if he will content himself with both, and seek not to vex me, I will be patient with the lack of both) and to give a right account to my God of a sacred depositum, the charge of Souls committed by him to my trust and care. Which Commission can hardly be discharged by me without some toleration and liber∣ty. Both I may in some measure enjoy, supported by his Grace's protection against surmises, murmurations, calumnies, and many vapours of that kind which will be elevated from the envy of men, that will hate me more for being the man I am, than for my enmity against the Commonwealth. Such men I foresee will seek to black my innocency, and in such an article I hope his Graces benignity will be a refuge to me. Truly if a person of my mind, who intends not; abire in consilio impiorum, neque in via peccatorum stare, & in pondere & mensura Deo quod Dei est reddere, & quod Caesaris Caesari: if such an one may not pass his dayes unafflict∣ed, I may well say that is a Land of misery.

But let us suppose the worst (which I hope will not happen) to wit, that his Excellency by my Letter, and clear intention, will not be satisfied; if so, I shall tru∣ly hold my fortune hard, having suffered so much, and so sharp afflictions and re∣proaches in Rome, Spain, and Flanders, upon the score of being taken for a great friend and servitor of his, and (that I may use the language of those vexed me) a principal Leader in the Anti-catholick Ormonian Faction. Collige ex ungue leo∣num, by the confession of Father Patrick Hacquet. But one thing (which is more home) I will say to you, which I never said before (in verbo Sacerdotis verum dico) I have done his Grace a certain good turn that claims and merits (I dare boldly aver it) a greater recompence than what I now demand from him, or ever shall. If that with the contents of my Letter, and the good intents also I bear to heart, shall not be able to pacifie his jealousie and anger, I will say my luck is hard∣er than that of many others, that have more offended him, and less served him.

But if it shall come to that extremity, what is to be done? I seek advice from you that is a Priest and Missioner, whether I am to stay where I am, or adventure unto that Countrey? In my opinion it would be the resolution of a languishing spirit, if the fear of men in such an article, would be able to deter a Bishop from doing the work of God, and attending his flock. You know Kings themselves have no power to hinder those divine Functions. If I am put to it in this matter, I con∣ceive my best answer will be that of the Apostles, obedire oportet Deo magis quam hominibus. If St. Paul said, vae enim mihi est si non Evangelizavero (he said so, quia ei incumbebat necessitas Evangelizandi) what shall I be able to say for my self in the last day, if I shall in this short day of life, leave off this Divine duty for the fear of men? how shall I escape that anger of God? what priviledge can I pretend to, the Apostle had not? I going into that Land with the Spirit of peace and meekness for attending the saving of Souls in all humility and charity, intending to give all due obedience to my Prince in Civilibus, and to all those he shall appoint to govern under him; and to pay each one the Tribute due unto him, cui timorem timorem, cui honorem honorem; and in all my functions and proceedings, so to carry my self, as none shall have just cause to complain of me; and I confidently hope, God will give me grace and power to perform all I here promise.

Of this long Letter, which will, I fear, weary you in the perusing, as it did me in the penning, you may impart to his Grace what you think fitting, who may not, as I conceive, be offended with any branch thereof. I conclude all with that noble saying of an ancient Sage, Nocens veretur legem, innocens fortunam. I may fear the last, being confident no just Law will ever do me harm. My great freedom, is an evident argument of my confidence in you, which indeed is great; for my opi∣nion of you is better, and far more benign than that of many others, &c.

The rest were onely private business, and salutes to Friends. After which, he subscribes thus:

Reverend Father, Your true Friend, And affectionate Servant, Nico: Fernen.

St. James's in Galicia, 19 Sept. 1665.

His submissive Letter from the same place, but dated Sept. 22. the same year to His Grace the Duke of ORMOND, Lord Lieutenant General and General Governour of IRELAND.

May it please your Grace,

A Friend from them parts advised me to write a Submissive hum∣ble Letter, begging pardon of your Grace, and that after such a Letter nothing would remain to obstruct my going home, and your Graces Protecting me hereafter.

Your noble inclination, and desire of making Peace even with those have offended you, is so manifest, as I presume your Grace is of Seneca's mind, who said, penitens, est fere innocens; being then in my self truly penitent for any thing coming from me, that hath, or could have displea∣sed your Grace, I have made a fair step to be innocent in your Conside∣ration, and I truly make account my luck is good, that am to appease an anger, that of itself begins to be pleased. I do not say this with intent to tickle, or flatter your Graces ears: for this is not my Custome, who have (as is well known to all that know me) offended men more by freely speak∣ing truth, then pleased them by flattering them. I will say one thing more (perhaps in some mens judgment insolent) that displeasing your Grace I am in less danger, then offending a man of a low condition, that should have any power to avenge himself of me. The reason is evident, because the low man, Dum cuncta timet, cuncta ferit: But the anger of great Men is like a Thunder and Lightning, that bringeth more fear than destruction.

To come nearer the Point, as a Christian, I may not deny a rational sa∣tisfaction even to the meanest person injured by me. Leaving that so, the question is, What is the Crime I should seek Pardon for, how great, and when committed against your Grace? for what hath passed before the Peace (if not Murther, or some black doings, of which I am no way guilty) the Act of Oblivion, giveth me, and all, a freedom and safety. Since the Peace I have faithfully observed the Articles thereof, and never betrayed the common Interest. There is not any man living can accuse me that way. But the doings of Jamestown are objected as Treasonable, a breach of the pacification, and an attempt of pulling down Kingly Au∣thority. I was then upon a common bottom: and can truly say for one, and all of us, that me no way intended to despise your Person, or Dignity, or act an thing against Kingly Authority, or the Interest of the Nation. The message the Bishop of Dromore, and Dr. Kelly Dean of Tuam, brought from the Prelats to your Excellency, maketh this manifest. In what a lamentable condition the Kingdom was then, how little thereof, those faithful to the King had; being driven all of us into a corner of one Province, how unlike we were to recover what was lost, or defend what we held, no man knoweth better than your Grace. The King was also then in the hands of the Scottish Presbiterians, deadly enemies to the Catholicks of Ireland, so as there was no access to his Majesty. In the

opinion of all, there was need of a speedy cure for the Nation in dan∣ger, or all was given for lost. The Prelats that met at Jamestown had some Moneths before in the Congregation of Clonmacnois (as your Grace knoweth well) co-operated to the best of their power with your Excellen∣cy, and made Ordinances for keeping the People in obedience under His Majesty, and in Ʋnion with one another under your Government, for there was fear the Enemy then Powerful, would debauch them from their duty. Our thoughts in Jamestown were the same we had in Clonmak∣nois, and all of us aimed at the safety of all interests, and represented, as we then conceived to your Excellency the right expedient of setling all things the best way the times did then permit. If we have not hit the reme∣dy, we had a good mind to do it without any mans prejudice. Let there∣fore the World deal with us (that walked bona fide) as they do with Physitians, who are not punished for missing the Cure, when they have done their best endeavours; and let those that are pleased to condemn the Fact, at least excuse our intentions, which excuseth us before God. For these, and other reasons I can alledge, I am, as I conceive, able to clear my self from blame: (certain I am▪ I had not the mind of incurring blame) if questioned before an indifferent, and well informed Judge; unquestioned I cannot be justly Condemned. If I shall say about the doings of Jamestown, other then what I said, which is the true dicta-men of my Soul, I shall belye my self, and betray my fame; which is a sin before God. Yet for all this, I had rather in this particular, and all other of this kind, depend upon his Majesties Clemency, and your Graces benignity, than mine innocency.

My fault (I will not be so great an Hypocrite as to excuse it) com∣mitted against your Grace was a culpable Passion of speaking and wri∣ting severely of some of your doings after the Peace. And for this, none hath been more angry with me then my self, none more afflicted: for malice against your Person, Dignity, or any your Interest, I am, and have been ever free. How this Scintilla of misunderstanding between your Grace, and me, was first inkindled, and what persons, suspitions, and mistakes gave growth thereunto, it skilleth not to speak in this place. But, I take God to witness, I never writ a line until much pro∣voked by the doings of some people. More than I have said against my self, no man is justly able to say.

Now if Augustus Cesar a Pagan, did heartily pardon Lucius Cinna, who resolved to kill him at the Altar, offering Sacrifice; will not your Grace, a Christian, freely forgive me for a Passion of Nature (that is my only offence) far different in blackness from Cynna's murthering mind.

My Lord, a great Mind becometh a great Fortune, and a great Cle∣mency is the companion and greatest honour of both. As your Grace hath the two first, let the pardon I demand granted, tell me you have the last, and give me leave to speak freely to your Grace in Seneca's Language; that to a great man many punishments are as dishonoura∣ble, as many funerals to a Physitian.

Having ingeniously confessed all I can say against my self, I have reason to expect your Grace's Pardon and Protection, which I pray may

be signified unto me by some one of your trusty Secretaries, that I may know the waters of your anger are fallen.

My Lord, where I am, I am well looked upon, and enjoy a subsistence competent and decent for quality; whereas going home, I have nothing before me for relieving me, my Church and Lands being transferred to another hand, most of all my friends are dead and gone, a few worthy Gentlemen allied to me (who have a willingness to subsist me) live themselves in poverty, and in great fear they will not be restored to their own. Notwithstanding all those incommodities, if my weak forces (for I am afflicted with many sharp pangs of infirmity) will serve me, and that I may enjoy your Grace's Protection for discharging a trust God put upon me, I am resolved to set forward. Were it not for this reason of duty to God, and love to my Flock; your Grace may confi∣dently believe, my exile would be more pleasing than my Countrey. God prosper and protect your Grace (for which I have now for some years heartily prayed) so wishing, with a submissive kiss of your hand,

(My Lord) Your Graces most Obedient Humble Servant. Nico. Fernensis.

St. James in Gallicia, Septem. 22. 1665.

My Letter March 10. 1666. to my Lord of Ferns.

My Lord,

YOurs to myself of the 19. and to the Duke of the 22. of this present year 1665. I received about two moneths past from the bearer of them Mr. Arch∣bold. As likewise soon after came to my hands accidentally yours to Doctor Cusack, though first open'd by a friend of his, the said Doctor having dyed here some few days before, to our great grief. All which Letters the Duke read and discoursed with me upon; but only read that part of yours to Doctor Cusack, which related to himself, and what you desired the Doctor to let His Grace understand.

Concerning your Letter to his Grace, though you sent it me with a flying seal, and liberty to deliver it, or not, and that I disliked your justification, or at least too much Candor in the affairs of Jamestown (as I told the bearer, before I delivered it;) yet because of your remoteness and the long time past since you writ before, and the uncer∣tainty of hearing from you again in such haste as would be necessary, I thought best to deliver it as it was, and excuse you the best I could. In brief; you must write a more submissive Letter as to Jamestown affairs and such other publick actings in former times here, and write the total change of your judgment in reference to all such matters.

And for my part, my Lord, I wonder much in the first place, that your Lordship re∣flected not on the Laws of all Kingdoms in such cases or pretences whatsoever: and on the general unanswerable reasons that can justifie all Rebellions on your account of a good end. Non sunt facienda mala ut eveniant bona, is an allowed and necessary Maxime in our Divinity. And, in the second, no less wonder, you considered not, that as there is much difference betwixt a Physitian and an Emperick: so there is be∣twixt the power of a Bishop and that of the Magistrate.

However you have stated the case in your Letter to my self concerning your obliga∣tion of coming home with hazard (and you have stated it so, as I need not answer or advise you, unless it be to deny your supposition;) yet I will advise your Lordship not to venture any further then Paris or Louaine, or some near place on that side the Sea, until I send to you again, after you have altered your stile on the above Subject. And must tell you, there is no command of God on you in the case, nor any necessity

incumbent on you of Preaching or looking here Personally to your flock, until you mend what is amiss of your own part. Yet I do withal confess, there is a necessity on you to do this. And therefore that if, or as soon as you shall do this, there can be no excuse, or plea against a command of God, and a necessity on you to come home and look personally to your flock, as well as you may, and Evangelize to them. It is only therefore I said now there was no command, nor necessity; because I suppose your failing hither∣to, so long, in not making use of the Lawful and Evangelical means to be without dan∣ger to your self or others at liberty here to obey God in your charge, proceeded only from want of due reflection on the lawfulness of the means; and consequently sup∣pose that in so good a man it was no depravation of will. But hereafter I know not how you may answer God: since you may come without such danger to your self or others, or hinderance, I mean of a greater or lesser good, if you please to do what by the Law of Christ you may and ought to do, viz. confess you have done ill, crave His Ma∣jesties pardon, and assure him under your hand, by the same Instrument we have, of your future, and certainly otherwise bounden fidelity towards him. It becomes a Bi∣shop of Jesus Christ to shew this good example to others. And it more particularly be∣comes him that lead others into Errour, to shew them by his own example, whether they are to return. And indeed, whom doth Obedience, Humility, Faith, Justice, and Repentance too, become more then a Preacher of them, and a chief Preacher too by his Episcopal Function? As for the rest, my Lord, Know the Duke hath a good opi∣nion of your will or intentions all along; and is satisfied for any thing done at Paris; but is sorry to observe your intellect so Principled yet, even in relation to the very essen∣tial duty of Subjects. And I am for my part more sorry: because 'tis point blank against the Principles of Christianity, and all those arguments I make use of to help in Religion again. Would your Lordship had Mr. Carons late Latin Work in Folio against those of Louain and Cardinal Barberins••s Letter. An other Work in La∣tin I have of my own, which I will not publish yet for some reasons, nor till I expect some farther time to see whether any one will undertake for Louaine to answer that of Mr. Carons. Both he and I take notice of your Objections in some of your former pa∣pers to me. I have besides, a Remonstrance, and a Petition too in Latin of Thirty sheets, and in my own name, and of matter of Fact, all to his Holiness: which also for some other reasons I do not Publish yet. Your Lordship gave me occasion to think of it, and it shall serve for an Apology, such as you desired me to write. I have all your Papers against Ferral still lying by me: as likewise Mr. Lynche's Alithi∣nologias.

Again, I returne to your self and the Duke. He thinks you a good Man,* 84.1 good Priest, and good Bishop. And thinks you Candid and without cheat. But sees withal, that notwithstanding all your goodness, you have still most dangerous Errours in your understanding: and wonders at your weakness that cannot see them, after so many occasions, and causes, and reasons to discover them to you. And he knows you would (if your understanding in that one matter were once rightly principled) be of more use both as to piety, and policy, then many others of your calling or dignity.

There is a general Congregation of the Roman Clergy to be here at Dublin the XI. of June next. You may be there if you leave Spain in time, and return in time to this such other Letters as become you. For then I shall send you the Duke's License: other∣wise not. Excuse this unmethodical scribling, for I have no leasure now to do other∣wise. This goes to you by the way of Paris and my Lord of Ardmagh. I am with all my Soul

(My Lord) Your most Affectionate and Humble Servant P. Walsh.

Dublin March 16. 1665. S. Ʋ.

His Letter of May 10. 1666. from St. Sebastian, to my self again.

Reverend Father Walsh,

St. Sebastian May 10. 1666.

YOurs of March 10th. 1666. came yesterday to hand, and though I have not obtained what I demanded, I had thereby a great consent and satisfa∣ction of mind, that the Duke thinketh me a good man, good Priest, good Bishop, candid, and without all cheat. That being so, what danger can be feared from me? but you say, my Intellect ill principled, may be feared. Sir, my Principles (even about the main question between us, and subject of the Pro∣testation) are those held by many eminent Divines and classical Authors, Bishops, Cardinals, and some of them Saints, and St. Thomas Prince of Divines, one of those: holding what they held, will you say my Principles are dangerous, and my In∣tellect erroneously instructed? Were we together, likely by wording, we should better understand one another, than by writing at this distance. You may believe me, my inclination is totally to follow the safest Principles for my Conscience, and I am as much for those great Rules and Laws of Christianity, taught by our Saviour, Red∣dite puae sunt Caesaris Caesari, &c. and delivered by St. Paul to the Romans, Omnis anima subdita sit, &c. as any whatsoever. And I understand them rightly, as I conceive, as the greatest Divines understand them, and as the Church doth explain them. What more can be demanded from me? following so many learned Masters, Classical Authors, Saints, Bishops, Cardinals, who can blame me? the Au∣thority of all those is great: their learning great, their sanctity great, the light they had from God great: their number great, being (if I well remember) Seventy one Authors; as I found them in the answer of Cardinal Bellarmine to Barclaius. Give me so many for your opinion, so learned, so holy, and of so great credit and fame, and I will subscribe to all the branches of the Protestation, and diserte to this Proposition, Non potest summus Pontifex deponere Reges & Principes in ullo tandem casu. If this you cannot do, why seek you me to join with you, and for∣sake those Seventy one Doctors, who were all of them good and loyal Subjects, and taught others to be so? or why do you affirm my Intellect is ill principled?

I return to the submissive Letter, or to a more submissive than that I sent. My will, you may be well assured, doth not stick to write any thing may give satisfa∣ction to the King and Duke, that my Conscience can agree unto; yea, and to change my understanding as to the actings past, and to the future, if you will give reasons and arguments strong enough for making such a change. You may also further understand, That I have consulted with very learned Divines, who after serious ponderation of the matter, told me, I could not safely change the Principles I keep to. It is also my full resolution, that luminare majus (the Pope) and luminare minus (my King) shall ever receive from me all honour, submission, obe∣dience, due to their lights, majesty and greatness respectively, with all candor and fi∣delity. I likewise advertise you, That I am disposed to take light and instructions, for changing any error that I shall find in my understanding. Finally, when I shall come to a place of repose and quietness, I shall think of that other Letter, for I have now quitted my settlement in Galicia, much to the grief of my Lord Arch∣bishop, and am now thinking to put my self as near home as I can, until God will be pleased to give an end to this difficulty.

I have not seen that work of Father Caron in folio, perhaps I shall see it in Paris. I would be glad to see your Apologia, if perhaps the Romans will remain satisfied therewith, who albeit they have as yet decreed nothing against the Protesta∣tion, yet are offended with you, and all that sign'd it. God give those Prelates, and Clergy that meet in Dublin, Spiritum consilii, & fortitudinis, Spiritum scien∣tiae, & pietatis.

Though our Principles about the main question are different, I heartily thank you for your affection, promising you the like candor, if in any thing I may be able to serve you. I conclude, assuring you the Duke will not find more sincerity, and Christian affection in any of his own Bishops, than in me; and even so I remain, Reverend Father, with all my Soul,

Your affectionate Servant, Nico: Fernensis.

Another also of his to my self, from Paris, July the 18th. the same year 1606.

Father Walsh,

Paris, 18 July 1666.

I Hope you had ere this my Answer from St. Sebastian of the 10th of May, to yours of the 10th of March, sent away by a little Spanish Vessel. I had ad∣ventured over with the same, but for your Letter, which had it overtaken me in St. James's, I had not come to France. By the said Answer, I briefly told you, That I have for my opinion against yours, touching some Tenets of the Protestation, Seven Saints, and St. Thomas one of them, Seven Cardinals, One Pa∣triarch, Three Archbishops, Ten Bishops, and Thirty one Classical Authors; with other eminent Divines. All of these were persons of great learning, and authority, and good, and faithful Subjects, and taught others to be so. I wonder then how you would have me forsake such grave, and learned Sages, or say my understanding is ill principled following those men.

Seeing the Duke is satisfied (as you write) for any thing done at Paris (which was the most done by me against him) and that he thinks I am a good man, good Priest, good Bishop, candid, and without cheat, and yet will not have me come to my Coun∣trey; and in the mean time calleth Ardmach home, of whom he had not so good an opinion (certainly he never did his Excellency so good a service as I have done, nor had intention to do) I know not what to say, but must tell you this is a mystery, all that hear thereof, wonder at, and none can penetrate or understand it. I say not this, envying that afflicted man this happiness, if he will find it to be so.

After the great heats we have here, I intend to give reason more at large, why I may not with quietness of mind sign the Protestation, as the Duke, and you demand (at the more substantial parts thereof I do not scruple or stagger) I will also answer some parts of your Letter, which intrencheth much upon me; when this is done, the Duke and you will learn clearly my sense, and why I cannot give a more submissive than my former Letter. And seeing for ought to my appearing, I cannot satisfie my Conscience, and the Duke together, nor become profitable to my flock at home, nor live quietly and secure, his anger not being appeas'd, you may know hereby, that I am resolved after Dog-dayes to go to Louain, and there end my dayes, where I began my studies. I shall thereby free you from giving further trouble to the Duke, in media∣ting for me, and free his Grace from being troubled about me, and give my self a freedom from many personal afflictions and troubles good men indure there, though my heart shall still have a share in their sufferings. Do me the friendship and right of shewing this Letter to the Duke, and send your answer to this City in the form beneath written. God pour a blessing of peace and tranquility upon the people of that Nation, and even so I remain, Sir,

Your affectionate Servant, Nico: Fernensis.

Behold the chief Letters of this good Prelate, which I thought might be of some use here. For albeit the last was written after the National Congregation in Ireland had been held, yet relating to the former matter, without much distance of time in the date, I would give it here. As for the subject of them, or rather (I mean) any answer to, or animadversion upon the Contents of them, where any thing is said against the Remonstrance, none is to expect here what is not the design of this Historical Part of the Book. Enough hath been said already to that purpose in my former Part of this Treatise, especially where I dispute against the Fourth ground of the Censure of Louain, but more particularly Sect. Lxxiv. pag. 340. where I treat of cap. novit. de Judic. or that very place of Innocent the III. which the Bishop alludes to. Enough by Father Caron in his Remonstrance, &c. Enough before our dayes by the Learned Barclays the Father and Son (and by the Son particularly enough even also as to the Bishops 70, or 72 Authors, quoted by him out of Bellarmin's last work against Barclay the Father.) Enough by the excellent English Benedictin Writer Thomas Preston, under the name of Widdring∣ton. And finally, and long before their dayes, by the ancient Divines of Paris, Maior, Almainus, and even holy Gerson himself. That I may say nothing now either of the vast cloud of Neotericks, or of all the very most ancient Fathers and holy Doctors, Doctors of Christianity all along for a Thousand years, till Gregory the VII. Pontificat. Nor any thing at all either of holy Scripture, or natural Reason, both plain enough in the case. For I have already in my First Part abun∣dantly given all such Arguments. And yet I will observe here, that no where have I made use of Protestant Authors, albeit many of them have most learnedly refu∣ted all such petty, and whatsoever other Objections; but above others, Joannes Roffensis most diffusely and excellently. Nay, nor made use not even of Marcus Antonius a Dominis, the learned Archbishop of Spalato, not even of him there I say, where (in his Ostensio errorum Francisci Suarez) he canvasses the Allegati∣on made of those 70 or 72 Authors, and even reduces that number to 20. A small number, God wot, as to that of bare extrinsick authority of Writers, if that I mean should be of any value (as indeed it should not) to persuade any. Nay, let us suppose, that not only Marcus Antonius, but even Joannes Barclaius in his Pie∣tas had come short in their arguments or examination of those 70 or 72 Writers alledged by Bellarmine (in his little Book de temporali potestate Papae, against William Barclay) for himself; and that Eudaemon Joannes against John Barclay, had got the better of him, and not been throughly confuted by his more learned Answerer; and consequently that in very deed Bellarmines whole number of 70, or 72, had been rightly and to his purpose alledged by the Bishop: what propor∣tion, or rather, what weight, I pray, could 72 late Writers have to persuade any in comparison of 72000 (I am sure) the most learned and holy Fathers, Pastors, Doctors of the University of Christians throughout the earth in all Ages from Christ, and even Christ himself, and his Apostles, Peter and Paul in the head of them? What to the belief and practice also of at least 72 millions, or rather, 72 hundred millions indoctrinated by them? Nay, or speaking even of those who writ on or as to the very point in specie, and after, I mean, the subtle distinctions invented either by Schoolmen, or others, in the later and worser Ages, since Gre∣gory the Seventh's dayes, what proportion can there be between those 72 Writers or Authors, alledg'd by Bellarmine, and those other more than 272 Writers, quo∣ted by Caron to the contrary, but that of one to four? So that from first to last, if we regard even but the extrinsick authority onely of the number of Tea∣chers and Writers, and Writers I say on the very point and distinction, the Bishop will find he relies on a weak Reed, that will break and pierce, and bore through his hand. Nor can he pretend that St. Thomas of Aquin, or S. Bonaventure, have been holier than Chrysostom, Austin, Gregory the Great, and so many other anci∣ent Fathers, whose doctrine, in the controverted question, so contrary to that of those late Scholastick canonized Saints, I have before produced Sect. Lxxiii, Lxxiv. But the truth is, that no extrinsick authority, either of number or sanctity, not even of the greatest Saints how numerous soever, can be of any moment either against holy Scripture, or Catholick Tradition (that I may say nothing now of plain demonstration from the principles of natural reason.) Otherwise Cyprian of Africk,

and Firmilian of Cappadocia, and Dionysius of Alexandria, had born down the scale against other Doctors in the question of Re-baptization. And for Holiness, I de∣mand who was holier than Cyprian himself alone? Therefore neither did St. Tho∣mas of Aquin, nor St. Bonaventure's holiness render them infallible in their Scho∣lastical disputes. Nay, do not our own Schoolmen every day reject both Thomas and Bonaventure, even in a hundred points, and even also where we have neither evident Scripture, nor manifest tradition, nor clear demonstration of reason, but only stronger probabilities against them? Do not all Scotists in the world laugh to scorn the Ar∣guments in particular of Thomas of Aquin, and maintain a Thousand contradictory Positions to the very Conclusions, or Positions, and Thesis's of Thomas, and all his School of Thomists? So much I could not forbear to say here occasionally, though it be not my business now to dispute, or confute. What is more proper at present, is, to tell the Reader, That my Lord of Ferns having received my Letter at St. Sebasti∣an, and seeing he could not prudently venture against my advice, thought fit to send his letter of Proxy to his own Vicar-general N: Redmond (living then at home in his Diocess of Ferns, and County of Wexford) to supply his place in the National Con∣gregation to be held at Dublin, and vote pro or con, for or against the Remonstrance, according as he should see the major and sanior part do. For those were the words of that Letter of Proxy, if my memory fail me not; for I saw and read it. Whether any private instructions were contrary, I know not. And, however, we see no oppo∣sition at all, no endeavours I mean from this Bishop to hinder the Fathers from meet∣ing. Which is the scope of all hitherto said, as in this place said.

VI.

AS for the Bishop of Kilfinuran, Andrew Lynch (the third and last of those Irish Bishops then abroad) I have nothing to say that might relate to any opposition, or contrivance of his to hinder the meeting of the Fathers in the National Congre∣gation. Nor indeed, besides what you have already seen, Part I. Sect. v. pag. 12. have I any thing else to remark here of him, save only, 1. That he was one of those 12 persons which the Nuncio, immediately after the rejection of the Peace of 1646. re∣commended to Rome by his Dean Dionysius Massarius to be made Bishops, and who by the same Dean received next Spring their Bulls, and accordingly (soon after) both Consecration and Installation. 2. That nevertheless in the controversie about the ces∣sation of Arms with Inchiquin, and censures of the Nuncio, he seem'd to be for the Supreme Council. 3. That he cunningly declined appearing either one side or other in the business of Jamestown. 4. That I, for my own part, alwayes, until I discovered him upon his landing at Dublin, and by his carriage in the Congregation, took him to have been rightly and honestly principled: and therefore as on the same account for the Bishop of Ardagh, so I had also on the same been in all occasions an earnest sollicitor of my Lord Lieutenant to suffer him to return out of France, and come home to his charge of Kilfinuran. 5. That notwithstanding several invitations, by letters, and otherwise, from me to him since the year 1661. to the present 65. assuring him also, that he might safely return and reside in his own Diocess, yet he neither would, nor (it seems) had any mind to return. Whereof we shall see hereafter the causes. 6. That concerning him, and more closely in order to his affection or disaffe∣ction to our present affair of the National Assembly, the Primate writ to me from Paris, how himself had sent him the letters of Indiction: and how he (i. e. Kilfinuran) had soon after come to Paris, and remain'd there a whole month incognito, seeing on∣ly the Nuncio Apostolick (viz. to receive instructions) and some few others, whom he could trust, but not him that sent him the Indiction. 7. That his carriage after up∣on his landing, and in the Congregation, did shew he rather was glad there should be such a National meeting of the Irish Clergy at the time and place appointed, than not. Because, that the Parliament also of the Kingdom being to sit there at Dublin, and at the same time, and consequently a numerous concourse even of all other Irish (besides the members of the Congregation) to be seen there and then without any fear or danger, and a great prospect also into the War with Holland by that very time expected, he could not desire a better opportunity either to understand the thoughts of his Countreymen generally, or infuse his own into them. Which very reason I doubt not prevail'd also with the Primate, although, I confess, there was otherwise but very little either friendship or correspondence betwixt those two Prelates; nay, scarce any at all betwixt the Primate and any of all the rest of the surviving Prelates.

VII.

THE next in order amongst the Irish Clergy to be considered, is William Burgat, a Secular Priest, Vicar-general or Capitulary of the Diocess of Imly, and Custos also (as they call'd him) of the Diocess of Limmerick, both in the Province of Cashel or Munster; but residing, or abiding at that time, and since the year 1663. at Rome, as the sole Agent in that Court for the Clergy of Munster, and half Agent too therein for the Clergy of the Province of Tuam, or Connaught; one Dr. Dowly being partner with him in his Agency for this latter. Of him (who is now since the year 1669. made Archbishop of Cashel) I have spoken somewhat before, Part I. Sect. xxii. pag. 56. What is proper now, is to give you his Letter (without date) from Rome, to the Primate at Paris. The original whereof was (after the Primate's landing at Dublin on the 15th of June 1666.) delivered to the Duke of Ormond then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and that very night given me by his Grace. Out of it the Reader may understand how, and by whom those Thundring Letters (by an Express) from that Court, which you shall have in the two next Sections, were procured to hin∣der the intended Congregation, or at least to frustrate the ends of it, if they came not time enough to prevent, or totally hinder the very meeting it self of the Fa∣thers upon any account whatsoever.

Father William Burgat's Letter from Rome, to Primate Reilly at Paris (in or about the month of March 1666.) concerning the intended National Congregation of the Irish Clergy at Dublin in June 1666.

My Lord,

I Suppose Dr. Brenan informs your Illustrissimo of passages here, from time to time, which I omit to do to avoid troublesom repetitions. That meeting intend∣ed in Ireland ill taken, His Holiness therewith acquainted, willed a Congrega∣tion to be thereupon, as Cardinal Patron told me, not yet had; Monfroni tells me, some Letters they will soon dispatch to hinder the same. Yesterday I acquaint∣ed him with those Reasons your Illustrissimo writes in yours to Dr. Brenan, for not going to Flanders, which he took very well, and approved, expressing the intent to be to avoid jealousies in the present conjuncture of Affairs, which to do your Illustrissimo his resolution for Britain seem'd most opportune, and promised upon occasion he would acquaint His Holiness therewith. Though they promise some∣thing will be soon done in setling our Hierarchy, yet I am of opinion they will ex∣pect to see what effects the present great preparations and negotiations over all Christendom will begin to produce. By their recklesness of the Affairs of unhappy Ireland, suffered them to grow to that intricacy, as now it seems irksom they hear of them, and upon the least shadow of reason are apt to put them by. I did in the beginning of February last, acquaint Monfroni with the intended meeting in Ire∣land (for then I had notice thereof) but he made no matter of it, neither when your Lordship sent a Copy of the Summons, delivered him by Dr. Brenan, till many days after stirred by Albrici, he acquainted His Holiness with the business, and do verily believe he had some check, for he passionately complained, even to me, that your Illustrissimo did much forget, in not sending something authentical, or writing to himself or the Congregation, and of me also to others, in that I did not repair home∣wards with that settlement you heard of, whereby I may help to prevent such incon∣veniencies:

but I think I have at long running, satisfied him, and am sure have others of greater note, of my deportment therein. You see, my Lord, in what con∣dition the Concerns of miserable Ireland be, God in his great mercy look upon us, and send what most to his own glory, and good of his Church The rest were onely private business, and salutes to Friends. After which, he subscribes thus:

My Lord,

Your Illustrissimo's most humble, And faithful Servant, Will: Burgate.

This Letter needs no Comment to shew how Father Burgate did busie himself at Rome, either to prevent, and wholly hinder that National Congregation from being, i. e. meeting at all, or at least to frustrate the intended scope thereof. Nor any to shew the great Alarm taken by that Court upon the news, since His Holi∣ness commanded a special Congregation of Cardinals to be held thereupon of purpose; as indeed was soon after held. But Father Burgate must be excused, since by and through such his endeavours, he aimed at the Archbishoprick of Cashel; which he obtain'd after, as a reward of his zeal for the holy See, and for the consequential alienation of His Majestie••s Subjects from the Faith and Obedi∣ence they owe Him at least in Temporals. And upon the same ground must Dr. Brenan also be excused, since he was no less ambitious of a Mitre, and hath now that of Waterford; which, had he not been known a zealous Anti-Remonstrant (though otherwise not known at all in Ireland then) he had never obtained from that Court.

VIII.

BEfore I give the result of that Roman Congregation of Cardinals, or Let∣ters of those appointed thereby to write to Ireland the pleasure of His Holiness and said Cardinals, it is not amiss to shew first, how, or by what means I came to know, see, and have also in my custody those very original Letters which they took so much care of, by an Express from Bruxels, and from the then Inter∣nuncio of Bruxels, now Cardinal Rospigliosi.

It was about Mid-May 1666. (that very time when the Lord Lieutenant had been absent from Dublin some few dayes in the North of Ireland, to reduce (as he did) the rebellious Garrison of the Town and strong Castle of Carrigfer∣gus) I found left (but by whom I know not) in my Chamber at Dublin, a Packet of Letters endorsed to my self. Opening them, I found not a word to my self; but fair Copies onely of some three Letters, one from Cardinal Barbe∣rin, and two more from Rospigliosi to others in Ireland, or rather indeed to all the Clergy of Ireland, exhorting them to stand manfully against Caron and me, and my intended design of the National Congregation. Each of those Papers had in the Frontispiece written, Copia vera; and as I knew after, they had been written or copied out so by the hand or pen of Abbot Claudius Agretti, then Se∣cretary to the Bruxels-Internuncio Rospigliosi, as he was before to de Vecchiis the former, and continued after to Airoldi the present Internuncio. Within a few dayes more, a Friend tells me, there was a young Dominican Father, by name Christopher O Ferrail, lately landed from Flanders, Louain, and Bruxels, with some extraordinary message and letters of importance to the Clergy, and that some Nights he lay in one Bed with his own Provincial John O Hairt, a known

zealous Anti-Remonstrant, keeping very close consultation together. After a day or two more, Father Mark Brown, a Franciscan (then lately come from Spain, and by the Minister General delegated as Commissary Visitator of all his Order in Ireland) came of purpose also to my Chamber, to let me know, and see, as a great secret, some Copies of Letters lately sent from Bruxels, and dispersed now both in Town and Countrey, to prevent the Convention of the Fathers.

Having seen and heard so many particulars of this Forreign design of Rome, I found it my duty to acquaint my Lord Lieutenant both with it, and all the particu∣lars of it, as I did. And in truth, if at any time, or in any conjuncture, I should be mindful of the obligation incumbent on me, not only as a Subject in general, nor only besides as one that sign'd the Remonstrance, and consequently obliged my self also by my own hand not to conceal such matters; but as one moreover on whose sincerity in particular the said Lord Lieutenant depended, nay, on whom His Majesty had in July 1662. at Hampton Court (when I had the honour on my departure then for Ireland to kiss His Majesties hand) laid His express com∣mand, That I should not deceive in any thing, or frustrate the Duke of Ormonds His Lord Lieutenant's expectation; if I say at any time, or in any conjuncture of publick Affairs, I should have been effectually mindful of my duty in acquainting his Grace with such pernicious designs, it must have been then, when His Majesty had open War with some Neighbours abroad, was on ill terms with others, had the Irish at home very ill satisfied, and the Tories every day starting out, grown numerous, and under Colonel Costelogh, even big with expectations from abroad, and of a more general insurrection at home, and when also the Duke himself ex∣pected that National meeting as at hand. In all other matters, or those, I mean, which related not to the safety of the Crown, or peace of the People, I have at all times been careful enough, and even as wary and charitable, and just also, as cap. would have me,* 87.1 and all others, at least Clergymen, be in concealing the personal imperfections (if any I had known) of other Clergymen. But if I had concealed any such ill designs undermining the safety of His Majesties Crown, or peace of the Kingdom, I had done like a bad Christian, worse Priest, false Re∣monstrant, disloyal Subject, and the very worst of Hypocrites. Nay, and done that which by consequence must in time have reflected on, and highly prejudiced His Majesties Roman-Catholick Subjects (especially the Irish) in general. For if I had been so treacherously perjured, even also against my own very manual signature: who is so dull as not to understand the use would be made thereof by all knowing Protestants upon any fit occasion to prejudice Catholicks? who not this obvious inference, viz. That if I who had writ and preach'd so much, had suf∣fered so much for, and been tryed so much in the point of Loyalty, and besides had been the leading man of all the Subscribers to that publick Instrument which par∣ticularly binds to discover all such dangerous designs or practices, should neverthe∣less upon new considerations fail in that duty, then certainly there could be no reason to repose thenceforth any more, or believe at all not even any protestati∣on whatsoever of any Priest continuing in the Roman-Catholick Religion? And yet I must let my Reader know, That all the while I did nothing in that, or any such matter, which I did not alwayes, and in all due occasions, both publickly and privately own as well to the National Congregation (when they were sate) as to other either less solemn meetings, or particular persons of the Irish Clergy: as themselves could not but see that not only I, but all other Subscribers (besides our being otherwise obliged) had even bound our selves particularly by our own manual Subscription, to do.

No sooner had my Lord Lieutenant those notices, then he sends to apprehend the foresaid Express, Christopher Ferrail in his Father Mr. Bryan Ferrail's house at Dublin; and being apprehended, commits him to Proudfort's Castle. On the 7th of June, a Committee of His Majesties Privy Council, viz. the Earl of Roscom∣mon, Earl of Anglesey, Sir Paul Davys, Sir Robert Forte, and Sir James Ware, ex∣amin'd him; and again the second time, on the 9th of the same month. The ori∣ginals of both Examinations subscribed as well by Ferrail himself, as by the said

Lords of the Committee, I have at present in my custody, though I confess there is not much material in either, save only that Ferral confess'd 1. That he re∣ceived from the Apostolick Internuncio of Flanders, Jacobus Rospigliosi, Letters for the Bishop of Ardagh Patrick Plunket, wherein there was enclosed another from Cardinal Francis Barberin to the Clergy of Ireland. 2. That from the same Internuncio he received a third Letter written by himself, (as Barberin had been) to the said Irish Clergy in general. 3. That the Internuncio had read all to him before they had been seal'd up in a Packet. 4. That the Contents of all were about warning that Clergy, to take heed of swearing Allegiance to their King, that it might not be to the prejudice of their own Faith. 5. That the Internuncio told him, he would send other Letters by the Post to a friend in Ireland, least he should miscarry. 6. That having parted Brussels May 13, or 14. Stylo Novo, and landed at Dublin about a fortnight, after he delivered all those Letters to the foresaid Bishop of Ardagh; those of them to the Clergy in general, having been with flying Seals open.

The first of the two Examinations being brought to the Lord Lieutenant, his Grace was pleased to send for me on the eighth of June, and shewing me the Pa∣per, bid me go presently tell the Bishop all, and that he must be sent for that ve∣ry Evening, but without any design, or intention to harm him; and therefore should not be frighted if he should see Sir William Flour, Lieutenant Collonel of the Regiment of Guards, come in a Coach to call for him at his Brothers Sir Ni∣cholas Plunket's house. When I had accordingly out of hand visited the Bishop, delivered my message and told him the confession of Ferral under his own hand, the good Prelat seem'd to be in a strange, perplex'd, and fearful confusion. But desiring my advice, and I telling him there was no way like truth, and that deal∣ing candidly, there would be no further jealousie of or reflection upon him, he goes into a corner of his Chamber, brings thence all the Letters, shews them me, and withal, prays me not to let others know that he delivered them (understand, after he had done so indeed) to the Lord Lieutenant. I was scarce parted when Sir William Flour came in the dusk of the Evening, called for the Bishop, and de∣siring his company in the Coach, led him (without notice taken by any) to the Kings Castle, and Lord Lieutenant there; to whose Excellencies own hands the Bishop delivered immediatly all the said original Letters with their own pro∣per Endorsements and Seals, both of the Internuncio and Cardinal.

Behold Reader, how, or by what means I came to have in my custody now those very originals (whereof you shall see presently the true copies.) For as soon as my Lord Lieutenant and Council had perused and seriously considered of them. His Grace was pleased to commit them to my custody; but withal telling me, that they were the only first arguments which perswaded the Earl of Anglesey and some other Lords of the Council, I was no cheat, nor the controversie twixt the Remonstrants, and Antiremonstrants a deceipt or trick; but a real difference twixt the Loyally and Disloyally principled or affected Irish. That Anglesey with many others, until themselves had seized and examined Ferral, and seen those Letters with the proper Hands and Seals to them, delivered so by Ardagh, had been of opinion, that Peter Walsh pretended a difference where there was none, but rather indeed all of both sides agreed to deceive the Protestants, and he to be the chief Actor therein. And that now, even the Earl of Anglesey him∣self in particular was so convinced of the contrary, that he declared, he would himself be thenceforth for repealing all the penal Laws in order to those downright honest Remonstrants, and all others, who should thenceforward freely and heartily joyn with them by subscribing that very Instrument, and like them standing to it constantly against all the censures and other Decrees, Plots, and Procedures of Rome.

Now to the tenour of these Letters. I give it first (according to the original) in that Language wherein they were written, i. e. in Latin, next rendred in English.

Cardinal Francis Barberins Letter from Rome April 24. 1666. to the Clergy and Catholicks of Ireland; superscribed thus: Praestantissimis Viris Clero & Catholicis Regni Hiberniae.

Praestantissimi Viri

QUadrienium jam pene fluxit, ex quo Sanctissimus Dominus noster, pro sua erga Vos dilectione, meis literis vos admonuit, saluti vel••rae immi∣nere periculum a falsis fratribus. Cum{que} maxime averet audire la∣queum contritum esse, & vos liberatos, nuntius tristis affertu••, conven∣tum inter vos esse, tertio Idibus Junii Coetum Dublinii cogi ad deliberandum de subscribendo illi protestationi, quae fidelitatis titulum praeferens, fidei Catholicae astruit adversantia. Jussit ergo Sanctitas sua vos per me serio commonefieri, ne fidelitatem civilem cum obedientia sedi Apostolicae debita confundatis, neve in vestrum induci animum patiamini Regi parere non posse illum qui Romano Pontifici morem gerit, cum immo nihil ad Regum Auctoritatem firmandam magis confe∣rat, quam in subditis fidele erga Pontificiam Auctoritatem obsequium. Et sane quae Lex Monarchico Regimini adeo favet quam Catholica? Quae justam Regibus subjectionem praecipit adeo arcte quam illa, quae obedire Praepositis suis aperte jubet? In hac igitur constantes estote, nec vestri animi robur tentet aut labefactet jactatus timor, nec fallant decipulae hostis humani generis, cui, utpote quae sunt mul∣tiplices nocendi artes, illa non defuit fidelitatis obtestationem blandioribus verbis attemperandi, quae tamen apta nullatenus sunt ad perniciem avertendam. Illis vero qui verecundiae limites transgressi, post tot irritos conatus, extremum tandem successum hunc designati Conuentus habuisse fortasse gloriantur, Sanctitas sua di∣vinam interminatur ultionem nisi se a pravis cogitationibus avocantes ab hujusmodi tentamentis abstineant. Vos interim totius Congregationis vestris negotiis prae∣positae nomine hortor, vestrae ut fortitudinis & fidei existimatio vestra{que} salus vo∣bis potissimum cordi sit, & gratam ut vicem Romanae Ecclesiae, quae in Christo vos genuit, rependatis. Reliquum est, ut pro certo omnes habeatis Vos unice diligi a Sanctissimo Domino Nostro, qui ab infelicibus vepretis & saltibus ad Domini pascua vos traduci a Deo optimo Maximo, incensis officio & charitate precibus exposcit.

Romae Aprilis 24. 1666.

Vester Amantissimus in Domino Franciscus Cardinalis Barberinus.

Rendred into English, the Superscription thus: To the most Excellent men the Clergy and Catholicks of the Kingdom of Ireland. And inner Tenour thus:

Most excellent Men

FOur years now are almost past, since our most Holy Lord, out of his love to you, hath by my Letters admonished you of dangers to your Salvation, which are impending from fals Brethren. And when he mightily desired to hear news of the snare broken, and you delivered, behold the sad tidings come of your having agreed amongst your selves that a Congregation shall be held at Dublin on the third of the Ides of June for deliberating on the point of subscribing that Pro∣testation, which making shew of the Title of fidelity, asserts things contrary to the Catholick Faith. Wherefore his Holiness hath commanded that by me you be seriously admonished not to confound civil fidelity with the obedience due to the See Apostolick, nor suffer it to enter into your Souls, that he cannot be truly obedient to the King, who doth this duty to the Roman Pontiff; whereas indeed nothing can more conduce to establish the Authority of Kings than in their Subjects a faithful obsequiousness to the Pontiffical Authority. And indeed what Law doth so favour the Monarchical Government as the Catholick? What doth so strictly command subjection as that which openly enjoyns all to obey their Superiours? Be therefore constant in this Law, nor let the traps of the enemy of human kind deceive you: to which enemy, as to whom the manifold Arts of harming are present, that of giving the foresaid pro∣testation of fidelity in more pleasing words was not wanting; which yet are no way able or fit to remove the mischief. But to those, who, having past the bounds of modesty, after so many vain endeavours, peradventure glory to have had this last success of the designed Assembly, His Holiness doth threaten sore, divine revenge, if they (turn∣ing from wicked thoughts) do not abstain from such enterprises. In the mean while I, in the name of the whole Congregation set over your affairs, do exhort you, that the opinion of your fortitude and faith, and the concern of your Salvation be above all things taken by you to heart, and that you pay a grateful return of good offices to the Roman Church, which hath begot you in Christ. The rest is, that you all hold for certain, you are singularly beloved by our most Holy Lord, who by prayers all set on fire with duty and Charity most earnestly begs of the most High God, that you may from those unhappy thickets of briars and wild Forrests of danger be brought to the pastures of the Lord.

Rome April 24. 1666.

Your most loving in the Lord Francis Cardinal Barberin.

The second Letter, or that which was from Rospigliosi, dated at Brussels, May 13. same year 1666. to the Clergy alone, superscribed thus: Reverendissimis ac Venerabilibus Dominis, Episcopis, Vicariis Sedium Vacantium, & reliquo Clero Hiberniae. And proceeding thus:

Reverendissimi ac Venerabiles Domini,

PUritas Fidei Catholicae, quae inter tot pericula & aerumnas illaesa permansit in Regno Hiberniae, efficit ut omnes Apostolici Administri merito habeant fideles illos pro dilectissimis Sanctae Sedis filiis, & tenerrimo effusoque stu∣dio erga res eorum afficiantur. Ego, qui non ex merito sed ex mera San∣ctissimi Domini Nostri beneficentia eumdem characterem sustineo, meaeque curae commissam habeo directionem negotiorum Vestri Regni, sentio mihi adeo acriter praecordia convelli, ut lachrymas continere nequeam, dum perpendo Nationem il∣lam, quae caeteris hactenus illustre constantiae exemplum fuit, & cuivis temporali commodo praetulit semper conservationem orthodoxae Religionis, divini cultus augmentum, & majorem gloriam Dei, nunc versari in periculo, ob insidias quorum∣dam a Patre Iniquitatis, humani generis hoste seductorum, contaminandi illam eamdem Fidem cujus splendorem per totum Orbem tot & tam praeclare gestis ha∣ctenus conata est conservare & augere. Eo quidem tendit Juramentum ad quod subscribendum Valesius & Caronus per varias technas satagunt persuadere Eccle∣siasticos, sicque illos facere Instrumenta & causam Damnationis caeterorum. Iste est finis ob quem tanto nisu promovent congressum Dubliniensem. Et quamvis fin∣gant se moveri zelo fidelitatis debitae Regi, satis patet esse merum fucum ad bonos decipiendos, quoniam abunde notvm est & compertum omnibus, quam firmiter ra∣dicatum in animo affectum, reverentiam, & obedientiam habeant erga Serenissi∣mam Majestatem suam, ac ne optari quidem posse documenta ampliora iis quae ha∣ctenus exhibuerunt. Et si quid praeterea tentant Valesius & Caronus spectat non ad augendam fidelitatem Populorum erga Principem, sed ad exterminandam puri∣tatem Catholicae Religionis, cujus destructivum est praefatum Juramentum & con∣sequenter ad cunctos fideles Hibernos in lachrymosam ac perpetuo deflendam er∣niciem detrudendos. Quanto gravius est periculum tanto amplius meritum ac∣quiret penes Omnipotentem Deum quicumque animo zeloso & constanti, suavique ac prudenti moderamine remedium opportunum attulerit imminenti periculo. Neque possunt oves alio quam vestro praesidio defendi a morsu laetali pravae sugge∣stionis; quoniam ob eruditionem & dignitatem Sacerdotalem vos praecipue vene∣rantur & suspiciunt, eademque ratione tenemini earum saluti enixe & sedulo con∣sulere. Igitur vos in visceribus Christi rogo obtestorque, ut tot praesentes tot posteros vestros Conterraneos ab interitu ac casu irreparabili revocetis, ne Christus Dominus in durissimo judicio, iis qui praesunt faciendo, districtam a vobis ratio∣nem indiligenter peractae villicationis exigat. Nec plura addere operae praetium duco, cum causa ipsa quae Dei Cultum, Salutem Patriae, honorem Generis vestri inseparabiliter attinet, zelum vestrum per se incendat, excitet, & adhortetur. Fi∣nio igitur Altissimum orans, ut vos gratia sua praeveniat, & sequatur, ac bonis con∣siliis jugiter praestet esse intentos.

Bruxellis 13 May, 1666.

Reverendissimi ac Venerabiles Domini, Vester Devotissimus Servus, & ad omnia officia paratissimus, Jacobus Rospigliosi, Abbas S. Mariae, Internuncius Apostolicus.

The Superscription was: Reverendissimis ac Veneralibus Dominis D. Episcopis, Vicariis Sedium Vacantium, & reliquo Clero Hiberniae. Rendered into English, the Superscription in these words: To the most Reverend Lords, Bishops, and the Venerable the Vicars of the vacant Sees, and the rest of the Clergy of Ireland. And the inner Contents as here:

Most Reverend Lords, and Venerable Sirs,

THE purity of Catholick Faith, which amongst so many dangers and tri∣bulations remain'd without stain or spot in the Kingdom of Ireland, makes all Apostolick Ministers to esteem those faithful deservedly the most be∣loved sons of the Holy See, and to have a most tender and affectionate re∣gard of all their Concerns. I, who through no merit of my own, but out of the meer beneficence of our most Holy Lord, bear the character of such a Minister, and have the direction of the affairs of your Kingdom committed to my charge, feel my bowels so grievously pull'd and torn in pieces, that I cannot forbear weeping, when I consi∣der that Nation, which to all other Nations hath been hitherto an illustrious example of constancy, and which before all temporal advantages hath alwayes preferr'd the conservation of Orthodox Religion, increase of Divine Worship, and greater glory of God, to be now in danger (through the wiles of some seduced by the Father of iniquity, the Foe of humane kind) of contaminating that very Faith, the splendor of which throughout the whole earth by so many and such glorious deeds it hath hitherto endeavoured to preserve and increase. To that indeed tends the Oath, to the subscribing of which, Walsh and Caron, by so many subtle arts, labour to per∣suade the Churchmen, and so make them Instruments and causes of the damnation of others. That is the end for which they use such great endeavours to promote the Dublin Assembly. And albeit they feign themselves moved out of zeal of fidelity due to the King, yet this appears sufficiently to be but meer false dye to deceive the good; because it is abundantly known, and manifest to all, what affection, reverence and obe∣dience, and how firmly rooted in their very Souls towards His most Serene Majesty the Irish have, and that greater arguments hereof than those they have already given may not even be wished for. And if any thing besides Walsh and Caron do attempt, it looks not towards strengthning the fidelity of the People to their Prince, but to∣wards exterminating the Purity of Catholick Religion, whereof the foresaid Oath is destructive, and consequently towards forcing all the faithful Irish to deplorable, and ever to be lamented ruine. By how much the more grievous the danger is, by so much the greater will his merit be with Almighty God, whoever shall by means of a zealous and constant resolution, and of a sweet and prudent moderation, bring a timely and fit remedy against so great and imminent a danger. Nor can the sheep by any others help or care but yours, be defended from the deadly bite of wicked suggestion; because for your erudition and sacerdotal dignity, they venerate and esteem you chiefly; and for the same reason you are bound to look diligently and earnestly to their salvation. Wherefore in the bowels of Christ I pray and beseech you, that so many yet surviving so many of their posterity hereafter to come, your Countreymen you revoke and keep from death and irrecoverable destruction; least Christ our Lord in his most regorous judgment, even that which must be expected by all those placed over others, may re∣quire of you a strict account of your Stewardship indiligently performed. To add more, I do not think it worth the while, whereas the cause it self, which to the service of

God, safety of your Countrey, honour of your Extraction is seperably tyed, doth of it self exhort, excite, and inflame your zeal. I conclude therefore praying the most High, that he may with his Grace both prevent and follow you, and work with you so that you may always be intent to good Counsels,

Bruxels May 13. 1666.

Most Reverend Lords and Venerable Sirs

Your most Devoted Servant, and most ready for all offices, James Rospigliosi, Abbot of S. Mary, Internuncius Apostolical.

Third of these Letters, or the said Internuncio Rospigliosi's to the Bishop of Ardagh (but to be communicated to the Bishop of Kilfinuram and to all the Vicars Apostolical and Capitulary of the Kingdom) superscribed thus:

Reverendissimo Domino Domino Episcopo Ardachadensi.

Then proceeding thus:

Reverendissime Domine,

EX adjunctis Eminentissimi Cardinalis Barberini, ac ex proprio zelo Reve∣rendissima Dominatio Vestra cognoscet, quam gravis ac damnosa futura sit Catholicae Religioni subscriptio protestationis propositae a Valesio & Caro∣no, ac indictus in eum finem ipsorum opera Conventus Dublinii. Et quam∣vis hoc pessimum in Ecclesiam Sanctam consilium conentur palliare specioso prae∣textu obsequii ac fidelitatis erga Regem, apparet esse merum fucum seducendis animabus adinventum: cum certum sit ipsum Christiani nomen requirere, ut qui eo gloriantur, in praedicta fidelitate non solum Religiosi sint & exacti, sed & cae∣teris exemplo praeluceant: nec dubitandum sit unumquem{que} quo parius Religi∣onem Orthodoxam coluerit eo observantiorem fore Regiae dominationis, que∣madmodum Hiberni ipsi hactenus plane testatum fecerant. Partes Reveren∣dissimae Dominationis Vestrae sunt, id serio inculcare omnibus ratione numeris Episcopalis sibi a Christo Domino per ejus in terris Vicarium impositi: ac curare ne ejus Conterranci sinceritatem fidei, quam inter acerrimas persequutiones illiba∣tam servarunt, nunc primum juramento praedicto adulterent. Et sane si secus eos facere contingat, facile malevoli nunc & apud Posteros id detorquebunt in culpam & tepiditatem eorum quj Regimen Ecclesiasticum obtinebant: uti vice versa novum sibi meritum coram Deo tota{que} Natione acquiret, si sua cura & Au∣thoritate conatus falsorum fratrum subverterit. Censeo quidem me Reveren∣dissimae Dominationis Vestrae ornamento, existimationi, & dignitati consulere dum haec ipsi propono. Dignabitur praesentem, & Eminentissimi Cardinalis epi∣stolam, communem facere etiam Reverendissimo Finniborensi, si degat in Regno (ad eum enim non scribo, quia extra morari dubito) pariter{que} Dominis Vicariis Apostolicis ac Capitularibus Regni, quibus commode poterit. Reverendissimae Dominationis Vestrae responsum expecto ea anxietate qua facile me teneri credet, & tamquam Ministrum Apostolicum c••i res Hiberniae incumbunt, & tamquam

Catholicum, quo solo nomine tenemur omnes proximorum saluti in vigilare. Hac occasione Reverendissimae D. Vestrae in eius merita cultum, in obsequium pro∣pensionem addicens, diutissimam apprecor sospitatem,

Bruxellis May 13. 1666.

Reverendissimae D. Vestrae Devotissimus Servus Jacobus Rospigliosius, Abbas S. Mariae Internuncius Aplicus.

Rendred in English.

Most Reverend Lord,

OƲT of the annexed of Cardinal Barberin's, and your proper Zeal, your Lord∣ship will know, how grievous and hurtful to Catholick Religion the Sub∣scription of that protestation proposed by Walsh and Caron, and the As∣sembly to that end, through their endeavours summon'd to be held at Dublin, will be. And albeit, this their worst of counsels against Holy Church, they labour to cloak under the specious pretext of obedience and fidelity towards the King, it ap∣pears to be meer paint, invented for the seduction of Souls: whereas it is certain, the very name of a Christian requires, that such as glory therein be in the said fidelity, not only Religious and exact, but even exemplars enlightning others: nor can it be doubted, that by how much more purely any one shall devote himself to Orthodox Reli∣gion, by so much he shall the better observe His Majestie's Royal Dominion; as the very Irish themselves have hitherto made fully manifest. Your most reverend Lord∣ships Province it will be to inculcat that seriously unto all, by reason of the Episcopal Character from Christ our Lord by his Vicar in Earth imposed on you, and to take care that your Countrey-men do not now first by the foresaid Oath adulter at the sincerity of Faith, which amidst most cruel Persecutions they preserved spotless. And indeed if it should happen them to do otherwise, the malevolent will easily both now and in after ages lay the blame thereof on the neglect and lukewarmness of those who had the Ecclesiastical Government: as on the other side, you will purchase to your self new merits before God, and that whole Nation, If by your care and Authority you subvert the endeavours of fals Brethren. Which things while I propound to you, I think truly that I have a special regard of your esteem, honour, and dignity. You may be pleased also to communicate both this and the annexed of the most Eminent Cardinal to the most Reverend Kilfunaran, if he be in the Kingdom (for I write not to him, because I doubt whether he be not in other parts abroad) and likewise to such of the Masters Vicars Apostolical and Capitulary of the Kingdom as you may commodiously. Your most Reverend Lordship's answer I expect with that anxi∣ety which you may easily believe possesseth me, both as an Apostolick Minister, on whom the affairs of Ireland are incumbent; and as a Catholick, by which name alone we are bound to watch for the Salvation of our Neighbours. Ʋpon this oc∣casion, addicting reverence to your merits, and inclination to my own observance of you, I wish your most Reverend Lordship the longest health.

Bruxels May 13. 1666.

Your most Reverend Lordship's Most devoted Servant James Rospigliosi, Abbot of St. Mary Internunce Apostol.

Besides these three Letters, which you have now read, you shall further have (in the next Section) three more from this very Internunce Rospigliosi to others on the same Subject: as you have also had before in the First Part of this Trea∣tise, Sect VII. pag. 16, & 17. some former Letters both from the foresaid Car∣dinal Barberin, and from Internuncio Hierominus de Vecchys the Predecessour of this Rospigliosi, in the Belgick Internunciature.

But before I perclose this present Section, I think it not amiss to give some brief animadversions. 1. That Cardinal Barberin here, or in the above Letter of this year 1666. relates to the former of his, dated July 8. 1662. which you have pag. 17. of the First Part. 2. That you must look on both these Letters as not Cardinal Barberins alone, but as the Letters of all the whole Congrega∣tion de propaganda side, nay and as written also even by his Holiness's command: as you may see by the express tenour of them; for that de propaganda Fide is the Congregation of Cardinals set over the affairs of Ireland. 3. That both Cardinals and Internuncius's write and censured so that harmless Formalary, as if it had been the very Oath of Abjuration, it I mean Abjuring the five Roman Catholick Tenets viz. those of Invocation of Saints, Worship of Jmages, Merit of good Works, Purgatory, and Transubstantiation. And verily if it had been a formal, real, and total abjuration not only of the Roman Catholick Religion and Communion, but of all kind of Christianity, what could these both supercili∣ous and erroneous Roman Censours have said more or worse in generals than they have to condemn it, and to make all Irish Catholicks abhor it? That ne∣vertheless, and because they build only on fals suppositions, and dwell only in generals, (according to the Maxim in generalibus verfatur dolosus) nay because also they seem either not to have at any time perused at all that Instrument which they so briskly censure, or (if they have) then certainly in writing so as you see they do against true Christian and Catholick Doctrine, to have been themselves guilty of damnable both Hypocrisie and Heresie (unless you will peradventure say, they were meer Ignoramus••s in the point, and might be allowed therein some grains even of invincible ignorance, because of their worldly interest blinding them irrecoverably, and even to stupidity:) their censures were not otherwise regarded by the Subscribers of that Instrument, or indeed any other knowing men, than those of the University of Louain, in the year 1662. against the same Instrument were, i. e. no otherwise then meer inventions, Delusions, Impostures, Cheats, fixed upon of purpose to maintain the worst cause in the world, even damnable Usurpation and diabolical Pride, and maintain these even by the most impudent lying pretences of any which the very greatest Hypocrites and Here∣ticks do, or can use. 5. That all whatever I have said already (in the First Part of this Treatise) any where against Dissentors, but more especially and so diffusely from page 118. to page 587. against the four chief grounds of the Censures of Louain, have in effect answered also and refuted as fully all whatever grounds the writers of these Letters could as much as pretend; (albeit I confess) they al∣ledge none at all. 6. That both Barbarin and Rospigliosi, as you see, have also made somewhat too bold even with that incommunicable priviledge of God, I mean his Divine searching and seeing throughly the hearts and all the most inward designs of Men. Otherwise how could they presume to Censure and judge of the very most unrevealed, unsignified, unappearing thoughts or designs of Caron and Walsh? But God, the only true searcher and seer of hearts, be praised, they, as in all other points most supercilious and erroneous Censors, so in this parti∣cular have most certainly, and evidently been not only as uncharitable, temerari∣ous Judges, but as false seers as any have ever yet pretended to judge, or see any thing of those inward thoughts or designs of others which had no being or ex∣istence at all, but in the lying malicious imagination of calumny. For 1. And as for what concern'd Father Caron, as there are yet alive witnesses enough who can swear truly, that he was no nearer then my Lord Powes's house in Wales, when the Remonstrance was first come from Ireland, was debated, and subscribed at London, upon the 11. and 15. of February, 1661. S.Ʋ. (albeit before it was

Printed he came to London and subscribed) so I can swear no less truly that he neither knew, nor was once consulted with about either the Indiction, before it was done, or about the furthering or promoting at any time after, the effect of that Indiction, i. e. the meeting it self; nay that he was not concern'd at all, whether it should be held or not, because he was brought low by sickness for all the time (i. e. for many moneths) before it was held, and a great sickness indeed, which laid him in his Grave before those Letters which occasion this discourse were brought to Ireland by Ferral. Besides, who read either his English or Latin works defending the Remonstrance, but hath withal seen him driving perpetually at Temporalia omnia Regi, & Spiritualia omnia Pontifici? Is this to design the overthrow, ruine, or extirpation of the Catholick Faith? And 2. and for what concerns my self, I can and do religiously call (not him who is the Domi∣nus Deus noster Papa of Zenzelinus the Glossator, but) the truly and only all-seeing God to witness, That to my remembrance, or knowledge of my self, my own designs in forwarding either the Remonstrance it self at any time, or in any way, or the National Congregation for to sit or to sign it, were as far from the false surmise of Cardinal Barberin and Rospigliosi, as Tertullian or Justin (the Martyr) were from designing the suppression or corruption of Christianity when they writ their Apologies for that Religion to the Senate and Emperours of Pagan Rome. 7. That 'tis pleasant to see Barberin tell us, he had a command from his Holiness to write to the Clergy and Catholicks of Ireland, they should beware of the danger from false brethren (viz. Caron, Walsh, and the rest of the Sub∣scribers) and even such danger as threatned their eternal Salvation; nay such as certainly precipitated them into Eternal Damnation, says Rospigliosi. So errone∣ously wicked, Anti-Catholick, nay Anti-Christian it is, if we believe these men to acknowledge Charles the Second to be within his own Dominions either King at all, or Supream Lord in Temporals, independently from the Pope: or to teach, maintain, assert, or believe that his Roman Catholick Subjects are (notwithstand∣ing any Papal Power or pretence, and notwithstanding any sentence either of ex∣communication or deposition from such Papal Power) bound under pain of Sin, as much as any Protestants, to obey his Majesty in all Civil and Temporal affairs, according to, or as far as the Laws of the Land require obedience from them in such Temporal matters. For this Doctrine or acknowledgment of the Remon∣strance, and only this in substance, is all the danger: and is only it also that made Caron, Walsh, and other Subscribers to lye under the infamous title of false Bre∣thren. And truly, that nothing else, or more in effect is in the Protestation or Remonstrance, which so strangly allarum'd them at Rome, you see demonstrated particularly and diffusely Part. 1. Sect. LXXVII (from Pag. 462. to Pag. 487.) That very Section which concludes the whole discourse against the Divines of Louain. 8. That it is no less pleasant, i. e. ridiculous, to see the same Cardinal further tell the Irish, he was commanded by his Holiness to admonish them seriously, not to confound civil obedience, with that other due to the Apostolick See: and by civil obedience he means that which is, or shall be paid in Civil or Temporal things to the King. Now is not this a very wise admonition, or rather pretty cheat of confounding words, where the Cardinal dares not speak his mind plainly or sin∣cerely at all? Did ever Caron, Walsh, or other of the Subscribers, or could they indeed by the Remonstrance intend to confound both obediences, or that which is uni∣versally due in all Temporal or Civil affairs to the King, according to the Laws, and that which is to the Pope, only in some Spiritual or Ecclesiastical matters accor∣ding to the Canons? Nay, doth not the Remonstrance profess only the former to the King; leaving, and that expresly too, the latter as due to the Pope? And were not therefore the Irish, or the Remonstrants, they that of one side perfectly distin∣guished those obediences, but the Cardinal and his Associats they of the other that horribly confounded the Spiritual with the Civil? Nay, that made the Spiritual swallow up at one gulp the whole Civil? that would have no kind of obedience at all not even in meer temporals or Civil things paid our King by us, and consequently have him to be no King, by our good will, if not precarious, and dependent for his

Crown from the Pope? otherwise why the Remonstrance so dangerous; so per∣nicious, so damnable, so adverse to Catholick Faith, so destructive to Eternal Salvation? It only acknowledges Civil obedience due to him; and consequent∣ly his Kingship only in Temporals. If such bare acknowledgment be so wicked and uncatholick at Rome, then it must be such also to say, that Charles the Second is in any true sense at all our King. But we must pardon the Cardinals phrasing his mind, being he dared not speak all out plainly or clearly: and must give him leave rather to speak meer nonsense all along now, or at least, nothing but false and ridiculous suppositions, and even as such known to himself. For, I beseech, what else doth the second part of his admonition here to the Irish import or signifie? what this, I mean, neve in vestrum induet animum patiamini, Regi part∣re non posse qui Romano Pontifici morem gerit? As if Caron, Walsh, or any others had at any time, or upon any account whatsoever (or at least on some) endea∣voured to perswade the Irish, they could not be obedient to the King while they acknowledge any veneration of, dependence from, or obedience to the Pope in such Spiritual matters as properly belong to his Holiness, according to the Ca∣nons. Then which supposition nothing can be more false. Indeed it is very true and evident also, that none can be truly or really faithful to the King who pays that obedience to the Roman Pontiff which Cardinal Barberin means here (but not sufficiently expresses, if not to his own Cabal) by his morem gerit. As for his reason, or assertion added, in these other words, Cum immo nihil ad Regum Au∣thoritatem firmandam magis conferat, quam in subditis fidele erga Pontificiam Aucto∣ritatem obsequium, it is no less evidently fals, then we manifestly know out of Histo∣ry, That such faithful obsequiousness to the Popes (as he means) hath but too too often armed the Subjects against their even both Christian and Catholick Princes, Kings, Emperours, nay, the very Sons against their Loyal Fathers, and again others against these very Sons though crowned with Imperial Diadems. And for his two Queries immediatly following, viz. these, Et sane quae Lex Mo∣narchico Regimini adeo favet quam Catholica? Quae justam Regibus subjectionem precipit adeo arcte quam illa quae obedire Praepositis suis aperte jubet? Certainly, nothing could be more either fallaciously or impertinently demanded, to his pur∣pose. The true Catholick (i. e. Christian) Law equally favours all kinds of law∣ful Governments, where ever lawfully introduced and established, whether Mo∣narchical, Aristocratical or Democratical. And the Gospel of Christ delivered by the Apostles Peter, and Paul equally commands obedience to the Supream Civil Power, without any distinction of the Power placed in one man, or in many: for the Apostles speak sometimes in the singular number, and at other times in the plural. Nay in the very place the Cardinal here alludes unto out of Paul, (which is Obedite praepofitis vestris & subiacete eis. Ipsi enim pervigi∣lant, quasi rationem pro animabus vestris reddituri) is in the Plural. And yet who sees not withal how impertinently this place is alluded unto here by the Cardinal,* 93.1 as making any jot for obedience to the meer Lay, or Civil Power? being the Praepositi spoken of in it by Paul, are onely the meer Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Officers or Ministers. Besides, would not the Cardinal change his application, if he were to speak on the present Subject to the State either of Venice, or Genua, or other Common-wealths in Italy? And yet after all, I confess that his pre∣tended but very false Religion or Law Catholick (I mean that of his Congregati∣on and Court) as to the controverted point favours more indeed only his Mo∣narchical Government, and his indeed only Independent Monarch both Spititual and temporal on Earth, the great Roman Pontiff, under whom, in his Doctrine, all other Princes and States are but petty precarious Vicars: and favours that more (I say) then any other Law. But can or ought therefore such a Mystery impose on us, to perswade any against Caron, or Walsh, or their fellow-Subscri∣bers, or the Instrument it self which they Subscribed? nay, can it indeed lull a sleep Supream Temporal Princes or States? 9. That hence appears, I might with much reason both examin what he means by his In hac (where immediatly after his said excellent arguments he advises the Irish in these terms, In hac igitur con∣stantes

estote, nec vestri animi robur tentet aut labefactet jactatus timor &c.) but also retort on himself, his decipulae hostis humani generis &c. and tell, that as he mean•• not the true Catholick Law, but that of the Court of Rome only: so it is him∣self, and his Associats that have been catch'd in the decipulae of, and prompted by the inimicus homo qui superseminavit Zizania in agrotritici, when he and they for maintaining their own Usurpation and Pride writ so many uncatholick and un∣christian Letters to lead Captive again the miserable Irish, and praecipitate them indeed to both Temporal and Eternal Destruction. 10. That by his following threats of Divine Vengeance from the most Holy Father against those he says were past the bounds of modesty, (as also by so many other expressions not only both in this Letter, and former too, in the year 1662. of the Cardinals, but in those also of the three Bruxels Internuncios, one after another De Veccii, Rospigliosi, and the present Airoldi) originally, and truly indeed may be seen, whence the great storm at last of Citations, Excommunications, Denunciations, Depositions, &c. against me and my friends have proceeded, especially since the year 1669. to this present 1673. But it is well they have not at Rome that true Divine Vengeance at their will. And well that in such matters I owe them no obedience, not even by vow or otherwise. And best of all that I can be (both in foro Dei & in foro Ecclesia) of the Faith and Communion of the true Catholick and Apostolick Church, even Roman also, (if this new Epithet must come in to the Creed) without being, in such mat∣ters, of the pretended Catholick either Communion or Faith of the Roman Court. 11. And Lastly, that Rospigliosi's Convulsion fitts and commiserating tears, his either true or counterfeit weeping, and all his flattering Oratory that follows, must of necessity make even the most serious and sober man to smile, when he con∣siders an Apostolick Minister seeking to impose on the World, endeavouring, by such lying Arts, and notoriously false suppositions finely worded, to perswade more knowing men then himself to continue in errour. For the truth is, that neither he nor Barberin, nor Congregation, nor Pope himself, could have with all their Letters or Arguments, or Prayers, or Tears perswaded any one of the very most seeming Bigots of the Irish Clergy to such vain, and fals, and pernicious Opinions as the Remonstrance renounceth, if the Irish proprietors had been restored, and the penal Laws against Catholicks in general repealed, and no access visible for the said Ecclesiasticks to any Church-preferment, Benefice, or even titular Office or Dignity, but as in former Catholicks times when the Laws of Praemunire were uni∣versally and strictly observed. But those things not being so, we must not won∣der much, if the less consciencious and more ambitious leading men, joyn'd with others amongst them naturally desirous of a total change, made use of those Letters both to fright the honester, and lesser party of the otherwise well-affected, well-principled, and to amuse the Populace too of their communion with the Autho∣rity of the Court of Rome, and great Pontiff himself, as if the Catholick Re∣ligion and Faith had been really and truly invaded by the Remonstrance, and the Anti-remonstrants therefore ought to be excused for their opposition of it.

IX.

AND yet they saw well enough, that all they could say of that nature, was not sufficient to excuse them from meeting together in the National Con∣gregation. Besides their Intelligencers at Dublin had not after Ferrals landing time enough to send Coppies of the Cardinals and Internuncius's Letter to all parts of the Kingdom, where the persons concern'd were all of them at that very time preparing for their journey to Dublin. Therefore on the 9th of June be∣ing Saturday, and most of the Fathers come from several parts, and the Bishop of Ardagh (though very much contrary to my former expectation of him) fal∣len on a sudden from his former Professions, and the Bishop of Kilfinuran (who a few days before was landed out of France) and he with some others having con∣ferr'd notes together, behold a strange contrivance of the same Ardagh to pre∣vent

and hinder that (i. e. the Meeting) which those Letters could not. For on that evening he accosts several of the Fathers come to town, and tells them, my chief design in giving way first unto, and next in promoting so much the National Meeting, was only, or at least partly, to get them all to sign a Petition to the King or Lord Lieutenant, acknowledging themselves and all the rest of the Roman Ca∣tholick Clergy Regular and Secular of Ireland to be Traytors and Rebels. Which proceeding from a Bishop that always till then was reputed my friend, and the only Bishop too that sign'd the Letters of Indiction, could not chuse but startle such as knew me not throughly: however, in it self otherwise incredible. But so it was notwithstanding, and so upon a sudden the false report, like a watch word, pass'd from one to another: and the Motion both and Exhortation was no less sudden and rash, like that in the Book of Kings, ad tentoria tua O Israel, every one to his own home, and not as much as to stay in Town for Monday the 11th. of June, and consequently not as much as to meet at all in any such National Congre∣grtion. While some were running to and fro, relating that imposture, and many encouraging one another to depart, others that believed it not, came to me, and told me thereof, and of the design. And then it was that I first concluded absolutely that Ardagh had sold himself to Rome for a new Translation, which by Oliver Plunket, his Kinsman, he had sollicited in that Court for some years. And yet I could not but wonder that a Bishop should have so little Conscience before God, or so little care of himself before men, as to be the Author of such a Calumny, though a calumny more ridiculous in it self, than injurious to me. For as soon as I heard it, and gave a true account of what pass d twixt the Bishop and me, which might have given occasion to that forgery, it vanish'd, and no man believed a word of it. In short, the occasion was this, and no other but this. Either the very morning of that Ninth of June, or a day or two before, visiting this Bishop of Ardagh, and falling into a discourse with his Lordship of the method fit to be taken by the Fathers when assembled, I said that in my opinion the Fathers should in the first place depute some of their body to acquaint His Grace with their be∣ing Assembled: then to render humble thanks for His Majesties permission of, or connivence at their meeting: and together also to present a Petition to his Grace, wherein after they had in general terms expressed not only their ingenuous and sorrowful acknowledgment of too too much having been acted contrary to Law and Reason by the generality of the Irish Clergy of the Roman Communion since Octob. 23. 1641. nor only their humble acknowledgement of the obnoxious∣ness of the Clergy therefore to the Laws; but also their hearty Repentance for, and detestation of all such no more unhappy and fatal, than wicked and criminal actings of either the whole, or greater, or lesser part, or even of any individual persons or person whatsoever living or dead of that Clergy. And after they had further in the most humble and moving expressions could be, implored His Ma∣jesties gracious and general pardon to all and singular the surviving Irish Ecclesi∣asticks any way guilty during the late Civil Wars: they should in the perclose of all, both declare and humbly offer their readiness to give whatever arguments of their future obedience and faithfulness to His Majesty which not intrenching on Catholick Religion should be desired of them. What arguments I used then to perswade the Bishop of the necessity of such a Petition shall be seen hereafter Sect. XI. Where I tell how I repeated and urged the same thing again to the Congregation it self when sate. At present 'tis sufficient to see and know, that as I gave no other ground to that contrivance, that ridiculous (though withal mali∣cious) surmise of the Bishop: so, I can and do call God sincerely to witness, that both my words and my intention in giving that occasion were pure and good, and only tending to the general good, i. e. to a general pardon for that whole Clergy without any either distinction or exception of, or any reflection at all upon any Faction, or as much as any one particular Person of all Ireland. How much more think you without design to get the Fathers of the Assembly accuse themselves eve∣ry one under their own proper hands? And yet men that otherwise of themselves, and for other ends of their own, were ready to catch at any occasion which might

be a colour to hinder the intended Assembly, did hug this lying story, that I doubt very much whether even after I my self had disabused them (and upbraided too the Bishop to his face with his ungrounded, distorted, (that I may not say) ma∣lignant interpretation of my both innocent words and meaning, and that he had nothing to reply, but that he had thought my end was such; and having given this short answer flung away in anger) they had not, pretending that lying story as a just cause, withdrawn out of town before, or at least by Monday morning, the day prefix'd for sitting, if Providence had not otherwise disposed and prepared the ar∣rival of the Packet that very Saturday early in the evening, and the news there∣by of his Royal Highnesses the Duke of York's great Victory in the first Sea-fight against the Hollanders, and the great joy thereupon amongst all the Loyal Party, and all the Streets in Town immediatly full of Bonefires to testifie both the cer∣tainty of that news, and greatness of their joy. This, if I be not much mista∣ken, was the most powerful aagument to deter the most factious of the members from running away before Monday, as was intended. But that they had not laid by (not even then) all thoughts at least of breaking and dissolving the Assem∣bly in the very beginning thereof, or before it could come to any issue on the matters expected from them, will appear hereafter.

In the mean while, and before I close this present Section, the Reader may be pleased to take notice, that I omitted nothing I could do by visiting and reasoning with those leading men to rectifie them; especially the two Bishops, viz. Ard∣ach and Kalfinuran. For I must confess I was singularly concern'd in these two, not being then certain of any other Bishop to come in person; and because also I had formerly given but too often (for several years) my opinion to the Lord Lieutenant of their honest Principles and good Affections to the Royal Cause, nay and of their Judgments and hands too in France to the very Remonstrance, when it first came out in the year 1662. S. N. and was sent them to France, before either of them left that Countrey. I remembred how often I had sollicited the Duke in the year 1661. for his savour to these very two Bishops in particular above any other, and his special permission of, or at least connivance at their return home, if they were minded to return. And remembred well, I to that end, often repeat∣ed these two Arguments to his Grace. viz. 1. That each of them had sided with the Supream Council against the Nuncio, in the difference of the Cessation and Censures. 2. That neither of them had subscribed the Acts, or been present at the Congregations of Jamestown and Galway, made and held against the Peace of 1648. and the Royal Authority in his person then. And my third Argument for them was the Bishop of Ardach's Letter from Seez to his Brother Sir Nicho∣las Plunket, (see pag. 13. of the First Part) and the Bishop of Kilfinuran's getting sub∣scriptions at St. Malos (whereof see also pag. ibid p. 12.) Now it was no little grief to me, to see my self wholly deceived in my former good opinion, and partly also in my Relation of them. I had truly some weeks before Kilfinuran's Landing en∣tertained some little jealousie of him for several reasons; but particularly for his being so lately and long Incognito at Paris and with the Popes Nuncio there, and yet signifying not a word to me by Letter or Messenger. And when I knew that Ardagh had received the Letters of Rome and Bruxels from Ferral, and kept and made use of them without giving me one word of notice or advice (so much con∣trary to his former custome) I could not choose but entertain at least the like jea∣lousie of him also. But after I had a little more sounded them and considered how (when they were pleased to dine with me some few days before the Congre∣gation sate) Kilfinuran not only declared to my self that he came in cuerpo out of France, not having brought any kind of thing with him; that he had left behind him a Thousand pounds worth of Books, Church-stuff, and Plate of his own; and that he was to return immediatly and hold to his 300. Pistols a year which he enjoyed in France; but (upon some other occasion of discourse) plainly also to my self, That he had never opposed the Nuncio, nor done any thing in the former differences without sufficient permission from Him: and how Ardagh likewise even to my self declared that his only reason for not sitting in or going to Jame∣stown-Congregation,

that of the Bishops in the year 1650. was their presumptu∣ous uncanonical coming into and holding a Synod (however Nationally) within his Diocess without his own Licence first demanded (for that Jamestown is within the Diocess of Ardagh;) whereas, indeed I had formerly thought and related al∣so of him, that only because he knew their design was evil, he refused to come to them: and not these only, but the further certain intelligence brought me that Ar∣dach and some others, had fully resolved to decline the former Remonstrance, and to that end had some weeks before contrived a new, but very short, and altogether un∣significant Formulary of Recognition for the Fathers (when, or if assembled) to sign: after (I say) I had seriously considered all these discoveries, I could not but absolutely conclude either my own former grand mistake, or their latter no less grand inconstancy, or rather both.

And therefore, having first acquainted my Lord Lieutenant with all such parti∣culars as he that was most concern'd of any not to be deceived, nor imposed up∣on by those men, I minded however these two Bishops of their duty to present themselves to his Grace before the Congregation sate, or at least before they pro∣ceeded in any matters therein; and the rather, that they might no longer rely on my bare word of his permission of such an Assembly, but hear it from his own mouth, whereby to remove all pretended scruples whatsoever as to that point, if peradventure any of the Fathers did yet doubt thereof. Accordingly, their way being prepared, I my self (with his Graces leave) introduced them at night to His Grace, who received them privately in His Closet, and withal the obliging re∣spect and Civility indeed which the Laws, Religion, and reason of State could allow him to shew. After salutes, and some other few words of course, having placed them in seats by him (for I and none else was present all the while, and saw and heard all) His Grace was pleased in short to let them know 1. Why he per∣mitted their Assembly. 2. That they (i.e.) their Irish Clergy lately before since the Kings Restauration, had lost even a very great and good opportunity to redeem themselves from the consequences of those just and perpetual jealousies of them, which the carriage of their Clergy in the late unhappy Wars of that Nation had deeply planted in the hearts of all Protestants. 3. That now again Providence had in the present conjuncture of publick affairs, i.e. of the War with Holland and France, and of all other circumstances, even those also at home in Ireland, gi∣ven them the second, even great likewise and good opportunity to do themselves and their Country, Communion, and Religion that right and Justice at last which might prevail with His Majestie's Clemency, Mercy, and Goodness, not only to blot out of his remembrance all their former failings, but thenceforth think them fit ob∣jects of his further gracious commiseration and Indulgence. 4. That, if they would lose this occasion also, or not improve it as they ought, they might after wish indeed but possibly never in their days meet the like again. 5. And Lastly, that after they had considered of, and resolved upon that which was the principal end of their meeting, it became them also to consider seriously, whether it might not be rationally expected from them, that instead of so many instances of ill use and ends too of their Excommunications in the late Wars (especially at Water∣ford against the Peace of 1646. at Kilkenny against the Cessation of 1648. and at Jamestown against the very Peace also of the same year 1648.) they would now at last once in their lives, and in the present circumstances, especially of so many Out-laws, Tories, and Woodkerns of their Roman Catholick Countrey-men, steal∣ing, robbing, harrazing, burning, and laying waste whole Villages, Parishes, and larger districts too, make that good use of their Ecclesiastical censures, which they ought by publishing them against such enormous transgressors of all Laws both Divine and Human, and against all their abettors and concealers.

And these indeed in substance (as far as I can remember) were the heads of my Lord Lieutenants candid speech and excellent admonition to those two Bishops that very first time he saw them immediately before the Congregation sate; albeit as to words, much more elegantly and finely delivered by Him: as he is indeed a most pertinent and excellent speaker, whensoever and wheresoever he speaks;

but in those Irish affairs incomparably also knowing, as having had more causes and helps, and more opportunities and occasions than any man (alive, or dead) to know throughly the general affairs, interests, inclinations, byasses of every, Party and People (whether Protestant or Catholick) of that Kingdom of Ireland.

What use those two Bishops made, or whether they made any good use at all, of so much condescention, and so fit a lesson, we shall see in the following Sections, where you shall find how they carried themselves when the Fathers were Assem∣bled together. As for any material thing said by either of them well or ill, and by way of answer or otherwise to his Grace, while they were with Him that first time; I remember nothing, but what I was then mightily troubled at to hear, viz. Ardach's blundering out some few words in answer to, or by occasion of what the Duke admonish'd them concerning a better use to be made of Eccle∣siastical Censures against Out-law'd Incendiaries, Thieves, Robbers, Woodkerns, Murderers, Rebels, than formerly had been made of the like against Loyal Sub∣jects, and honest Men only, and onely too because they would not be wicked.

For to this point, I remember that Ardach spoke indeed somewhat, but both bluntly and confusedly enough: and yet (if my memory fail me not) but a few words, only importing the general discontents of the old Roman Catholick Pro∣prietors; and further signifying, that Church Censures could not restrain, or have any effect upon such men. Hereof I am very certain, that neither he, nor Kilfinu∣ran, nor others of the Congregation took this matter either to heart, or as much as once to debate: as neither did they scarce, (if scarce) any other point recom∣mended to them either at that, or any other time after by His Grace; and whether by word or writing recommended so.

X.

BUT however those two Bishops carried themselves, I must now tell thee good Reader, That all both Domestick and Forraign Oppositions, all contrivances whatsoever to hinder even the very meeting it self of the Fathers being (in such manner as hath been said) totally frustrated, we are now at last on the 11 of June, and consequently at the actual Session or convention of the Fathers in the house which I my self hired and prepared for them of purpose; albeit, I confess, the generali∣ty of them (after conferring notes together, those two former nights of Saturday and Sunday, they had been in Town) came to that Assembly-house wholly pre∣possessed and prejudiced, most of them by inclination, some by education, and both these and those (nay and others too that were of neither sort) by forraign cor∣respondency or Intelligence. They met therefore on that day, and sate all to∣gether in one Room; which manner of sitting (because their Assembly was not a Formal Synod according to the strictness of Canons, or to that formality of Na∣tional Convocations, which in some places by Custome requires two different Hou∣ses) they held on after all along till they were Dissolved; only their Committees meeting, and sitting in other Rooms.

After viewing and saluting one another, and taking their places in the best or∣der they could, it was moved presently to choose a Speaker or Chairman. Whereupon others added, it was fit both the Bishops should withdraw, because it was not fitting to choose any for such a place, but a Bishop; while one might be had to possess it. The Bishops being accordingly withdrawn, there was no long debate ere Kilfinuran carried it. Immediately therefore both being called in, he was placed in the Chair: and Nicholas Redmund Vicar General of Ferns chosen Secretary. Nor had that day (as far as I can remember) any other thing of mo∣ment, the House being presently adjourned to the next morning.

That whole next, (being the 12 of June) was partly taken up in considering the Members present, and proxies of the Absents who had Deputed others in their place, and who had sent none, as also in understanding who besides were on their journey coming; but mostly in an incidental controversy moved concerning either the true

or pretended priviledges and use, or abuse of them by the Regular Clergy, to the great prejudice, not only of the Secular Clergy, but even of the Laws and Commonwealth. As to that of the Members, it was found, that four parts of five were already present in person; some five or six Proxies more, amongst which, the Archbishop of Tuam's Proxy was produced by Kilfinuran to himself, and the Bishop of Ferns's by Nicholas Redmond (the said Bishops, Vicar General) to himself likewise; about four or five others in their journey; and the Bishop of Kilmore to have sent neither Proxy nor Letter. But for the controversie about the priviledges of Regulars or about their pretence of such, for Ministring and So∣lemnizing all the Sacraments, even Baptism, extream Unction, and Matrimony, even also for giving the viaticum to the dying, and Burial to the dead, in, and throughout all Parishes whatsoever (and that I mean with••ut the consent, nay against the will of either Parish-Priest, or Ordinary) it was of a longer debate; because the Excalceat Carmelits of Dublin, and Jesuits too residing there bufled mightily to maintain their Practice. For I remember well, that my self, though a Regular stood in this Controversie for the Seculars, in pursuance of what I had a year or two be∣fore perswaded the Franciscans of that Capital City to do, i. e. to come to a fair and equitable concordatum with the Seculars, in all and every such matters. That besides many other arguments upon that Subject, and to perswade the more easily those other Regulars to the like fair agreement, (which was with an express Salvo semper jure verorum privilegiorum) I alledged the known Canon of the 4th. Oecomenical Synod, (it of Calcedon I mean) for the plenary subjection of all Regulars whatsoever to their respective Bishops. That seeing the Jesuits professing openly and obstinatly their resolution not to submit in such matters to the decision, vote, or arbitriment of the Congregation; I moved earnestly before their faces, to have them totally excluded the House, in case they did not conform, or submit to the determination which that National Assembly should agree upon. That albeit three parts of four of that whole House were Seculars, and many of the Regulars too for them in such points; yet not above two or three of so great a number, not even I mean of the very Seculars would in their own so near concern appear, or second the motion made for excluding those Members, although declaring so positively and openly in such matters, without any reason but their own wilfulness against the sense of all others pre∣sent. And finally, that also hence I plainly saw how ligued they were all generally to oppose the main end of that meeting, i. e. that for which the Indiction of it was; there having been no other reason which might have induced them to suffer so great an affront, but that they knew those Jesuits would be main opposers of signing not only the Remonstrance but even any other Instrument or Formulary of Recog∣nition which might condemn as much as by any either direct, or indirect conse∣quence, those positions of their beloved Bellarmin, or Suarez, Sanctarellus Becan, Gretser, Mariana, &c, which relate to the Popes pretended Authority for de∣posing Princes, Absolving Subjects from their Allegiance, and Licenseing them to take Arms against their Soveraigns.

After these contests, the House being Adjourned again till next morrow the 13 of June, I was no sooner come to my Chamber that Evening, than unexpect∣edly enters to me the Lord Primat Edmund Reilly all alone arrived just then, hav∣ing pass'd from France, to Flanders, and thence in hast through England to Che∣ster where he ship••d for Dublin. And his Lordship was no sooner sate down, and a very few words pass'd between us, than he puts his hand in his pocket, draws out and delivers to me two originals, and a copy of a third Letter too, all of them written by Internuncio Rospigliosi, on the 20, 24, and 3 of May then lately past, 1666. the first to himself; the second to Martin Lord Bishop of Ipres in Flanders; third to Father Patrick Dempsy an Irish Secular Priest, then Prefect of the Irish Seminary at Lile: and all to the same purpose either of totally hindering by all possible means the very sitting or meeting of the Irish Clergy in this National Congregation, or at least (and if that could not be) of disswading them from sub∣scribeing the Remonstrance (that Valesian Formulary, as the said Internuncio calls it)

but the former two were also particularly to disswade the foresaid Primat himself, or at least delay him for some time from going to Ireland, and consequently from be∣ing present in the National Congregation; viz. least his presence there should honour such a meeting, or any way further the design of Subscribing such a Remonstrance. A fourth Letter also of some two or three lines written to him by the Bishop of Ipres (wherein the Internuncio's Letters were enclosed) the Primat delivered to me at the same time, that I might see how the directions were sent and came to his hands just when he was ready to embark at the Water-side in Flanders. And all these Letters, after I had perused them, he bid me keep, nor at any time after did call for them from me. Now what moved him to give or shew them so, even at our very first encounter and salutes, I could not imagine, unless it was to fright me from prosecuteing my principal design, or that for which the Congregation was first design'd by me: for he did not then know that I had lately other Letters to others, both from Rospigliosi and Barberin, to the same purpose. And indeed a day or two more not only discovered that to have been his end; but also, to∣gether with many other circumstances, made me both shrewdly and rationally suspect that he himself procured those Letters of Rospigliosi to himself; although not that to Patrick Dempsy, which was some three weeks before the others Dated. Of this last of Rospigliosi because so fouly falling on Caron and me, as even calling us two Apostates, (albeit not otherwise naming us therein, which yet the same Rospig∣liosi doth in those Letters you formerly had to Ardagh and others in Ireland) the Primat told me, that himself conferr'd the Copy (he gave me) with the original, which he saw at Lile with Dempsy himself: which because the first, as to the order of time or date, I give here first, and then the rest in order also, according to their several Dates, but shall not take the pains of Translateing them into English now, being the English Reader can expect no new matter in them, or any (I mean) ma∣terially different from that he hath already perused, Sect. 10. in my Translations of those other Letters of the said Rospigliosi and Barberin to others.

Internuncio Rospigliosis Letter, Dated at Bruxels, May 3. 1666, to Father Pa∣trick Dempsy Prefect of the Irish Seminary at Lile.

Reverende in Christo Domine,

PErlata Romam nuntia de Congressu Dublinii habendo ad subscribendam for∣mulam Valesianae protestationis, effecerunt ut Eminentissimus Cardinalis Bar∣berinus, tanquam Praefectus Sacrae Congregationis de propaganda fide, scri∣beret jussu Sanctissimi Domini Nostri inclusas litteras ad avertendos animos ab actu tanti detrimenti pro Religione Catholica. Ego iisdem literis adjunxi meas Circulares ad Clerum Hiberniae, quoniam commissa est mihi cura ejusdem Regni. Prioris epistolae exemplar Reverentiae vestrae mitto, ut illud ad amicos in patriam destinet secura ac celeri via, eosdem{que} hortetur iis verbis quae magis consentanea dux∣erit, ne permittant inclytam Nationem, quae inter tot calamitates puritatem fidei Ca∣tholicae conseruavit, nunc primum ad instigationem duorum Apostatarum animos de∣ponat ac degeneret. Hoc officio haud parum apud Deum promerebiter, at{que} ego mul∣tum debebo humanitati Reverentiae Vestrae, cujus sum ex animo studiossimus,

B••uxels May 3. 1666.

Jacobus Rospigiiosi Abbas St. Mariae Intern: Ap.

The same Rospigliosi's Letter, Dated Bruxels the 20. May 1666. to Edmund Reilly Archbishop of Ardmagh, and Primat of all Ireland.

Illustrissime ac Reverendissime Domine,

CƲM audierim Illustrissimam Dominationem Vestram in Hiberniam profi∣cisci non possum quin ei significem, haud expedire ut illud Regnum ingredi∣atur nunc quando paratur Conventus Ecclesiasticorum in ordine ad subscri∣bendum quandam formulam Juramenti a paucis nefariis fratribus excogita∣tam. Nam illi praesentia Illustrissimae Dominationis Vestrae forte uterentur ad per∣ficiendum & cohonestandum suum propositam. Igitur suadio ut ipsa tantisper hisce partibus immoretur, ne in insidias a supradictis toti Clero structas sese praecipitet; sed potius scribat ad Dominos Consanguineos suos & amicos ut constanter caveant a prae∣stando ejusmodi Juramento, quippe quod non tendit nisi ad destruendum unitatem & puritatem fidei quae inter tot afflictiones in Hibernia illaesa permansit, licet pallia∣tum veniat specioso praetextu obsequii Regii; ubi tamen totus orbis novit nihil addi posse ad fidelitatem quam hactenus, etiam cum vitae & fortunarum jactura, Hiber∣ni Serenissimae Majestati suae exhibuerunt. Et revera solo Catholici nomine te∣nentur satagere singuli, ut in reverentia & cultu erga Regem caeteros omnes subditos superent; sed simul etiam Regem Regum Deum venerari, a quo districtam ultionem expectare debent si ab ejus in terris Vicario sese subtraxerint. Haec Illustrissimae Dominationi Vestrae tanquam Minister Apostolieus cuires Hiberniae commissae sunt, & tamquam vestri cultor insinuare volui: & ab eadem responsum expectans, ipsi de∣votissimam observantiam meam ad quaecum{que} ejus mandata animitus addico.

Bruxelis May 20. 1666.

Devotissimus servus Jacobus Rospigliosi Abbas St. Mariae Internunci. Aplicus.

Item, the same Rospigliosi's Letter, Dated Bruxells May 24. 1666. to Martin Bishop of Ipres.

Illustrissime ac Reverendissime Domine,

AƲdio Dominum Edmundum O Rely Archiepiscopum Ardmachanum Pri∣matem Hiberniae ad praefatum regnum proficisci, ac propediem forte vel Ostendae vel Neoporti fore ut inde trajiciat. Ad cum jam scripsi hisce diebus, non expedire ob gravissimas causas ut nunc in Patriam se confe∣rat: Et Epistolam meam direxi Insulas, ubi tunc esse dicebatur. Sed quia incer∣tus sum an illam receperit, & etiam habeo nonnulla alia sibi exponenda, obnixe rogo Illustrissimam Dominationem Vestram ut diligenter inquirere dignetur ubi reperiri possit idem Dominus Archiepiscopus, & curare ut per quempiam gravem & pruden∣tem virum moneatur meis verbis, ut tantisper profectionem differat, donec secum ea de regerim, vel per aliquem a me mittendum, vel per litteras. Expectabo deinde ut Illustrissima Dominatio Vestra me edoceat de successu hujus meae petitionis, quae sane salutem spiritualem totius Hiberniae concernit; ideoque non dubito quin pro

singulari suo zelo praesentem meam fiduciam benigne consultura sit. Porro Illustrissima Dominationi Vestrae ad quaecumque obsequia me paratissimum devoveo, ac duturnam apprecor sospitatem.

Bruxelis 24. May 1666.

Illustrissimae ac Reverendissimae Dominis Vestrae Humillimus Servus Jacobus Rospigliosi Abbas St. Mariae, &c. D. Episcopo Iprensi.

Item, the said Bishop of Ipres Letter, Dated Ipres 27. May 1666. to the fore∣said most Illustrious and Reverend Primat of Ireland.

Illustrissimo ac Reverendissimo Domino Domino Edmundo O Rely Archiepis∣copo Ardmachano ac Hiberniae Primati.

Illustrissime ac Reverendissime Domine,

STatim ut recepi litteras introclusas ab Illustrissimo Domino Internuncio, easdem ad Illustrissimam Dominationem Vestram transmitto per hunc expressum, ut se∣cundum tenorem & contentum earumdem litterarum se confirmare dignetur, & mihi mentem suam patefacere per hunc eundem latorem: quod sperando, ma∣nebo Illustrissimae ac Reverendissimae Dominationis Vestrae, prout hactenus toti semper Nationi fui eroque quoad vixero,

Illustrissimae D. Ʋ. Obsequentissimus & Humillimus Servus Martinus Episcopus Iprensis.

Ipris 27. May. 1666.

By the Tenour of all which Letters, at least of the Three former (and not only by what hath been given before, Sect. 10.) may be seen, how mightily the Roman Ministers did concern themselves both to oppose the design of calling our National Congregation, and asperse the Remonstrance and Subscribers thereof, but more especially, Walsh, and Caron: nay, how the Roman Court it self had been no less alarm'd by the said design, than if they had been certainly in∣formed, that all Ireland were absolutely resolved to bid an eternal adieu to all or any Communion with the Roman Church and great Pontiff. So much, and so nearly to heart did they take that harmless, that innocent profession of Allegiance (though but in temporal things only) made to a Protestant King of England by some, and those too but a few respectively of the Roman Catholicks of Ireland.

As for any thing more of the said Primat Reilly, to be observed in this present

Section, I remember no more, but only, 1, That as soon as the news of his ar∣rival was bruted, both Protestants and Roman Catholicks admired very much, how he, especially at such a time, not only of War twixt England of one side, and Holland and France of the other, but also of all the three Estates of Ireland in Parliament at Dublin dared to venture home, and appear even in that Capital City. 2. That some few days before, the then Lord Chancellour of England, having intelligence of the said Primats landing secretly in England from Flan∣ders, and passing through England incognito to Ireland, advertised the Lord Lieutenant thereof, by that very Packet-boat by which Reilly landed, to the end, he should be taken; the permission of his return having not been signified by his Grace to the said Lord Chancellour but by the next Packet after. 3. That for the two Bishops, Ardagh and Kilfinuran, who till the Primats landing, were the only chief in the Congregation (and the former of them, the only Bishop of the Province of Ardmagh; the other, the only of the Province of Cashil, having withal the Bishop of Tuam's proxy) they seemed not any way at all pleased with his arrival, as neither did he seem to have much correspondence with, or any great esteem for either of them. 4. That, as far as I could observe all along after, during the other Thirteen days of their Session, both he of them, and they of him stood in some awe, I mean, as to any clearer declaration of their sen∣timents or inclinations, either to satisfie the King, or dissatisfie the Pope in that for which they were permitted to Convene. Though withal I did then, and do also at present firmly perswade my self out of what I did then my self both see and hear done in the publick Session, That the said Ardmagh seem••d much more strongly inclin'd to give even full satisfaction as to the point of any Declaration which might concern either his future fidelity, or Petition of Pardon for any mat∣ters whatsoever past, then either Ardach, or Kilfinuran: whereof you shall have the true reason according to my best conjecture, where I give my own judgment of the Congregation, and leading Members thereof.

XI.

WHat we are now to consider is, what happen'd, or was done next day be∣ing the 13 of June and 3 of their Session; but the very first day indeed wherein any material thing was spoke, or said, or delivered by any in order to the ends for which the Fathers were convened. But an unlucky, sudden, and unexpected accident was like that very day without any further progress in the intended, or at least pretended scope of this meeting, to have utterly dissolved it, and put a final, but shameful period to all their designes. For the House being sate, and Speaker placed in his Chair, the Primat, last of all coming in, bid the Chair∣man (viz. the Bishop of Kilfinuran) leave the Chair, as being due to him the said Primat; saying withal, that none should in his presence besides himself pos∣sess that seat. The Chair-man refuses, and contradicts, and with him also not only the Bishop of Ardagh, and the Vicar General or Apostolical of Dublin, but many more, nay, most of all the House. Whereupon arises a vehement hurry, clamour, tumult. The Primat presently withdraws. And all the Mem∣bers of his Province of Ardmagh, except one or two, depart likewise, following their Archbishop. No sooner was he the said Primat gone with his followers, then Ardagh, Kilfinuran, the Vicar Apostolick of Dublin and all their fast Parti∣zans bale out vehemently for a Dissolution, a departure, every one to his own home. There was nothing to be heard or seen but a loud din, and some running to the door to keep it open, others to shut it, some encouraging, taking, and haleing one another by the hands to depart; others crying, Dissolve, Dissolve, and some on the other side, praying, intreating, conjureing them to stay a little, and think better of the scandalous Sequel. I, that found my self as much con∣cern'd as any, if not more than any one, used all my utmost endeavours to hinder so sad a resolution. At last converting my self to the two Bishops, in the hear∣ing

of all the rest, I took the liberty even also of sharp reproof, but after I had seen that intreaties would not do with them who (together with James Dempsy Vicar Apostolick of Dublin) were the ringleaders of that so Scandalous and factious resolve. And amongst or besides many other things, I spoke out openly, and plainly to them both, That, without comparison, It had been less hurt, they had both drop'd down dead in that very place, than that the whole Irish Clergy, yea, and Laity also, their whole Nation, their Religion, and Communion in gene∣ral should be on such an occasion exposed to that eternal shame, reproach, and scorn amongst all Protestants, which they must certainly have expected by con∣tinuing so mad, so furious, and desperate a resolution. That sure they should have considered, their meeting was not, nor could be unknown, as not unto the Protestant Councel of State, so neither to the Parliament of all the three Protestant Estates of the Kingdom, both of them, at that very time, sitting in that very Citty, where a National Congregation of the Roman Catholick Clergy did so behave them∣selves. That further they should also have considered how during all that very time that very hour of their so phrantick a transport, Three Lay persons both of Quality, and their own Nation and Religion, also, employed to them by his Grace the Lord Lieutenant of the Kingdom, and sent by him on a special message to them, were hard by expecting to be introduced. And Lastly therefore, that neither amongst Protestants nor Catholicks they could ever at any time wipe off the ignominious, and even also barbarous stain, if they persisted; to say no∣thing of all other inconveniences, and evils which must have been the consequence of so much, not only rashness, but also unmannerliness. Netled at my free∣dom, the Bishop of Ardach replies in a troubled angry mood, and in these very words, Quid tu Fratercule ita ad Episcopos? But my return was obvious enough, That the Case required it, And that, had there been no other reason, (as indeed many more were) to oblige me thereunto, but the very Contents of the publick Instrument signed even by him, as well as by others, whereby I was the general Procurator, empowred with all Power, Authority, and even Juris∣diction too for the ends of the Instrument, I was more concern••d than any one person whatsoever of them all, to hinder such a temerarious Resolution of Dissolv∣ing; a Resolution, occasioned indeed by that unlucky accident of the Primats challenging the Speakers Chair, but after driven on so furiously and obstinately out of a far other design. These reasons, and consent of others wrought at last even the more Factions to some calm within the House, while others of the more so∣ber Party went forth, to perswade the Primat. And he suffering himself at last to be perswaded by reason, returns fairly of himself, and is content to leave the Chair to Kilfinuran; a Declaration being first made by all, that that Chair was no place nor seat of Dignity, but of Ministry, or Office only; and that it was confessed, the praeeminence of place belong'd of right to the Primat of Ard∣magh before all the Clergy and Prelats of Ireland.

This unexpected tumult being so at last over and all things quiet, the Gentlemen, viz. Sir Nicholas Plunket Knight, Sir Robert Talbot Barronet, and John Walsh Esq who all three came from my Lord Lieutenant, were introduced. Being seated, and having congratulated the Fathers so wonderful, and happy a change under his Majesties Reign, after those late and long dismal days of all kind of evil under Usurpers, and even therefore a change questionless wrought by the powerful Arme of the High God alone, since it gave them so much, both liberty, and secu∣rity to sit there together in the Capital Citty of the Kingdom, They Declared, that they were sent from His Grace upon a special Errand to them; but Com∣manded also by His Grace to read it to them out of Paper; least peradventure some mistake should happen, to be either of his words, or sense delivered otherwise. Which being in a few words declared by one of the said three Gentlemen, viz. by Sir Nicholas Plunket; I remember very well, that presently after, the third of them (I mean John Walsh Esq who had informer times been, as Sir Nicholas also was, one of the Supream Council of the Roman-Catholick Confederates of Ireland) stood up, and read intelligibly twice over to the Congregation, being all

silent and very intent, a paper containing exactly these following matters, and words as the whole and only errand or message sent from His Grace at that time by those Gentlemen to the Fathers.

The Lord Lieutenants first Message to the Congregation.

THat it is too well known to divers persons, in the present meeting of the Ro∣mish Clergy in this City of Dublin, what attempts, have been upon the Royal Authority in this Kingdom, under colour of the pretended Autho∣rity, Power, and Jurisdiction of the Pope; and how far those attempts prevailed in keeping many of the People from returning to their due obedience to the Crown, and in withdrawing divers of those from it, who were returned to it, hath sufficiently appeared, not only by the violation of the Peace granted them by His Majesties gracious Indulgence and Clemency, but also of the Faith of the then Con∣federate Roman Catholicks, by the instigation, procurement, and pretended Autho∣rity of Rinuccini the Popes Nuncio in the year 1646, and by the proceed∣ings of the Titular Bishops at Jamestown in the year 1650.

Secondly, That divers of the Nobility and Gentry of Ireland, and of the said Claergy, in January and February 1661. calling to mind those attempts, and the de∣plorable consequences thereof to the Crown, and to themselves, presented His Ma∣jesty with a Remonstrance and Protestation of their Loyalty to His Majesty and of their renunciation and detestation of any Doctrine or Power, from whence such practises might be deduced; To which Remonstrance and Protestation, divers others of the Nobility and Gentry, and most of the said Clergy Resident in this Kingdom have not yet subscribed; although more then four years are effluxed, since the same was first presented to His Maiesty.

Thirdly, That the said Clergy (whose example and incouragement the Laiety of their Profession may possibly expect) have delayed their Subscriptions, on pretence that they wanted the liberty of adviseing and consulting, which they conceived necessa∣ry in a matter of so great importance, which being now admitted to them with freedom and scourity: It is expected that they should make use thereof, for asserting and owning His Majesties Royal Authority, to the satisfaction of all His Majesties good Subjects, and to the particular advantage of the said Clergy themselves, and those of their Religion, and imploy the time that for that purpose will be allowed them, which neither can, nor need belong, both in respect of the present conjuncture of Affairs, and for that it may reasonably be presumed, that in four years time the said Remonstrance and Protestation is sufficiently understood, and may be speedily resolved upon.

By the Copy of this Message, which I have out of the Secretaries Office, de∣livered to me next day after by His Graces command, or (I mean) by the En∣dorsement of that Copy, it appears, the said message was sent by advice also of these Lords of the Privy Council of Ireland, the Lord Primat, Lord Chancel∣lor, Lord Treasurer, Earl of Arran, Earl of Anglesey, and Mr. Secretary Davis. However, the foresaid three Gentlemen having so delivered their message, but left no Copy at all of the Paper: and having also in a few words more from themselves particularly recommended to the Fathers, that resolution upon, and answer to the Lord Lieutenant's Message, which might be in all points answerable to his Graces just expectation of their ready, unanimous, and chearful concur∣rence to that Remonstrance by their Manual Subscription thereof, as of a truly Loyal Instrument, or clear profession of true indispensable Allegiance to the King (and well indeed might these very three Gentlemen exhort thereunto as having themselves had long before amongst others subscribed that very individual Formulary) moreover, having in the last place heartily wished likewise, all other good Counsels, prudent Resolutions, and happy success to the Synod, they took

leave of the Synod, they took leave and departed, being conducted forth by some of the Prelats and other chief Men of the Congregation.

Those being departed, and these returned, and all seated as before; the Pro∣curator stood up, and addressing himself, first to the Chair-man, then to the other Prelats, and after, to all the rest of the Fathers, he made his first Speech to them, principally indeed pursuing the Lord Lieutenant••s Message on the Subject or end of their Assembly; but withal, giveing as large, and as full an account both of all his own actings in the quality of their Procurator for them, the 6 years past, i. e. ever since he had received in the year 1661. their Procuratorium to do so, and as full also of the Original and procedure, expediency, and necessity, con∣scienciousness, and Catholickness of the Remonstrance, and of the contrivance and disputes after, nevertheless against it, and subscribers of it, as the weight and multiplicity of such matters required and as an hour, or an hour and half would permit him to give. For so long (as far as I now remember) did he continue that first speech, wherein they all in general (as himself in particular) were concern'd that it should be long and full, and satisfactory. And yet because I hasten to an end of this Tract: I will only at present give the heads of so long a speech. For these alone may be enough to satisfie the Readers curiosity.

The first containing the exordium, but an exordium derived only from his own person, i. e. from a continual floud and ebb of the four greatest Passions, each on the present occasion, striving for mastery and total possession of his Soul. Joy transporting, or rather dissolving him, to behold so numerous, and venerable a Consistory of all the Representatives of the whole Ecclesiastical Order in Ire∣land, with so much security, because with his Majesties and Lord Lievtenants per∣mission, sitting, and conferring together in Dublin, at such a time and conjun∣cture, and for so good and just an end: to consider I say, so wonderful a change in our days from so much misery to so great and unexpected felicity, than which none hath been greater to Roman-Catholick Priests and Bishops, nay, nor any way near it since Queen Marys Reign: and for which, both Religion and Reason taught him to give to the great King of Ages, the only Immortal and Invisible God, all honour, glory, thanks and praise for ever, because his mercy endures for ever, and because he hath so graciously and singularly look'd upon the Irish Nation once more that the present Congregation might justly acknowledge them∣selves to be as that people of whom Isaiah Prophecied,* 98.1 The people that walked in darkness, have seen a great light: they that dwell in the Land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. Grief upon second thoughts presently both at∣tempting, and tormenting him; to understand, how not a few, not even also of that very Consistory were Plotting and Conspireing effectually even their own utter and perpetual ruine (even to reduce again themselves and all others of their Church into their late miserable condition) rather than resolve to do that which their own very inward Light of Conscience tells them, is both due from them, and just for them to do; but which ambition, and revenge, and other blindnesses of even a very mistaken worldly Interest will not suffer them do Hope flatter∣ing him anew, That amongst so many considerative men, some good Patrioes, and Zealots too for the truth of Christian Catholick-Religion, without any re∣gard of self-worldly and sinful Interest depending on the Court of Rome, might be found to perswade and over-rule those other byassed Men. But then Despair succeeding as suddenly; despair of ever seeing any more in his own days an other National Assembly of their Country and Religion by such License or permission, if they improved not the present opportunity, stifling in their Birth all the flattery and pleasure of such hopes.

The Second was a beginning of the Narrative or Account, which however was fit he should have given them. viz. of the Procuratorium sent him to London in the year 1660. by the chief Prelats, and some others of that Clergy, then at home in Ireland, and of his own best endeavours to pursue the ends thereof, and answer the expectation of the Subscribers of it, and that also even immedi∣atly after and for the very first year following. See Trac. 1. Par. 1. pag. 4, 5, 6.

Third was a continuation of that account; because of the great persecution in Ireland, in the end of the year, 1661. the very true and only occasion of the Remonstrance; of the Authors and framers of that Instrument; by whom sent to him to London; what other directions and Instruments annexed; the first answer at Court; the consequent subscription of the said Loyal Formulary at London, first by those of the Irish Clergy, and next by those of the Lay Nobility and Gentry there; of the first Dissentors; of the books to answer them, and in∣doctrinat others, written, and published by himself and Father Caron: of the comfortable effects, viz. ceasing of the Persecution, release of Prisoners, gene∣ral connivance at the exercise of their Religion through all Provinces, and parts of Ireland, even within the Walls of Corporate Towns and Garrisons. See Tract. 1. Par. 1. Sect. 2, 3, 4.

Fourth also was a further continuation of the Narrative; because of the stupid ignorance of some, incredible malice of others, inconsideratness of most, and ingratitvde of all those who ever since the first Signature or Subscription of that honest Formulary at London in January and February, 1661. S. Ʋ. enjoyed the great advantages, benefit, and comfort thereof, and yet for so many years conti∣nued so perversly and violently to Cabal against it, or any further Subscription of it, yea in corners and amongst the rude Multitude to tradu••e it as Impious, Schysmatical, Heretical; of the Letters from Cardinal Barberin, and Internun∣cio de Vecchii; and Censure also of the University of Louain against both Formu∣lary and Subscribers, procured by some of those excellent Patriots; yea that of Louain, by an Express Agent for that end, purposely sent out of Ireland, having for his viaticum an applotment raised in six Diocesses, and yet he at present return'd and sitting as a Member of that very Congregation, Father John Brady a Fran∣ciscan; nay, then of Summons also from beyond Seas Anno 1663. procured by them against Garon and all the Franciscan Subscribers, even summons or citations, commanding those Subscribers to appear personally at Rome or Bruxels, for hav∣ing subscribed forsooth that Sacrilegious Formulary of obedience and fidelity (al∣though but in temporal matters only) to the King; and finally of Internuncio de Vecchiis, when at London incognito in September 1664, his asseveration to my self, That the See Apostolick had never intermedled against the Remonstrance or Subscribers thereof had not the great importunities of some of the very Irish themselves, extorted from the Court of Rome a concurrence with them in con∣demning both. Vid. Tract. 1. Pag. 16, 77. and Pag. 102, 104. See also Sect. 93. Pag. 511, and 512. Where, notwithstanding I give a pretty full ac∣count of other passages of that personal conference at London with de Vecchii; yet I forgot this Declaration of His; whether in the mean time he used any equi∣vocation or no therein.

Fifth prosecuted the same Narration still, in particular, how; notwithstanding His Grace the Lord Lieutenant, and as by special instructions tyed thereunto, had soon after his first Landing in Ireland Anno 1662, commanded the Procurator to endeavour and forward presently all he could the Subscription of the said Formulary, by all the rest of the Irish, especially Ecclesiasticks throughout Ireland; and that his Grace understood how, besides only a few other Noble∣men, Gentlemen, and some forty or fifty more Ecclesiasticks who Sign'd at Dub∣lin, the great body of both Secular and Regular Clergy-men dispersed through∣out the Nation, being at least 2000, had not only opposed still, but many of their Superiours amongst them had also discountenanced, nay, to their power even vexed and persecuted such of their underlings who had signed it; and more∣over, had understood all the other practices of their Agents beyond Seas; how, I say, notwithstanding all this the said Lord Lieutenant had hitherto, and for their sakes who sign••d, most patiently expected an amendment of such errours in the rest; and in the mean time, extended even to the most ungrateful of the Dissen∣tors and opposers, all those very favours of Indulgence, and connivance of Pub∣lick exercise of Religion, which the Subscribers enjoy. And how the Procu∣rator himself had no way lessened his Zeal to endeavour by all means he could

the continuance of those favours even to the very most ungrateful and malicious of his Adversaries in the grand contest.

Sixth reflected on the great variety of pretences which the dissenting both Superiours and Inferiours pleaded for so many years to excuse their non-concur∣rence, and amongst, or rather above all other excuses, their desire and expecta∣tion of Licence for a National Assembly to consult of the equity of the demand. See those either pretences or true cause, Tract. 1. Part. 1. Sect. 9. from Page 21. to Pag. 27. Where you find the Sixteenth of them, to be this of a Natio∣nal Congregation desired.

Seventh was wholly taken up in the Merits of the main matter in controversie, or the only chief end of their meeting, viz. the Remonstrance and Subscription thereof. And here the Procurator shew••d, and at large dilated upon the Law∣fulness and Orthodoxness of it in point of Conscience and both Christian and Catholick Religion, even, I mean, as to those very causes of the said Remonstrance, which was the Rock of Scandal, because denying and renouncing all, and every the branches and appendages of the pretended Papal Authority, either by Di∣vine or Human Right to depose the King, &c. or dispence with, or declare against the Allegiance of Subjects, or by Excommunication, or otherwise to raise them to a Rebellion against His Majesty, &c. His Arguments against any such Papal Power, and consequently for the said Lawfulness and Orthodoxness, he derived evidently, 1. From so many plain Declarations and express commands of Ho∣ly Scripture. 2. From the unanimous consent of Holy Fathers interpreting those passages of Holy Scripture so, and not otherwise for a whole Thousand years, until Gregory the VII's Pontificat. 3. From the Practice also as well as The∣ory of the Christian Church Universally, for those ten whole centuries of years; and consequently, even from true Catholick Tradition. 4. From the general opposition made, even in all European Nations, Kingdoms, States, Schools, Univer∣sities, and National Churches to the contrary positions, even also in every age since the said Gregorie's days until this very present. 5. Particularly from the known Assertions of the Gallican Church, and Decisions too of the eight pre∣sent Universities of France, all unanimously condemning those self same contra∣ry positions, as impious, wicked, against the Word of God, Heretical, &c; and more singularly yet from the six late Declarations of Sorbon, May 8. 1663. Not to mention how Cardinal Perron by his fine circumventing speech in the general Assembly of the Three Estates of that Kingdom, after the Murder of Henry Le Grand, only endeavour'd these Positions should not be declared in formal Words Heretical. 6. From the Practice of the Parliaments of Paris, and Sicilian Monarchy too. 7. From the Statuts of Provisors and Praemunire made so many Hundred years since by the Roman-Catholick Kings and Parlia∣ments of England and Ireland, even all the Lords Spiritual assenting, especially those Statutes under Edward the III. and Richard the II. which declare the Crown of those Kingdoms to be Imperial, and subject to none but God only. 8. From the eminency and multitude of most learned Roman Catholick Writers, even Scholasticks, who all along these 600 years have in every Age expresly con∣demned, and even both specifically and abundantly confuted those vain and wicked pretences set on foot first by Hildebrand. 9. From the pitiful silliness, unsig∣nificancy, and absurdity of all Bellarmin's Arguments for the other side; ar∣guments proving either nothing at all, or certainly that which neither himself, nor any, not even of his very beloved Popes themselves would allow. 10. And Lastly, from the clearness of Natural Reason also in the cases; and that (I mean too) whether the Revelations of Christianity be presupposed or no. From all such Topicks of convincing Reason and Authority, I mean as well Divine as Human, the Procurator deduced his own arguments for the above Lawfulness and Orthodoxness, viz. of the Remonstrance and Subscription thereof, notwith∣standing any Bugbear of Roman Letters, or Louain Censures to the contrary.

The eighth advanced hence to the consequential both expediency and necessity of their unanimous cheerful Subscription without further delay or regret: being

there was no other way, or means to redeem themselves or their Church, or to satisfie, or appease the King, or his Protestant People, for what had been so pub∣lickly and vehemently acted in former times, partly by them, or at least many of them, and partly by the rest of the Irish Clergy, represented by them, and acted even all along, either in, or immediatly after the very first Rebellion of the Irish Nation, in October 1641. and in the unhappy Congregation of Waterford, Anno 1641, against the first Peace; and further in the year 1648, against the Cessation with Inchiquin, and for the Censures of the Nuncio; Lastly, in the year 1650. and most unhappy Congregation of Jamestown against the second Peace, no other way truly in the first place, but of humble, Submissive, Peni∣tential Petition, begging pardon for so many former grievous Errors against all Laws Divine and Human. Nor indeed, any other in the next place to allay the just suspicions and jealousies of their future demeanour, but that of a sincere, hearty, Loyal Recognition of His Majesties Supream Temporal Independent Pow∣er, Protestation of Obedience and Fidelity according to the Laws of the Land, in all Temporal matters, and all contingencies whatsoever, and Renunciation also of all pretended Powers and false Doctrines to the contrary.

The Ninth, was the conclusion of all, in wishes, and Prayers, beseeching the Fathers by all that should be dear or Sacred to them, to consider, That nothing was desired or expected from them in either point, but what certainly was more consonant to pure Christianity, i. e. to the Doctrine of the Cross of Christ, and therefore doubtless more holy than the contrary was, or could possibly be. 2. The sad fate which had perpetually and universally attended all Rebellions of those of their Religion, however at so many several times and places entred into, either in England, Ireland, or Scotland since the first separation under Henry the Eighth. 3. Whether wise men ought not even in point of Prudence, not only bid at last an eternal adieu to such both Principles and Practices as pro∣ved at all times, and in all Countries under His Majesty, so unspeakably and ir∣recoverably destructive to those of their Communion; but with much confidence and alacrity resolve to pursue evermore, and try their Fortune hereafter in that at least more safe and holy way of undoubted Christianity, of the Cross of Christ, of peace, and patience, and suffering, and love, commended by the Son of God to his Disciples. 4. That in the end of the year 1662, they had lost a very great and fair opportunity indeed, not only of redeeming the ill opinion was held of them (as to the points of Loyal inclinations) by all their Protestant fellow Subjects, but also of helping, and mightily furthering even their whole Nation, even their Lay people, Nobility, Gentry, and very Commons too, in their Temporal concerns; and lost that first and best opportunity, meerly out of the Caprice of some Ecclesiastical Ringleaders, by refusing then to sign the Re∣monstrance, when for signing, such offere were made as they had cause enough since to repent they had not accepted: and that, if they did likewise neglect this second opportunity, so unexpectedly offered them now in 1666, whether they should not rationally fear to be answerable to God for all the groans and sighs of a poor Nation, like to be for ever after in our days, rendred utterly, and helplesly Calamitous by such a second neglect, or rather, wilful contempt of theirs, or by them of the Providence and Mercy of God, knocking at their doors? favourable Fortune, if twice rejected, seldom, or never returning the third time, to negligent and ungrateful men. 5. The terms of the Message now sent them; and not so much by whom, as from whom. The termes or Tenour of it to be concerning their Subscription to that very individual Formulary of Recognition, which above five years before had been to redeem and help them sign'd first at London by a considerable number of their own Country, and Communion, both Ecclesiasticks and Laicks and amongst both, or each Order of them, several, yea many persons of the best quality and ability to discern of such matters; which had been humbly presented to, and graciously accepted by His Majesty; which had been the true occasion, and sole Instrument of ceasing immediately so great and fierce a Persecution under which they groan'd till then; which

after deservedly had the concurrence or Subscription of many others, both of the Clergy, Nobility, and Gentry at home in Dublin; but which nevertheless through the malice of Satan, and suggestions of Men, that regarded rather their own private, either animosities, or ambitious desires of Mitres, or other Titles and Commissions from the Court of Rome, than any Publicke good of their Coun∣try or Religion, or than Truth, or Justice, or Honesty, or Christian Peace hath been so contradicted by some, malign'd by others, persecuted by many, and re∣jected or put off and delayed (for point of Subscription to it) by all the rest, as no man could be ignorant of. The Person from whom the said Message came, to be (as they all believed, nor could but know) the Lord Lieutenant Ge∣neral, and General Governour of the Kingdom, the Duke of Ormond, even that very person, that very Lord Lieutenant whom the great body of the Irish Clergy, represented by them now, had formerly in the years 1646 and 1650, even con∣trary also to publick Faith, and the very Laws of Nations, twice forc'd away out of the whole Kingdom; yea, and notwithstanding his being then at both times under His Majesty their chief Governour, and Lord Lieutenant. And there∣fore how much in all reason it concern'd them to give now a satisfactory answer to Him, who was pleased out of his own Christian and Heroick Nature, to pass by, and forgive all such farmer indignities and misdeeds against himself, and ex∣pect only from them a dutiful profession of their future Allegiance to His Ma∣jesty in Temporal things, and a consequential Renunciation of dependency in such matters from any Forreign Power, or Authority whatsoever; This being the whole substance of that Formulary, the Subscription of which His Grace expected from them. 6. And Lastly, That upon such answer, depended wholly their own future welfare, quiet, peace, safety: being they could not otherwise than under∣stand, That as the said Lord Lieutenants Grace represented them on this occasion to His Majesty, without any peradventure they were like to find themselves ac∣cordingly treated always after.

XII.

ON all, and every of these Heads, to such purpose, in a very profound at∣tentive silence of the whole Assembly did the Procurator speak with all becoming respect, and dilate for at least an hour or more that day, in one con∣tinued Oration. Only he remembers to have been a little interrupted twice. First, by the Primat standing up, and denying the six Sorbon Declarations of May 8. 1663. Secondly, By Father Nicholas Nettervil, one of the Fathers and two Di∣vines of the Society of Jesus in that Congregation, who soon after stood up like∣wise, albeit, scarce for one moment of time, and excepting only in a few words against so great a Multitude of Catholick Writers alledg'd by the Procurator for the Doctrin of the Remonstrance; but withal, confidently saying, those Authors were no more but two; and one of them but a Schysmatical Historian, the other but a Poet.

I must confess it was no little cause of Admiration to me, to meet with such objections from such men. Objections that argued either extream ignorance, even of the most publick matters; or a desperat Resolution, like that of those in Job described to be Rebelles lumini; and to say to God, Recede a nobis, scientiam via∣rum tuarum nolumus. However, to the Primat I answered, That if the Publick Gazets of all Countries in Europe, and the great Alarum of Rome upon that ve∣ry occasion, in the year 1663, or if the consequent perswasion of all men, to∣gether with his own experimental knowledge of such matters during his abode at Rome and Paris for so many years since, did not convince him; at least, those ve∣ry six Latin Declarations of Sorbon in Print, together with His most Christian Majesties other annexed French Declarations and Commands, likewise in Print, as they were transmitted from Paris, and brought out of France, by the Reverend Father Thomas Harold, who lived then in France when they were past and Pub∣lished,

as he did for sixteen years before, a Publick Professor, and Teacher of Divinity in the Schools there, ought to convince others; especially, it being evi∣dent to all men conversant in the Schools, or Scholastical Authors, That such was the Ancient Doctrin of the Parisian School, and of their great famous Writers, Masters, Doctors, Gerson, Major, Almain, Joannes Parisiensis, &c, from which their Successors never varied, if not some few of them once, in the time of the Guisian Ligue, seduced by Bellarmine there personally amongst them incognito, awed by the Power of a prevailing Faction, and corrupted by promises from Rome; and it being also no less known, that His most Christian Majesty Lewis XIV. and Pope Alexander VII. were on ill terms that very year 1663; as it was like∣wise most certainly known, That the University of Paris, headed by the Arch∣bishop of the same City went in body, and May 8. 1663, presented to his said Majesty the foresaid Six Declarations against the pretended Authority of Popes. Which was in Substance, what I then answered the Primat; who had not a word more to reply, but sate down and was silent.

To Father Nettervil (whose confidence, or rather want of ingenuity and can∣dor, in making in such a Consistory in Publick, an objection so notoriously false, and even to all Divines, who had been any way conversant in the question, or in Histories, or in other Authors that treated of it at any time in the succession of so many Ages since Gregory the VII, commonly known to be notoriously false, I much more admired than the Primats; because this Father I knew to be not only a Noblemans Son, but also as he was for Elocution, truly one of the best Spea∣kers in that whole Congregation, so he had amongst his own Society, the repute of a great Divine; as having been both by Title a Doctor, and by Office too for some years an actual Professor, i. e. Teacher of Divinity in one of their Colledges in France) I answered, 1. That I could not sufficiently admire his little regard not only of truth, but of himself, or his own credit; when in such an Assembly, where there could not be wanting some, at least, indifferently Knowing, Learned, and Ingenuous men, he durst venture to take an exception so notoriously false against my discourse. 2. That he needed not go far to see himself manifestly con∣vinced; but open the Books there in that very Room prepared for the conjuncti∣on of all such, and whatever other false exceptions, obiections, allegations, or arguments of any Dissenters. 3. That he might see there in Father Carons both English Loyalty Asserted, and Latin Remonstrantia Hibernorum, above 250 Ro∣man Catholick Authors, who had never been either Schysmaticks or Poets; and might see them declaring constantly for that Doctrin, which he said was Patro∣nized only by one Schysmatick Historian, and one Italian Poet, and might see amongst them, many, even Classical Schoolmen, Doctors, and Divines of the very first rank, and greatest Fame. 4. That although he mentioned not the names of those Authors he spoke of so unjustly with contempt; yet for as much as I doubt∣ed not he mean'd only Sigebertus Gemblacencis and Dantes Aligherius; I must tell the Fathers, that not even Bellarmin himself dared once to charge Sigebert with having been a Schysmatick,* 98.2 although he the said Bellarmin charged this Sigebert to have been for the Emperous sake iniquior Gregorio Septimo; and that Dantes Aligherius, notwithstanding his being a great Poet, had shewed himself withal to be a great Philosopher, Divine, Historian, Civilian, &c. in that work he writ against the vain pretences of the Pope in Temporal matters above the Emperour, where he gives such arguments as are unanswerable by any would undervalue him for being a Poet. Nay, That St. Gregory Nazianzen might be undervalu∣ed upon the same account; being he was so great and excellent a Poet, yea, so much addicted to Poetry, as his Divine Works do shew. 5. That if any doubt∣ed of the truth of Father Caron's quotations of Authors, or would besides en∣ter into, and dispute of the Merits of the main Cause, viz. of the Doctrin of the Remonstrance; I was ready to justifie all there in publick before the whole Assembly; and, to that end, to bring out of my own partly, and partly out of the Dublin Colledg Library, all those other Books whatsoever they demanded besides Holy Scriptures, viz. Councils, Fathers, Ecclesiastical Historians, the Bo∣dies

of the Canon and Civil Laws, Scholastick Divines, and even the late Ex∣positors of Scripture, &c. 6. And Lastly, That there was nothing I desired more than such a serious and Publick debate, if any pretended yet unsatisfacti∣on: being it was chiefly for that end I drew the Letters of Indiction (or invita∣tion of them to this National Assembly) in such form as obliged the Superiours to bring along with them a competent number of professed Divines, who should and might be able as well to find out all errors of the Formulary, if any were, as to declare there was none, in case they should be convinced of no Error at all therein.

And such indeed, as to the substance, was my answer to Father Nettervil. Against which neither he nor any other replyed a word. Wherefore I returned back to the prosecution of my former discourse, beginning where I was inter∣rupted, and continuing to the end, as I have shewn before. Having done, I took leave of the Fathers that day, giving them so the more freedom to debate in my absence. For I will not trouble the Reader now with the Chairmans comple∣ments, acknowledgments, thanks given me after I had ended, and before I went forth. Nor will I mention how I had that morning taken care to lay on the publick Table before the Fathers as many Printed Copies both of the Remon∣strance it self, and of not only my own little book entituled The More Ample Ac∣count, which gives a full account thereof, and answers all the first Objecti∣ons or Exceptions made at London by the First Dissentors, but also of Father Carons Loyalty Asserted, as there were Members of the Congregation; besides some few Copies more of Carons Latin Folio Book (against the Louain Censure) dis∣persed amongst them, and one to remain still in a publick place for them to con∣sult; and besides also a Copy for every one of them, of all other Printed Pa∣pers and little Books of my own which came forth (for their good) since the Kings most happy Restitution. But that which is more material to give at length here, is a true exact Copy of those Six Sorbon Declarations in the year 1663. and of the most Christian Kings Royal, Publick, and Printed Declaration, in pursuance of the said Academical ones. Of both I have by me still the Printed Copy brought to Ireland, in the year 1664. out of France by the R. Father Thomas Harold of the Franciscan Order, Reader Jubilat of Divinity. Out of which genuin Printed French Copy take this other following, as agreeing word by word with that very individual Copy of Father Harolds.

DECLARATION DU ROY, Pour faire enregistrer au Parlement de Bretagne celle contre les Max∣imes des Vltramontains.

Verifiee audit Parlement le 21. d' Aoust 1663.

LOUIS par la grace de Dieu Roy de France & de Navarre: A tous ceux qui ces presentes Lettres verront, Salut. La Faculte de Theologie de notre bonne Ville de Paris, qui depuis son establisse∣ment a este le plus ferme apuy de la Religion & de la saine doctri∣ne dans nostre Royaume, & qui a toujours fait profession des op∣poser fortement a ceux qui ont voulu en alterer la purete, ayant reconnu que depuis plusieurs annees quelques personnes se seroient efforcees d'in∣troduire dans nostre Estat certaines Maximes des Ultramontains, contraires a cel∣les qui y ont este receues de tout temps, & directement opposees a nos droits, aux

immunitez du Royaume, franchises & libertez de l'Eglise Gallicane; cette celebre Compagnie auroit estime qu'il estoit de son deouir de faire tout ce qui depondoit d'elle pour arrester le cours d'vnd si dangeruse doctrine: Et a cette fin elle nous auroit fait vne declaration autentique & solemnelle de fes dogmes & de sa doctrine en cette matiere, qu'elle a renfermee en six Propositions, dont l'Acte est cy-attache sous le contre-Scel de nostre Chancelerie, laquelle Declaration auroit este leue & Registre en nostre Cour de Parlement de Paris: Et parce que nous auons juge qu'il estoit important de la faire aussi Registrer dans les autres Courts de Parlement de nostre Royaume, afin de la rendre publique, & que les sentimens de nos subjects soient vniformes sur ces Articles, en sorte qu'il en soit rien dit, escrit, enseigne, ny professe qui soit contraire a ladite Declaration de ladite Faculte. SCAVOIR FAISONS, que nos pour ces causes, & autres bonnes considerations a ce nos mouuans, Auons par ces presentes, Signees de nostre main, Dit & Ordonne, Di∣sons & Ordonnons, Voulons & nos Plaist, que lesdites six Propositions contenues en la declaration de ladite Faculte de Theologie, soient leues, publiees, & enre∣gistrees en toutes nos Cours de Parlemens, Iustices, Bailliages, Senechaussees, Ju∣risdictions, & Vniversitez de nostre Royaume, Pays & Terres de nostre obeissance, Faisans tres expresses inhibitions & defenses a tous Bacheliers, Licentiez, Docteurs, & autres personnes de quelque qualite & condition qu'elles soient, de soustenir & defendre, lire & enseigner, directement ny indirectiment, es Escholes publiques, ny ailleurs, aucunes Propositions contraires a celles de la declaration de ladite Fa∣culte de Theologie, ny d'en faire aucun Escrit, peine de punition exemplaire; Et aux Sindics des Universitez, & aux Docteurs qui Presideront aux Actes, de souffrir qu il soit rien insere de contraire dans aucunes Theses, a peine d'en respondre en leurs noms, & d'estre procede contr'eux extraordinairement. SI DONNONS EN MANDEMENT a nos amez & feaux les Gens tenans nostre Coure de Parlement de Bretagne, que ces presentes, ensemble la Declaration de ladite Fa∣culte contenue esdites six Propositions, ils ayent a faire lire, publier, & enregistrer au Greffe de nostredite Cour, & en toutes les Senechaussees, Bailliages, & Uni∣versitez du Ressort d'icelle, & a tenir soigneusement la main a l'exacte observa∣tion d'icelles, sans y contreuenir, ny permettre qu'il y soit contreuenu en aucune maniere; CAR tel est nostre plaisir, en temoin de quoy nous anous fait mettre nostre Scel a cesdites presentes. Donne a Paris, le quatrieme du mois d'Aoust, l'an de grace mil siz cens soixante trois. Et de nostre Regne le vingt-vnieme. Signe, LOVIS. Et sur le reply, Par le Roy, DE LIONNE. Et Scellee du grand Sceaude cire jaune.

Declarationes Sacrae Facultatis Theologicae Parisiensis factae apud Regem Christianissimum, die octava Maij, Anno 1663. super qui∣busdam Propositionibus quas nonnulli voluerunt ipsi adscribere.

PRimo, Non esse doctrinam Facultatis summum Pontificem aliquam in tempo∣ralia Regis Christianissimi authoritatem habere, imo semper obstitisse Faculta tem, etiam iis qui indirectam tantummodo voluerunt esse illam authoritatem.

Secundo, Esse doctrinam Facultatis, quod Rex Christianissimus nullum om∣nino agnoscit, nec habet in temporalibus superiorem, praeter Deum, eam{que} suam esse antiquam doctrinam, a qua nunquam recessura est.

Tertio, Doctrinam Facultatis esse, quod subditi fidem & obedientiam Regi Chri∣stianissimo ita debent, ut ab iis nullo pratextu dispensari possint.

Quarto, Eandem Facultatem non probare, nec probasse unquam, Propositiones ullas Christianissimi Regis Authoritati, aut germanis Ecclesia Gallicana Liberta∣tibus & receptis in Regno Canonibus contrarias: verbi gratia; quod summus Pon∣tifex deponere possit Episcopos adversus eosdem Canones.

Quinto, Doctrinam Facultatis non esse, quod summus Pontifex sit supra Con∣cilium Oecumenicum.

Sexto, Non esse doctrinam nec dogma Facultatis, quod summus Pontifex, nullo accidente Ecclesiae consensu, sit infallibilis.

Excerptum e monumentis praefatae Facultatis Theologicae Parisiensis, per me infrascriptum Scribam ejusdem, vigesima quarta Julii, Anno Do∣mini millesimo sexcentesimo sexagesimo tertio.

Ph. Bouvot.

Declarations saites au Roy par la Sacree Faculte de Theologie de Paris, le May 8. 1663. sur certaines Propositions que quelques vns ont voulu luy attribuer.

PRemierement, Que ce n'est pas la doctrine de la Faculte, que le Pape ait aucune authorite sur le temporel du Roy, qu'an contraire elle a toujours resiste, mesmes a ceux qui n'ont voulu luy attribuer qu'vne Puissance in∣directe.

2. Que c'est la Doctrine de la Faculte, que le Roy ne reconnoist & n'a autre Superieur au temporel que Dieu seul, que c'est son ancienne Doctrine, & qu'el le nesen departira iamais.

3. Que c'est la Doctrine de la Faculte, que les Subjects du Roy luy doiuent tellement la fidelite & l'obeissance, qu ils n'en puuent estre dispensez sous quel∣que pretexte que ce soit.

4. Que la mesme Faculte n'approuue point, & que elle n'a iamais approuue, aucunes des Propositions contraires al'Authorite du Roy, & aux veritables Li∣bertez de l'Eglise Gallicane, & Canons receus dans le Royaume (par exemple) que le Pape puisse deposer les Evesques, contre la mesme disposition des mesmes Canons.

5. Que ce n'est pas la Doctrine de la Faculte, que le Pape soit au dessus du Concile Oecumenique.

6. Que ce n'est pas la Doctrine, ny vn dogme de la Faculte, que le Pape soit infallible lors qu'il n internient aucun consentement de l'Eglise.

Extrait des Registres de la mesme Faculte de Theologie de Paris, par moy sous-signe Greffier d'icelle, le 24. iour de Iuillet, l'an 1663.

Ph. Bowot.

EXTRAICT DES REGISTRES DE PARLEMENT

LEues, Publiees & Registrees an Greffe de la Cour, pour estre gardees & observees. Ordonne la Cour qu'a la dili∣gence du Procureur General du Roy Coppies desdites Let∣tres & Declarations seront enuoyees aux Sieges Presidi∣aux & Royaux de ce Ressort, pour a la diligence de ses Substituts y estre pareillement leues & publiees, & signifiees aux Pro∣fesseurs de Theologie dudit Ressort, a ce qu'aucun n'en pretende cause d'ignorance. Faict en Parlement a Rennes, le 21. Aoust 1663.

We shall hereafter see those six above inserted Sorbon Declarations, whether French, or Latin (as you have them here in both Languages out of the French Copy) translated into English by the Fathers of our National Irish Assembly.

But for as much as it may peradventure be objected by some of the more un∣reasonably exceptious and contentious Irish, That I ought rather to give here an exact Copy of the very and only Paris Impression it self in Latin of those Acts of that University, than of any of them elsewhere in France Printed, I thought fit to obstruct also herein such endless wranglers, and give that which was transmitted in the said year 1663. immediatly from Paris to London.

Acta Parisiensia. Declaratio Facultatis Theologicae Parisiensis, & per illius Depu∣tatos Regi exhibita circa theses de Infallibilitate Papae.

OCtavo Maii, die Ascensionis D. N. Jesu Christi convenerunt domini de∣putati de Mince, Morel, Betille, de Breda, Grandin, Guyard, Guischard, Gabillon, Coguelin, & Montgailard in domum Facultatis juxta decretum pridie in Congregatione Generali factum, ut convenirent de iis quae Regi Christianissimo declaranda erant ex parte Facultatis per os Illustrissimi, ac Reveren∣dissimi D. Archiepiscopi Parisiensis designati, cum Amplissimo Comitatu Magi∣strorum ejusdem.

Declarationes Facultatis Parisiensis factae apud Regem super qui∣busdam propositionibus quas non nulli voluerunt ascribere eidem Facultati.

I. NOn esse doctrinam Facultatis quod summus pontifex aliquam in temporalia Regis Christianissimi Authoritatem habet: imo Facultatem semper obstitisse, etiam iis qui indirectam tantummodo esse illam Authoritatem, voluerunt.

II. Esse doctrinam Facultatis ejusdem, quod Rex nullum omnino agnoscit nec habet in temporalibus superiorem praeter Deum; eamque suam esse antiquam Doctrinam a qua nunquam recessura est.

III. Doctrinam Facultatis esse quod subditi fidem & obedientiam Regi Christianissi∣mo ita debent, ut ab iis nullo pretextu dispensari possint.

IV. Doctrinam Facultatis esse, non probare, nec unquam probasse propositiones allas Regis Christianissimi Authoritati, aut Germanis Ecclesiae Gallicanae libertatibus, & receptis in Regno Canonibus, contrarias; v. g. quod Summus Pontifex possit de∣ponere Episcopos adversus eosdem Canones.

V. Doctrinam Facultatis non esse, quod summus Pontifex sit supra Concilium Oe∣cumenicum.

VI. Non esse doctrinam vel dogma Facultatis, quod summus Pontifex, nullo acce∣dente Ecclesiae consensu, sit infallibilis.

Ita de verbo ad verbum Acta Parisiis Impressa & Regi exhibita Mense May 1663.

For so, word by word, is the Printed Copy of the very Latin Paris Im∣pression of these Acts and Six Declarations presented to His Most Christian Majesty in the month of May 1663.

XIII.

THE Reader may now questionless expect an account from me, of some, ei∣ther learned, or at least prudential debate amongst the Fathers in so grave an Assembly upon so solemn a Message (as you have before seen) to them on such a Subject from the Duke of Ormond His Majesties Lord Lieutenant then of that Kingdom. But I am sorry I can give none at all either of the one or other sort; nay, nor of any either learned or unlearned, or prudential or imprudential; because of no kind of debate on that Message. For indeed they took no more notice of it, than if none at all had been sent them; the leading men, the Prelats, and their numerous and sure sticklers over-awing and silenceing present∣ly any that seemed inclining to move for paying as much as any even due, or civil respect in such matters to the Lord Lievtenant, or as much as to dispute the equity of what their Cabal had privately before the Congregation sate resolved upon, viz. not to comply with His Grace in any material point, but to sign and present a new unsignificant Formulary of their own, i. e. That prepared to their hands, and utterly decline That which His Grace expected from them, yea not to suffer any mention at all, to be as much as once made in publick, of the former Remonstrance. So powerfully influential on them was their Propheti∣cal opinion of wonders, to be expected by, and for themselves done in that won∣derful year of 1666. Nor did they seem at all to consider, they might be as well defeated of all such their vain, worldly, carnal hopes of Empire, Glory, Pomp (which they drove at) as the Apostles were, when (before receiving the Holy Ghost in fulness, on the 5th. day) they put this vain question, Domine si in tempore hoc restitues Regnum Israel?

But (to leave animadvertions) so it was indeed, That the Fathers did not once debate, not only, not the heads of the Procurators Speech, but not a word of the very Message from his Grace. Albeit they considered how to gratifie the Pro∣curator himself for what was past, i. e. for the liberty they had now enjoyed for so many years since 1662. through his endeavours, and oblige him also for the future to continue the like endeavours for them as their Procurator. And in∣deed, I had scarce been an hour abroad hard by them, walking in a Garden to take the fresh air, after my long speech (which together with the heat of the room made me retire a little) when Father Francis Fitz Gerrald a Franciscan (one of the Members of that Congregation, as Procurator for the Vicar General of the Diocess of Cluan a vacant See in the Province of Cas••el) came with pleasing news (to flatter me as he thought) telling me the Congregation had voted two thousand pounds sterling to be Levied of all the Clergy of the Kingdom by se∣veral gales to be payed me towards my expenses hereafter, in carrying on as general Procurator, the great affair of their liberty and freedom, as till then I had the four last years. Him at that time I only answered, that was not the point to be either resolved, or debated. Soon after the Primat himself came forth to me, where I continued alone walking. And he also would with the same con∣sideration have wrought me to a more plyant temper; I answered him to this purpose. My Lord, you should have known me better, then to think to amuse me with the news of any such prepostrous either motions or resolves. There will be time enough to consider of such inferiour matters when you shall have first done your duty, in or∣der to the King, to my Lord Lieutenant, and Protestant State, Council, Parlia∣ment, which are and ought to govern you under God in all temporal affairs; nay your duty to your Native Country and Irish Nation, your Church and Catholick Religion; and when you shall consequently first be but just to your selves. In the mean time, My Lord, know that I cannot but very much resent your designs, in making use of me to bring you home; designs, no less point blanck contrary to all your Letters to me, and to the publick end of calling this Congregation, than so inconsideratly discover∣ed by your self, not only in your private discourse with several within these four and

Twenty hours since your Landing, but also in the publick Assembly this very afternoon. My Lord, you know out of one of my Letters which you received at Paris five or six weeks before you came away thence, and cannot know but full well out of that Let∣ter particularly, upon what terms you were to come, if you expected (as you did, and beg••d so long and earnestly of me in so many Letters these four years past) to come with security or any Protection from the just penalties of the Laws, to which, you your self are so singularly obnoxious, above any other Churchman of the whole. Na∣tion. And you know, nor can but remember these terms were, That you should Sign that very individual Formulary which others have before you, in the year 1662. And that you should by your own example, and other just endeavours, as far as you could, perswade the rest of the Dissentors to the like duty. But have you not al∣ready, rather much, even encouraged all the rest to the contrary? To this expostu∣lation the Primat answered shortly and confidently. 1. That he came indeed of purpose to hinder the Congregation, and (consequently) the whole Irish Na∣tion from falling from their obedience to the See Apostolick, by Signing that For∣mulary of the famed Remonstrance. 2. That he received no such Letter from me, containing such terms. I was amazed to hear and see, the confidence of this answer; especially of the second part of it, which made me reply in this man∣ner. My Lord, you make the business worse and worse, and afflict me more by your disingenuous denyal then by your designs, or any other endeavours. For I can ne∣ver more have that confidence to interpose for you hereafter, which I have had hi∣therto. And how can I, being (out of what you alledged now) conscious of your want of sincerity in a matter of such consequence, and wherewith the Lord Liev∣tenant must be acquainted by me, as he was with that Letter I sent you. And, pray my Lord, how can you perswade your self, that either his Grace, or any other will be∣lieve you concerning that Letter. You have euen now lately corresponded with me every Packet this whole Twelve-month from Paris. And as I received all and eve∣ry of your Letters, so you have (by your own confession) all mine in answer, that only excepted. How should that miscarry, being directed as all the rest were, un∣der an unknown name, and to the place which your self appointed? Nay, you received at Paris, before you stirred thence, three more of mine, written after that. Ne∣vertheless he persisted still in denying the reception of it. Whereupon I added, That I could heartily wish it had been so, and that his Lordship could evidence it to have been so; which though you cannot, my Lord, yet you will do well to think what you are to speak for your self, even also on that Subject to my Lord Lieutenants Grace, whom I must acquaint to night with your excuse, together with your humble desire to wait upon his Grace. Which I will the rather, that not only you may know from himself I writ no other to you to Paris, either in that Letter, or any former, or later than truth, but also have an assurance from his Graces own mouth of your safety here while you stay, or shall be suffered to stay, however you carry your self in the Congregation publickly, or elsewhere privatly, as to the Remonstrance I mean. For hitherto you relyed only on my bare Letters inviteing, or encouraging you to come, and promising you might with all security. And though you now deny the terms or conditions added in those Letters; yet I know my Lord Lieutenant will not give occasion to new lyes and flanders, by restraining you from Liberty to return whence you came, if you think fit not to do that which should merit, or at least move him to further indulgence, though otherwise but your bare duty to the King. Such in effect was my Expostulation with the Primat; such his answer; and such finally my return. According to which return, I acquainted that very night his Grace with all that passed that day; as I did every night his Grace with every days transactions while the Fathers continued that Assembly; and amongst other things, with what passed either in publick or private between the Primat and me. And his Grace notwithstanding he had as many causes of prejudice against even the said Primat in particular as any could have, yet overcoming all by that won∣derful good nature of his own, which so often before, during so many years since 1641, had passed by but too too many failings of the Roman Catholick Prelats of Ireland in general, was pleased to assign me the next night after to introduce pri∣vately to his Closet the said Primat.

XIV.

BUT the interposing day (which was the fourth of the Congregation, and fourteenth of the moneth) gives me some further matter to be observed be∣fore I come to relate the Primats introduction at night. For the Fathers being sate again this day, both morning and evening (as their manner was to sit twice every day, till they were Dissolved; only the two intervening Sundays excepted:) and because I was truly and fully informed of the obstinate, nay desperate reso∣lution of their leading men, viz. 1. Not only, not to Sign the Remonstrance of 1661, and 1662, but not to debate it; nay, nor suffer it as much as to be read in their House. 2. To sign only another new, but very insignificant Instru∣ment of Recognition, prepared for them, which abstracted wholly from all the ma∣terial parts of the former. And 3. not to Petition for any Pardon at all: and because withal, I was resolved not to be wanting of my own part to prevent, or at least, to premonish them sufficiently and publickly of the fatal consequencies of such desperate Counsels: I thought fit to assist and spend some time with them both in the fore, and afternoon, partly desiring a positive answer from the Speaker, to these two Queries, 1. What they had resolved on my Lord Lieutenants Message concerning their Signing the Remonstrance? 2. What upon my own proposal to them, concerning a Petition for Pardon? and partly, reasoning against the answers given. For to the First Quere, the answer was, That the House resolved upon a new Remonstrance, or new Formulary of their own, which they presumed would satisfie the Lord Lieutenants Grace, and assure him sufficiently for the future, of their Allegiance, Faith, and Obedience to the King. And to the Second, That they thought any such Petition needless. Whereupon, I took the liberty to ad∣vise, entreat, conjure the Fathers not to suffer themselves to be carried on, or hold to such rash resolves, but to consider more seriously and maturely what the con∣sequences might be. For (said I) as to the First, Either you intend to give the Lord Lieutenant full satisfaction, by comprising plainly in your new Formulary, the whole sense of the former Remonstrance; or you do not intend any such mat∣ter, but only to present him with some unsignificant Formulary, not reaching home the points in controversie.

If the former; to what purpose then would you vary from the words of that Remonstrance, not only signed allready by a Bishop, by so many other Divines, and by so great a number also of the Nobility and Gentry, all of your own Church and Communion, but so solemnly presented to, so graciously accepted by his Ma∣jesty, so much to your ease and quiet hitherto promoted, and so much also desi∣red by His Majesty and Lord Lieutenant to have your further concurrence to it by your Manual Signature? Do you intend to render your selves not without cause suspected by changing that form? to work a Schysm amongst those of your own Communion and Nation. To condemn all those who have Sign'd the first Formu∣lary? Do not you see it lawful for you in point of Conscience and Religion, to ap∣prove what hath been done already for your ease by so many Noble, Learned, good Patriots; but unlawful for them to fall from the justification of it? Must the supercilious, ungrounded Letters of Roman Courtiers, or unconscionable, un∣christian, ignorant censures of a Forreign University have such power amongst you? Must Passion, or even a mistaken interest rule you that are the Priests of God, and carry you headlong to Schysm? Besides consider, the Lord Lieutenant will under∣stand very well how it must follow, That if in deference to the Roman Dictators you change as much as the words only of that Forme, upon the same ground you must fall from the sense also, when they shall presently send their next Let∣ters condemning what you have done. Lastly, consider, it is not against the words of the Remonstrance, as any way less reverential, that the Roman Court is or hath been hitherto incensed (as you may see even in Cardinal Barberin's last Letters of April, 24. this same year 1666, where he acknowledges the Remonstrance couch'd

in bland oribus verbis;) but against the sense, so that if you intend to give the sense of it in other words, you must nevertheless incur their indignation.

If the later; Do you think the Lord Lieutenant after so many years experi∣mental knowledge of the meaning and purpose of such other several unsatisfacto∣ry Forms, offered to him, to decline that one which was, and is satisfactory, will not apprehend wherein you come short? or think you he understands not En∣glish words, or the material sense of them as well as you? Think you that none of his Council can, should himself not perceive the defectiveness? Or think you that I my self could, or ought to dissemble your imposing on His Grace, if none else could see the Imposture?

But to what purpose do I question what you intend? I know it Fathers. And know you intend a Formulary coming short even in sense of all, and each the very material passages of the Remonstrance; even a Formulary that signifies no∣thing at all for His Majesties, or Graces, or Councils, or Parliaments, or even any particular persons, either Protestants, or Catholicks satisfaction as to the controverted points. And therefore know 'twill be rejected. And what think you will the consequence be? What in this conjuncture of publick affairs? Erit novissimus error, pejor priore. And you will be certainly looked upon, as men of profligate Principles and Designs; and in due time also both considered and adjudged as men not worthy either of Protection or other Commiseration; and not you alone, but all the Clergy both Secular and Regular obeying you. Nay, which is yet more lamentable; the very Lay-people observing you will be look∣ed upon as men carried on blind-fold to, or at least, fitted and prepared for all pernicious designs, when you are pleased to give the Signal.

As to the Second resolve, or answer to my Second Querie, concerning a Petiti∣on for Pardon, I asked them, whether they had forgotten the general either Re∣bellion, or Insurrection (which they pleased to call it) of the year 1641? or the National Congregation of the Clergy Regular and Secular at Waterford under the Nuncio, in the year, 1646? or the other at Jamestown, An. 1650 even after the Nuncio's departure? or who in the mean time, or rather indeed all along, from 1641, to the year 1648, fought against both the Laws, and those who had not only the Laws, but the Kings especial Commission? or who had been for the Nuncio's Censures against the Cessation? who against both Peaces? who for a Forreign Pro∣tectour? who for the alienation of the Crown? who for the design of Mac Ma∣hon, the Irish Jesuits Printed Book of Killing not only all the Protestants, but even all such of the Roman Catholic•• Irish who stood for the Crown of England, and Rights of the King to Ireland, and for choosing an Irish Native for their King, Eligite vobis Regem vernaculum? I asked them further, did they indeed know none at all of the Irish Clergy yet surviving, none of that very Congregation guilty of any of those matters, or of any part of the Blood spilt in the late un∣happy Wars? or thought they it needless indeed to ask pardon of the King for such men in general? or did they not know, there was no Act of Indempnity yet for any such, at least Clergy-men? And then added, Alas Fathers, what a reproach will the very Presbyterians of Scotland (whom you esteem the worst sort of Hereticks) be unto you? They have throughout all their Synods and Classes, both unanimously and justly too, agreed to beg the Kings Pardon, and accordingly have beg'd and obtained it for their former actings; And I have my self read their Petitions to that purpose in Print. You that esteem your selves the only Saints for a holy Apostolical Religion, will you come short of them in your duty? Take heed Fathers, that if you persist in your inconsiderate resolution, I may not properly and truly, for this very cause say to you, that which our Saviour did in the Gospel to his own Countrymen the Jews, who were yet the only people entrusted with the Oracles of God; Amen dico vobis, quo∣niam publicani & peccatores precedent vos in Regnum Dei. And here I expostu∣lated again with the Bishop of Ardagh, even before all the Fathers for his con∣trivance, or at least, very strange mistake both of my intention and words when I delivered my sense to his Lordship (some two days before the Assembly

sate first) concerning such a Petition from them. And repeated there in publick what passed between him and me on that Subject; as you have it before at large Sect. 9. pag. 640.

From hence I returned again to the former Subject of the Remonstrance, and let them know, that I understood of great Cabals amongst them, to hinder even any kind of debate, nay reading, or so much as mention of the said Remonstrance in their House. Telling them withal, That notwithstanding all such contrivances of men who desired in effect nothing but confusion, I hoped none there present would have the confidence to hinder my own publick reading of that Instrument, as neither of other Instruments too that concern••d as well them all as my self to hear them both read and debated or opposed, if any could pretend against them any matter of debate or opposition. And presently, in a great silence and attention of the Fathers, drawing out of my pocket the very Original Remonstrance (See in Tract. 1. Part 1. pag. 7. and from pag. 462 to 487) sent to me to London out of Ireland, together both with that other Original exact Copy thereof which was sign'd by all the Ecclesiasticks, who either sign'd it at London first, or Dublin after, and one of the first Printed Copies also of the same Instrument, I read publickly to them this, from first to last, pausing on each clause of the controverted Act of Recognition, and Petitionary Address; and demanding at each, as also again after all read over, Whether they had any thing to object against any either particular clause, or the whole taken together? desiring them al∣so to confer if they pleased the Printed, and the said original Copies, and then to judge of the truth, or falshood, equity, or iniquity of another sort of publick Instrument, sign'd by some few of the Irish Clergy-men represented by them, and given in the year 1662. to Father John Brady a Franciscan, one of their Members present as one of the two Divines of that Order, and carried by him to the Uni∣versity of Louain that very year, to procure thereby (as he did) the Censure of that University, or Theological Faculty thereof, against the Remonstrance. For in that so given to the said Brady, the Subscribers of it say, That I invented the Remon∣strance, and falsly imposed it on others. See Part. 1. pag. 91. Where you have a Copy of that lying disloyal Instrument given to the said Brady.

In the next place I told them, That for as much as I had understood for so ma∣ny years past, since 1661, That several in remote parts of the Kingdom had traduced me as without any ground or authority, arrogating the Title of Procura∣tor, &c, I desired their patience to hear and see with their own ears and eyes the original Procuratorium under Hands and Seals sent me to London from the Prelats by Father Antony Gearnon in the end of the year 1660. And consequently, I both produced, and read it to them, as you have the Copy thereof, Tract. 1. Part. 1. pag 5. Adding, that although I saw it was not sign'd by hands out of every seve∣ral Province and Order, because that by reason of the terrible Persecution, there was no possibility at the time of its date to convene others than such as had Sign∣ed it; yet by the advice of the Bishop of Dromore, and the rest of the Remon∣strants at London, and because the sad condition of the Irish Clergy at home re∣quired, I should as solemnly as could be appear for them all as their General Procurator, without distinction of Provinces or Orders, I did therefore as Procu∣rator, utrius{que} Cleri Hiberniae sign that Formulary and Remonstrance which was to do them good upon my owning it as such, or under that title, at least until they might be convened together; albeit I did expresly refuse to subscribe the said Formulary as having special Commission from them, or any of them to subscribe it in their name; however withal, I at the same time, and to the same great Ministers of State declared, That I hoped the rest of the Irish Clergy, (when the storm of Persecution being over, they could meet together, or appear in publick, and when at least the Bishops were permitted to return home from Forraign parts) would all of them in good time concur also by their own proper Manual Signa∣tures added thereunto.

In the Third place, I craved their further patience whiles I shewed, and read another sort of authentick Instrument, wherein, though I was my self chiefly con∣cern'd,

they were also not a little, viz. my Letters of Licence, Mission, Autho∣rity and Obedience (to live and exercise my Priestly Function throughout the three Nations) from the Regular Order whereof, professed my self, and hoped to continue till death a true genuine Member. Telling them moreover, it was therefore I desired this last Instrument should be heard and viewed publickly, be∣cause I understood that by the industry and malice of some old Enemies to me for my former actings in defence of the Kingdom against the Nuncio, as likewise through the consequential, but unreasonable aversion of the same parties from any kind of satisfactory Profession of Allegiance to the King, they had in corners whispered up and down the Country amongst their partizans, followers, and de∣votes, especially amongst the ruder sort of people, I had been these many years and continued still an Apostate from my own Order, as having no Letters of Obedience from either the General or Provincial Superiours thereof. Which though by a Thousand other arguments, and amongst other by the Procuratorium already seen and read of so many Reverend Prelats to me, giving me both such ample testimony, and withal, no less Authority, Power, and Jurisdiction too than was in their power to give, it be sufficiently, and manifoldly convinced to be a grand Imposture; yet I thought fit to let them, if any of them were present, hear and see the very Original Patent also of the General Superiour of my own Order, approved even by the Manual Signature of the very Provincial of Ireland Anthony Docharty there present, as one of the chief Members of the Congrega∣tion. And then I drew forth and read publickly those obediential Letters un∣der the great Seal of the Franciscan Order, as followeth,

Frater Antonius ab Oudenhoven Lector Jubilatus totius Ordinis Fratrum Mi∣norum Exdiffinitor generalis, super Provincias Germaniae Superioris, Belgii, Hiberniae, Angliae, Scotiae, Daciae, cum plenitudine potestatis in utro{que} foro Commissarius generalis Venerando Admodum Patri fratri Petro Valesio Provinciae Hiberniae Concionatori ac Sacrae Theologiae Lectori Salutem in Domino Sempiternam.

QƲandoquidem expulsus Hibernia cum obedientialibus Reverendissimi Patris Jacobi de Riddere Praedecessoris nostri cum magna plurium Catholico∣rum consolatione versatus fueris in Anglia, postulaveris{que} a Nobis dictam Missionem confirmari, Hinc est quod (de tua idoneitate, animarum zelo ac discretione plurimum in Domino confidentes) virtute praesentium licentiam tibi nostram concedamus ut cum Sanctae Obedientiae merito dictam Missionem per Angliam, Hiberniam, & alia loca vicina pro ut expedire indicaveris continuare valeas, assumpto socio tibi grato, commendantes vos omnibus Catholicis ad quos divertere contingerit in visceribus Jesu Christi. Vale in Christo Jesu & ora pro Nobis. Datum Bru∣gis Flandrorum in Conventu nostro Fratrum Minorum Recollectorum die .13. Men∣sis Februarii Anno 1659. sub me a Signatura officii{que} Sigillo majori,

Frater Antonius ab Oudenhoven qui supra

[illustration] legal seal

O

Locus Sigilli

Ego infrascriptus admitto per omnia has Patentes Re∣verendissimi Commissarii Generalis, & quatenus, vel si necessum sit, eandem Licentiam facultates{que} omnes consequentes de novo, & a meipso, in quan∣tum possum, eidem V.A.P. Fatri Petro Valesio qui supra concedo. In quer. fidem subscribo in Con∣ventu Montisfernandi hac Decima Feb. 1662.

Frater Antonius Docharty Minister Pronuncialis.

Having done, I laid these Original Patents down upon the Speakers or Chair∣mans Table before him, as I did the two former Instruments. And then desired the said Chairman or Prolocutor, my Lord Bishop of Kilfinuran, that if any could object any thing, he should appear and speak without further delay. But no man did against either any of these Instruments, or my own Person, or my Au∣thority, or what I did, or what title of their general Procurator I used in Print, or the ways I took or the good intentions I had all along to serve them and the Catholick Nation of Ireland. On the contrary, the Chairman returned me Complements of thanks, and acknowledgments not only of my good intentions all along, but of the highest obligations laid by me on all Irish Catholicks both Clergy and People, &c. Indeed against what I moved, and so earnestly urged them to. viz, the controverted Remonstrance; I remember, the Primat spoke his own Resolution in these very words, Father Walsh, I know you are as good a Catholick as any of us; and yet I declare to you, that I will not sign that Re∣monstrance. Wherein the Bishop of Ardagh did second him much more vehe∣mently and passionately.

To the Primat, the reply was in short, That his reason, had he given any, might be shewn unreasonable, and his understanding better informed; but there was none but God and himself could rectifie his will. As for Ardagh, notwith∣standing he gave no more reason for his passionate wilfulness then the Primat did, yet because he bustled much more violently and confidently, and withal uncon∣stantly (if not perfidiously) I took the pains to expostulate with him a little more, and expose him publickly to the whole Congregation, pulling out and reading to them all, that Letter of his from Seiz in France, to his Brother Sir Ni∣cholas Plunket, which you had before, Part. 1. Sect. Pag. And then de∣manding of him, My Lord, Can you deny this Letter to be written all along, and signed by your own proper hand? your own said very Brother Nicholas gave me it, even this very Original which you see. And since you cannot deny this Letter, What is the reason you will not sign now what you have therein so approved by reason and argument under your own hand? To this he answered but faintly and ridi∣culously too, viz. That indeed although he could not deny that to be his own Letter; yet he thought the Remonstrance which he so approved therein, varied something from thence ever since controverted even from that which now was publickly read. Therefore, leaving Ardagh to find a better answer, I turn'd to my Lord of Kilfinuran the Speaker himself, and demanded of him likewise, Whether his Lordships own self had not procured at St. Malos in France, 1663. even the Subscription of about a dozen Irish Priests, there at that time, unto this very con∣troverted Remonstrance, or Copy thereof, sent as it was thither in Print from Lon∣don, both in single sheets, and in my own More Ample Account? He could not deny it. How then my Lord (said I) comes it to pass, that you are now so much estrang∣ed from that you so much then approved? Why so averse from it now? We have (says he) no prejudice against, nor aversion from it; but we would be at liber∣ty to make use of our own words, for expressing our own sense. Hereunto as soon as I had replyed again, what you have before of wording, or sense to be worded; I converted my self to some others, who were concern'd not to be as mute on that Subject as I had known they were continually since they sate the very first day. I asked, 1. The Provincial of the Franciscans, Whether he himself had not under his own hand in a Letter (dated at Multifernan in Janua∣ry 1662. S. Ʋ.) to the Lord Lieutenant, approved at large, both the sense and words of the Remonstrance, without any kind of exception? 2. Father Oliver Desse the Vicar General of Meath, Whether he was not of Council in con∣triving and sending that very individual Formulary unto me to London? 3. Ro∣nan Magin, Vicar General of Dromore, and Cornelius Fogorty. D. V. I. (two other Members present) Whether they had not sign••d that Instrument? 4. The Jesuits also present, whether they could deny, that in the Winter of the said year 1662, their then Provincial Superiour Shelton, together with his two Com∣panions of the same Society, Father Thomas Quin, and Father John Talbot, being

for the Lord Lieutenant and introduced by my own self to his Grace, and amongst other things demanded by his Grace, what they had to say against the signing of the said Instrument, they all every one answered, They had nothing at all, either of Heresie or Schism, or other unlawfulness to object to it; nay, confessed ingenu∣ously, They apprehended not so much as a Venial Sin, or Venial Transgression of any Law, Divine, or Human to be in it, or in the signing of it; though they them∣selves through fear of the Popes displeasure abstain'd and desired to be excused from signing it? And whether the said three Fathers, Shelton, Quin, and Tal∣bot, had not by such their answer moved so his Grace, that he thereunto replyed in these very words, The King shall continue King in spite of the Pope? But nei∣ther to these Queries, nor any other part of my discourse in prosecution of them, or any of them, was there a word return'd; some of the persons concern'd (es∣pecially the Franciscan Provincial) hanging down their heads, and the rest also by their silence acknowledging no less the truth of all I said, than their own ei∣ther prevarication or cowardliness. Yet I must confess, my remembrance of Fa∣ther John Brady's standing up, and speaking in his own concern, and excusing himself, where, and when I taxed him particularly, for having gone, Anno 1662, Agent over the Seas to procure (as he did) the Censure of the Faculty Theological of Louain against the former and Loyal Formulary. But verily, he said nothing to satisfie any indifferent person; being he so disingenuously protested there in publick, that although he designedly went (as he was indeed sent) to Louain about that business, yet he only desired the opinion of the Doctors there, but never any Censure of that Remonstrance; nay, out of prudential considerations opposed to his power their censuring it upon any such motive as might give the King or State here any kind of jealousie. To which answer of his, I replyed more, I am sure, than left him any place of rejoynder; adding nevertheless, that although such endeavours did seem to me a real diminution of, and consequently Treason against Majesty; yet being it was my whole business to obtain for them all from his Majesty a general and gracious Oblivion of and Indempnity for all and every kind of transgression how heinous soever; whereof they, or any of all their Brethren the Irish Ecclesiasticks might be taxed, as fallen into at any time since Octob. 23. 1641 until the present Month and day of June 1666: sure I had no other end in producing him as the procurer of the Louain Censure, but only to make the Fathers present, to understand, and know the lying Arts wherewith it was procured by him, and they all and rest of the Irish Clergy had been so long (ever since the procuring thereof) hindred from their necessary ap∣probation of, and concurrence to the Remonstrance.

Nor do I remember now any other material passage of this fourteenth day of June, and fourth of the Congregation, save only two.

The first was the Bishop of Ardagh's particular, and positive, and no less passi∣onate, than inconsiderate (I might say, very unwarrantable, untrue, and noto∣riously false) answer to the second Querie, concerning a Petition for Pardon. For he, and he alone had the confidence (that I may not say impudence and frenzy) to answer, That he knew none of that Congregation who had been ever at any time obnoxious to the Laws for any thing acted in the time of the late Civil Wars of the Roman Catholick Confederats, nor consequently any that was in any kind of need of petitioning for Pardon either for themselves or any others of the Irish Clergy. I must confess, That when I heard this answer from his Lordship, nor gain-said by any of the rest, I presently apprehended there was no kind of Resolution how mad or desperate soever, but might be expected from such infatuated persons. However, I replyed to his Lordship in this manner. But is it possible indeed, My Lord, that either your self, or any other of all here present can believe you speak your Soul in such manner? Can not I produce and name more than Twenty, nay at least Thirty, even of those here present now, that have been, and are still obnoxious to the Laws, upon account of their carriage, during the late Wars of the Roman Catho∣lick Confederates? Are there not more than five hundred more of the Irish Clergy yet alive, who are likewise obnoxious still upon that account? Or do not you perad∣venture

know, there is no Act of Indempnity as yet granted to them, or even so much as to their Lay Confederates? Or consider not, that this denyal of yours is an express Justification, not only of the first Rebellion in the year 1641, but of all that followed? even also of the Nuncios and his Parties violation of the first Peace in 1646? and of his, and their Censures against the Cessation with Inchiquin; and of the second Peace too, in the year 1648? nay, and of both the Declaration, and Excommunication made, and fulminated by the Bishop at Jamestown, in the year 1650, against his Ma∣jesties Lieutenant General, and General Governour then of Ireland, the (then) Mar∣quess (now Duke) of Ormond, and all those would obey him? yea, is not conse∣quently this Speech of yours in effect an express Declaration, that it may be Lawful for the Irish to rise again, as and when they shall think fit, in Arms against the Laws, and King? This, and much more to this purpose did I then indeed affecti∣onately before all the Fathers reply to Ardagh, and both dilate upon, and exaggerate in the best and least offensive Language I could. For conclusion adding,

1. That not even his Lordships own self had carried himself so innocently as not to need a Pardon.

2. That neither would I, nor did I intend to exempt so much as my self; albeit, not only both the least, and latest Transgressor of them all, in relation to the War, but even the earliest, and greatest opposer amongst them of such as would continue the War against the Cessation and Peace, &c. And yet not one of all stood up, or spake a word to second me; not even Primat Reilly himself, though (by his own former confession even in his Letter of submission, and though otherwise, but too manifestly and notoriously even to the knowledge of all the Kingdom) so enormously obnoxious; nay, though himself had so lately be∣fore writ amongst other things under his own hand, in his late Letter from Paris for that Assembly,* 105.1 his advice and desire that they should prostrate themselves at his Majesties feet with an humble Petition, humbly begging his Majesties plenary Pardon for the offences and transgressions, as well those were hidden, as those were notorious, of all and every individual of the said Irish Clergy, such as were com∣mitted by them, or any of them, at any time during the last five and twenty years.

The Second particular, was the Effect, with the reading of those publick Instruments (i. e. of my Procuratorium, and Letters Obediential) together with the account I gave all along of my own best endeavours, and purest intentions in serving them, since 1660, in quality of their Procurator, till that present, had produced in some of them; and that even publickly before the whole Congrega∣tion. I mean remorse, and Repentance for, nay publick Confession of their having wrongfully in remote parts of the Kingdom represented, and traduced me before they had sufficiently known the truth of things; yea, and (which was consequen∣tial) a submissive begging of me, even there also in publick to Pardon them whatever they had done, or spoken so against me. Those few Penitents (as far as I can remember) who made such open confession, and beg'd my Pardon so no less openly, were Father John O Hairt Prior Provincial of the Dominican Order throughout Ireland, and two Secular Priests being Vicars General of two vacant Sees or Dio∣cesses in the Province of Tuam, or Connaught, one was Elphin, as the Vicars name was Thomas O Higgin; The other Priests name, as likewise of which of the Con∣naught Diocesses he was Vicar I have forgotten; though I remember well his per∣son, which was ancient, grave, and Venerable. But that which I shall never forget, was my own extraordinary great admiration then, To see men of such qua∣lity and judgment, pretending so much remorse of Conscience, by acknowledg∣ing in such manner the injuries they had done me, and therefore begging pardon of me submissively: and yet not one in all that National Congregation to be found that opened once his mouth for confession of any villanies committed against the King at any time in the late Rebellion, or civil War (which you please to call it) or even to speak one word for so much as a general Petition to be exhibited to his Majesty, imploring His Majesties gracious Pardon. No, there was no crime at all committed by all, or any of the Roman Catholick Clergy of Ireland, not even at

any time, nor in any occasion, or matter happened since Octob. 23. 1641, if we must believe the Bishop of Ardagh, Patrick Plunker, pleading for them so in ex∣press terms, and the tacit approbation of his words by the Universal silence of that Assembly; nam qui tacet consentire videtur, according to the rule of the Ca∣non Law. But who can believe either? and not rather be hence convinced, that God in his just indignation had suffered those Fathers to be for their punishment so strangely infatuated against all reason, common sense, the knowledge of all People, and their own interest too? For certainly, and too too notoriously, so they were all along in all their affairs during the fifteen days they sate; but in this particular, above any other, even to astonishment.

However, the Congregation being (that evening) adjourned to the next morn∣ing; as soon as it was late and dusky, having first prepared his way, I went along with the Primat to the Kings Castle, where my Lord Lieutenant receiv∣ed him privately in his Closet, none being present besides me. After salutes, his Grace (having first placed this greatest Roman Catholick Pre••••••t of Ireland by him on a seat, using him also with all other civil respect which the difference of Re∣ligion and reason of State could allow) entertain'd him with a short but pithy, material, excellent Speech, or rather lesson indeed. It continued about a quar∣ter of an hour. And I must confess, that in my life (to my remembrance) I ne∣ver heard so much to the purpose said either so short, or so well, with so much weight and gravity, not only not from any Lay-person to a Church-man, but not even from an Ecclesiastick to any even Laick. Nor was my judgement herein single. The Primat himself confessed so much, even openly too next morning before the whole Congregation, as soon as they were sate, and some oc∣casion was offered him to speak before them, of what the Lord Lieutenants Grace had recommended to them. Nay, he confess••d it also in these very Latin words, Tanquam Angelus Del loquutus est mihi; rendred in English, Like an Angel of God he spake unto me. What the heads were may be easily guessed out of what is said before, both of the Primat himself, and other matters hitherto in this Se∣cond part. And the words I have lost, because the Paper which contain'd them. Yet I remember,

1. They began exactly thus, You know very well it was not for your good deeds the Pope created you titular Primat of Ardmagh.

2. That all the while the Lord Lieutenants Grace continued speaking, the Pri∣mat never as much as once lifted up his eyes, but bare headed (as the Lord Lieute∣nant also was) held them (still immoveably cast down; and in truth behav'd him∣self (because so conscious to himself) as like a guilty penitent Transgressor ad∣mitted to the presence of his Lord, as any could.

3. That when His Grace the Lord Lieutenant either asked or minded him of what conditions I had proposed for his safe return, and writ to himself to France; he denied again, that he had received that Letter.

4. That I repeated thereupon in that presence of both the same Arguments I had the day before to the Primat alone to shew the unlikelihood of this excuse, or at least, my extream wonder at such a chance; having nevertheless let fall some other words of purpose to lessen all I could before his Grace the Lord Lieu∣tenant this weakness of the Primats answer.

5. That his said Grace, notwithstanding he saw clearly enough it was a meer story, yet seemed not once in the least moved, not as much as to reply one word on that or other subject to contristate or afflict him more; but with much ci∣vility and obliging kindness recommended to him to improve the present opportu∣nity in the Congregation for his own, and Clergies, and Countries best advantage, and endeavour, not only to rectifie, but in some measure to satisfie for what∣ever had been not well done at any time before; and so dismissed this Prelat very much satisfied with his gracious reception.

These are the heads of what I remember occurred or passed betwixt His Grace and this Primat then, being the only time they conferred or saw one another. And yet I must here take notice to the Reader, That soon after the Congrega∣tion

had been dissolved, the Primats own Vicar General Doctor Patrick O Daly, together with an other Priest of his Diocess lately then come from Paris, told my self each of them (at the same time with me at Dublin) they had themselves se∣verally heard from the said Primats own mouth, That indeed he had in Paris, be∣fore he came away thence, received that Letter of mine which he so lately denyed both to me, and to the Lord Lieutenant to have received; but that he dared not ac∣knowledge it, either to the Duke or me, or any other should tell, because he then might be justly called in question for other matters, if he signed not the controverted Remon∣strance; which yet, partly through fear of the Court of Rome, and partly too for other causes, he neither dared, nor would sign.

XV.

THE next day, being the fifteenth of June, and fifth of the Congregations sitting, the Lord Lieutenant, having sufficiently understood their little sense of the only end for which he permitted them to meet; and further, how some of them had endeavoured to highten a false report of his intentions to depart suddenly out of Town, of purpose, to pretend they wanted time to consult or deliberate, and so excuse themselves if they gave not full satisfaction; it being consequently alledged, they could not with safety continue their sitting when his Grace were so departed, and for this reason they were better immediately sign the Instrument prepared to their hands viz. the insignificant one, of which before, and which you shall see in the next Section, and then without further ha∣zard of themselves Dissolve; his Grace therefore thought fit to send them by Richard Bellings Esq;; a second Message to be read, as it was this day read to them out of a written paper, publickly, and exactly word by word, as here fol∣loweth, after the Title.

The LORD LIEUTENANT's Se∣cond Message to the Congregation.

THat I understand it is reported I intend in a few days to leave this City, and that it is thence apprehended by those of the Romish Clergy now met here, that they may not have time to consider of, and conclude upon the bu∣siness for which their meeting is permitted, namely, for Subscribing to the Remonstrance and Protestation subscribed and presented to His Majesty in January and February 1661, by divers of the Nobility, Gentry, and Romish Clergy; Whereupon I think it fit to let them know I have no purpose of leaving this City so soon, but that they may have time enough to resolve upon Subscribing the said De∣claration and Protestation, which contains nothing but a necessary and dutiful ac∣knowledgment of the Loyalty they owe His Majesty, and a Condemnation of all Doctrine and Practice contrary thereunto. And I think fit further to put them in mind, that such an opportunity as this, hath not been given to them, or to their Pre∣decessors; and if now lost, may not perhaps be easily or quickly recovered.

This worthy Messenger (and so Catholick a Gentleman too, nay, of such re∣pute amongst the late Roman Catholick Confederates of Ireland, that he was the first Embassadour employed by them to the Pope, and other Princes and States of Italy) having done so his duty in reading that Message to the Congregation, was further pleased out of his own great good will to, and Zeal for them and

his Religion and Countrey in general, to adde also his own further desires advice, reasons, exhortations, and importunity, beseeching them with all earnestness to take special notice of the Lord Lieutenants so gracious and seasonable reminding them, not to lose the present opportunity, &c. After this Gentleman's depar∣ture (which was as soon as he had done his own speech) the Procurator (〈◊〉〈◊〉 my self, P.W.) made his also, being his third Speech, and last indeed on the Subject of the Remonstrance of 1661. for the Signing or Subscribing of which they ••ere permitted to sit; as His Grace the Lord Lieutenant expresly minds them 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Second time in his Message, by Mr. Belings. And from this expression of his Grace, the said Procurator took his exordium again now; failing not in the pro∣secution to present and exaggerate to the Fathers, by all sorts of Arguments, the manifold inconveniences, and irremediable evils which in a little time they would bring on themselves, and all the Native People of their Communion, if they per∣sisted in their inconsiderate resolve of declining what was both expected, and de∣manded from them, the Subscription of the above Remonstrance, or if in lieu thereof, they subscribed only an unsignificant Formulary of a private Cabal••s framing long before they met in this National Congregation.

But finding their leading men would by no means be drawn from their un∣happy purpose of Subscribing only that of their Cabal, the Procurator, willing yet to try a little further all possible ways of saving them, by rendring their meet∣ing in some sort successful, or to some good end, or of having some ground given him to excuse them to the State, or to interpret their Acts, so as they might seem in some wise to concur in sense with the former Remonstrance takes advantage of the Speakers, or Chairmans answering him in behalf of the whole House, viz. That it was not out of any prejudice against the Remonstrance, of 1661, they would not Sign it, but because they thought it more convenient, and becoming hath their Dignity and Liberty to word their own sense; and for the rest, they were far from any thoughts of condemning that Remonstrance, or Subscribers thereof; and there∣fore makes them presently therein Publick this Proposal, That being no rea∣son would move them from their determination of changing or varying from that Formulary, yet if they pleased to testifie under their hands, or by a publick and authentick Act of their Assembly, what their Speaker had now delivered concerning that same Formulary of 1661, as the only reason of their varying from it, he (viz. the Procurator) would heartily endeavour to perswade His Grace the Lord Lieutenant to accept graciously of their new Formulary, or Act of Re∣cognition, if any way, or in any good sense, home to purpose. Whereupon, he produces and reads to them a fair draught of a very short paper, which to that end he had prepared for them against such a fatal contingency of their continu∣ing unalterable in their Resolution for a change or variation from the forme. Which paper was exactly in these words:

HAving seriously perused, examined, and debated the Remonstrance and Pro∣testation of Fidelity, exhibited to His Majesty in January and Feb. 1661, by the Bishop of Dromore, and Father Peter Walsh, and such other Di∣vines of our Nation of Ireland, and by the Nobility and Gentry then at London who concurred likewise by their subscription and exhibition, as aforesaid: We find no part, clause, or proposition, or any thing at all therein, in any part, or as to the whole, contrary to Catholick Faith, or which may not be owned or sub∣scribed, with a safe and good Conscience. In witness whereof We the Members, House, and general Congregation of the Roman Catholick Clergy of Ireland have hereunto Subscribed at Dublin, June 15. 1666.

When the Procurator had read this paper to them, he added moreover. That without this, or same other publick Instrument by them Signed, or Enacted, containing in effect or substance that this Paper did, it was impossible to pre∣vent

a Division, nay, a manifest Schism amongst the Irish, Clergy, if the Congre∣gation would frame or sign only a new Formulary of their own; and so not on∣ly decline, but at least virtually condemn the former, when nothing could be shewed to the contrary.

But, the spirit of division possessing wholly their Demagogues, they excused themselves from signing that, or any such Paper; professing nevertheless con∣stantly, That they had nothing to object, nor would at all object any thing against either that First Formulary, or Subscribers thereof.

Whereupon the Procurator both earnestly and mightily urged, that at least a Select Congregation of their best and most professed Divines should be appointed by them to examine the said Formulary or Remonstrance, or rather indeed (to speak properly and strictly) the Act of Recognition, and both profession and promise of Allegiance, &c, inserted therein; debate every Clause thereof; and then report to the House their judgment of it, i. e. Whether they could except either against the whole, or any part, or clause, or proposition thereof, as unlaw∣ful to be sign'd in point of Religion or Conscience. Giving for his earnest ur∣gency herein, besides many other reasons, this in particular, That for that very end principally, if not only, the Letters of Indiction had directed both the Bi∣shops and the other Prelats Regular and Secular to bring the number of Divines with them fixed upon in the said Letters; and consequently, That for the same end those Divines now sate as Lawful Members of the Congregation. And this also particularly, That all such as had for so many late years, either spoke against it and traduced it as Unlawful, Schismatical, Heretical, Sacrilegious; or otherwise, on any account whatsoever excused themselves from signing it, appealed still for their justification to a National Assembly, wherein it might be throughly examin'd and canvassed. Against which, both motion and reasons the Bishop of Ardagh carrying himself rather like a man besides himself, than of any kind of judg∣ment, discourse, or sobriety, spake, cryed, bauled even to raving both furiously, vehemently, No Divines, Away with the Divines, Out with the Divines; not backing this frantick transport with so much as an attempt of one word even of the least seeming reason, or cause of such opposition; though, I must confess, not without being seconded by a barbarous clapping of hands and stamping of feet, by those of his conspiring Factious Votaries who sate on the lower forms across the lower end of the Room, acting so their parts, when the Procurator prest the said Bishop to give reason for his bauling dissent from so rational a motion, a mo∣tion accompanied with so many strong arguments. The Procurator therefore sitting down, and holding himself a little until the loud dinn, the confused noise of their clapping and stamping was over; but then standing up again, and first ad∣dressing himself to the Chairman, in the next place turning his face to the irregu∣lar croud, and looking severely on them, but again converting himself to the Chairman, other Bishops, and the rest of the Superiours who sate in the upper part of the House; And is this indeed (says he) My Lords and Fathers, either an example or imitation of Conciliary Definitions, or sober Councels, or Ecclesiastical deliberations, or even prudential Resolutions, or so much as mannerly behaviour of men? Is this the end of your urging me these five years past for a permission for you to meet in a National Synod or Convention? Is Tumult, and Con∣spiracy, and Faction, or clapping and stamping, an answer to seasonable and necessa∣ry proposals, backed with the clearest arguments can be? Do not you consider Fathers whom you endeauour so at present to affront? Even him, by whose tender Compassi∣on of you, even him, by whose continual travels and pains, and indefatigable sollici∣tation, you enjoy your present ease, quiet, freedom from so late and great pressures. Or consider you not whose unhappy fate that must be, which necessarily must follow your rashness? Even your own Fathers, and not his who hath so manifoldly sought to save you. Therefore being you will neither hear, nor give reason; since you will not even assent to so much as either of these two so innocent proposals made to you by me now; and since you will not so much as give any kind of reason for your dissent, either as to these two particulars, or any other of the former made at any time from the very first day

of your sitting: My Lords and Fathers, I, shall no more give you the trouble either of any speech or presence of mine, but shall wholly withdraw from you; however, wish∣ing you more sober Counsels in my absence. To which purpose having spoken to them at large with much affection and feeling, he departs immediately; but ha∣ving withal running still in his mind, as he went forth, that passage of the Angels of Peace lamenting in the Prophet Jeremy: Curavinius, Babilonem,* 107.1 & non est sa∣nata: derelinquamus eam, & eamus unusquis{que} in terram suam, quoniam pervenit us{que} ad caelos judicium ejus, & elevatum est usque ad nubes: and both discoursing, and applying it (after he had gone forth) of one side to himself, and several some pious Learned men of the Remonstrants whom he met abroad staying for him, and of the other to that Congregation, and all those of the Irish Antiremonstrant Clergy, represented by them.

But I had not been long abroad, hard by in an Arbour, fitting, and discour∣sing on that subject with those friends of mine, when a Committee of the House came to me of purpose to intreat my return to the House. How many, or who they all were that were so sent this first time to me, I do not remember now, but only their Speaker, who was Angel Golding, a Secular Priest, Native of Dublin, bred in Spain, there Commenced Doctor of Divinity, and well affected both to the Remonstrance, and to my own Person, if I mistook him not; although he would preserve himself with all the wariness he could, in a good esteem with the Papalin Zealots, as being a young man, not without hopes to see himself there∣fore at last, one day or other in the number of Candidats for a Bull and a Mitre. These Commissioners, notwithstanding their earnest intreaty in behalf, and as from the whole Congregation, I answered, That forasmuch as they brought me no con∣sent of the Fathers to any of my proposals, nor other new matter, they must ex∣cuse me: because I conceived not how my return was to any purpose, either for the Fathers who sent them, or themselves that were sent, or even so much as my self, whose return they desired; much less of any others. With which answer this first Committee went back to the Congregation, and reported it. Whereupon, after some debate amongst the Fathers.

A Second Committee was Deputed to, and found me neer the same place still. These were (as they were only three viz) Father Nicholas, Nettervil, Father John Talbot, and the foresaid Angel Golding; the two former being, Jesuits i. e. the two Divines, who (together with their Provincial Sall; were deputed by their Order to be, and sit as they did indeed sit, Members of that Congregation, as the two Divines of the Society of Jesus; the first of them, Uncle, to the present Lord Nettervil; the Second, Brother to Sr. Robert Talbot Baronet, and all three sup∣posed to be my own very good friends, nay, and as to their own inward (but un∣byassed) judgment and affection to be of my way wholly i. e. for the former pro∣fession of Allegiance even against all whatsoever pretences, of the Roman Court, and therefore principally (besides other their deserts and vertues) both esteemed and loved by me. For which two last qualifications (I supposed) they were fixed upon for a second Message to perswade me, especially, being they brought with them somewhat of a new Proposal to content me. For after many entreaties used by every one of them, that I would return to the Congregation and finding me as resolute against their bare compliments. Father Nettervil at last proposed to me, that if I would return to the Congregation, they (also to gratifie me) would prove of and sign all the six late Sorbon Declarations as of one side applyed to themselves and Irish Clergy and Kingdom of Ireland, and of the other to His Majesty.

I answered, That although I was glad to see them consequently allow the matter both of Fact and of Right of those Declarations) both which, notwithstanding even he himself the said Father Nettervil had together with the Primat so groundlessly, and publickly opposed in the Congregation but two days before;) yet considering, The•• if on the very contradictory debate concerning the former Remonstrance they pers••••••••d still to refuse either the signing of it, or of any other Paper, which might testifie they found nothing uncatholick, or otherwise unlawful in it, for which the former Sub∣scribers

might be censured by any; and considering also these Declarations of Sorbon did neither protest against Equivocation (mental or vocal) nor descend to the parti∣cular cases either of Excommunication, or the pretended exemption of Clergymen, or Condemnation of the contrary Doctrines, &c. (in which, and against all which, the former Remonstrance was home enough:) moreover also, considering the seve∣ral Distinctions which they had learned from Bellarmin, Suarez, Molina, &c. to evade any kind of tye (on Sophisters) in special cases from those so general Declarations of Sorbon in which Distinctions I doubted not the Proposer himself; (Father Netter∣vil) was more than sufficiently conversant: therefore I saw nothing yet proposed to satis∣fie me; because nothing at all which I could undertake to be any way sufficient, or fit to be moved unto the Lord Lieutenant as a medium to assure his Grace, and His Majesty of their future fidelity hereafter in all contingencies, or indeed in any of those con∣tingencies wherein their fidelity might be tryed home to the quick; and I was resolved my self not for any intreaties, or even specious offers whatsoever, to be found or prove treacherous to the Trust reposed in me, either by one or other side, by His Majesty, or by the Clergy; or prove unanswerable to that expectation, which either the Catholick Church and Irish Nation, or the Lord Lieutenant and Protestant State or People should or might have of the honesty and integrity of a Priest (of the Roman Church) so particularly and singularly looked upon as I had now been for many years, both for∣merly, and of late in such publick Transactions as I had been engaged in. And being for the above considerations, I saw nothing in this new Proposal which accepte∣d by me, could of my side answer that trust or expectation: their Paternities must excuse from me returning to the Assembly upon that account barely, or without further satisfaction given to my own more material proposals made to them.

To this purpose when I had answered, they, i.e. those three Fathers laid themselves presently to their knees at my feet, begging of me, by all that was dear or sacred, not to persist in my Resolution, but to yeild to their request in this one particular. I must confess, that although I was somewhat moved by this kind of unex∣pected either humility, or importunity of such men, both friends and Priests, and otherwise too in their Profession so well qualified; besides, that they represented then the whole Congregation: and although I did likewise at the same instant un∣cover and kneel with them, praying them to rise, but not herein prevailing until they had spent all their Rhetorick, and tyred themselves and me for a long time; yet recollecting all my strength of reason against this extraordinary attack of hu∣mility, importunity, and friendship, I resolved them at last plainly, and flatly, That I found still a necessity on me, (which they had not so much as gone about by any rational argument to take away) not to be weakned to a condescention in this case; albeit, I would be otherwise perswaded by them, (and by them especially above others) to any matter wherein Reason, or Conscience, or Justice, or Equi∣ty, or even regard of the Publick good of that very Congregation that sent them would suffer me to be indifferent. And therefore I prayed them to return to the Congregation with this answer of mine; adding only thereunto, That (however) so soon as the Congregation had performed what they now offered, i. e. signed those six Sorbon Declarations, or Propositions, applyed to themselves, mutatis mutanais, notwithstanding I returned not to them, yet I would consider how to make the best use I could of this offer and such their Subscription or performance of it. Whereupon we rose up of each side; they departed and I walked alone melancholy enough. What the final issue was upon the report they made to the Congregation of my answer will appear soon.

XVI.

BUT in the mean time you must know, That the very next morning, which was the 16. of the moneth, and sixth of the Congregation, a third Message, with an additional offer from the Congregation, was delivered me by the Bishop of Ar∣dagh himself; though indeed a very unsignificant both message, and offer; yet

such a one as I expected by him. In short, his Lordship having come where he had been told I was then, he desired me to walk to a private room, where he might talk more freely, and communicate to me what he had in charge from the Fathers. And being so withdrawn, he shews me a draught of a Paper which the Congre∣gation would sign for my own proper satisfaction. When I had per••ifed it, I found it contained no more in effect, then a Testimony of theirs, That I had not been Author of the controverted Remonstrance, and that for the rest I had had very good intentions all along in whatever I did. Therefore my ••••swer to his Lord∣ship was very short, and no other than, That I needed no such testimony of theirs for either point. That had I been the Author of that Loyal Formulary, I had rather gloried therein, than either denied o•• excused my being so. That I had both God and my own Conscience to beare witness to my good intentions, who were the only infallible witnesses of the interiour; and had moreover my writ∣ings, nay and other works also, to give men (who can judge of the exteriour) stronger arguments, and much clearer evidences of my good intentions all along for my Religion and Nation, since first I appeared in Publick affairs or contro∣versies in the year 1646, than any paper Testimony of the Congregation might give. Moreover, that the question or point in difference twixt the Congregation and me, was not of the Author of the Remonstrance, nor of my intentions, nor even of any Testimony of theirs to be given me or any other. And Lastly, That his Lordship therefore must excuse me, not only from listning to any un∣significant proposal of that kind, nor only from accepting any such, but from ac∣cepting either such, or not such Testimonials from them. Whereupon having resto∣red his paper to him, we parted, he to the Congregation, and I to the Kings Castle. What he did with the Fathers we shall see hereafter.

As for my going to the Castle, it was for no other end, than to inform his Grace the Lord Lieutenant of all that passed both that morning and former day. How I had solemnly, and purposely withdrawn from the Fathers, and wherefore. Of their Committees sent to me, and offer by them of signing the six Sorbon Declarati∣ons. What these Declarations were? what they imported as from well meaning men? what on the other side, as from Sophisters and Juglers versed in Equivocation, Re∣servation both Mental and Vocal, and many other subtilties of School distinctions? especially, what from such as on the contradictory question refused to descend to the case of Excommunication? as neither would they to those other of Apostacy, Heresie, pretence of Tyrannical Government, or oppression of the People, either in their Religions or Civil Rights, or of other Sins of the Governour, or even of un∣fitness, &c. And nevertheless, how I conceived their signing those Declarati∣ons of Sorbon might be of good use. And since they were absolutely upon a new unsignificant Formulary of their own, without taking notice of his Graces two for∣mer messages, how (the said Sorbon Declarations signed by them freely, and una∣nimously might in great part supply the defects of their Formulary. How what remained after to be supplyed, might be done in a distinct Schedule, which I had prepared by me to be signed by them after they all had once concurred in signing those Declarations of Sorbon, if indeed they would sign all six, that distinct Schedule being such as interpreted the meaning of their new Formulary of Recognition to be That they intended therein to bind themselves to continue according to the Laws of the Land, faithful, and obedient to the King even in all contingencies whatsoever, especially of Excommunication fulminated by the Pope against the King, or themselves, for being obediently faithful to His Majesty; as likewise to protest not only against all and every equivocation, and both Mental and Vocal reserva∣tion, but all Doctrines also whatsoever, contrary to the true, honest, plain, and obvious meaning or sense of the words of their said Formulary, or Act of Recog∣nition. Finally, how I believed there would be less difficulty in getting them to sign these matters in a distinct Schedule, than to insert them in their beloved For∣mulary; and truly no difficulty at all if once they had sign'd the six Sorbon De∣clarations, as they offered already to me by their Committee. After all which at large reported and declared, I told his Grace, That I knew they intended to

sign their said Formulary, or Act of Recognition that very day, and present it at night to his Grace. That notwithstanding I absented my self from them of pur∣pose, to try whether by such my absence they might be any thing the more brought to reason, or to do that which was for their own advantage; yet being they had so earnestly, and by so many messages, and that offer also of signing those six Sorbon Declarations, desired my return, and being moreover they were now on the point of concluding what they intended, (wherein it was hard or somewhat unseemly for me to single my self from them to no purpose) I prayed his Graces either commands or advice as to that of my return once more to, and concurring with them, wherein I saw they concluded any thing Lawful, how unsatisfactory or unsufficient soever otherwise it might peradventure be as to the main point in controversie, or that principally expected from them. And that His Grace would be pleased to give the most favourable reception he could, to such persons as were to come that night from the Fathers with their Act of Recognition, &c. and pro∣mise them his Answer thereupon, after he had taken a day or two for considering the Contents of such Instruments as they presented to him.

And such indeed was the only end of my going that morning to the Lord Lieu∣tenant; being continually sollicitous, even during my recess from and distance or difference with the Congregation, how nevertheless to do them all the good offi∣ces I could with his Grace, and in one way or other to prevail with them also, to do themselves and poor Clergy (and People too) represented by them, that right (in some measure at least) which became the Priests of God to do now at last for a Nation rendred hitherto the most miserable of any in Europe, and rendred such by their endevours, and misdemeanours only. And I dare say, His Grace also had as real desires of their doing themselves and rest of their Nation and Religi∣on, that very same right as I had, or could have; whereof, I am sure, they them∣selves had very many clear Arguments, but I a hundred more. In pursuance of which, on this very occasion of my address or discourse this morning, or of my prayer, not only of his advice to my self, as to the point of my returning, or not returning to the Fathers, but of a favourable reception of the Deputies at night, His Grace both commanded me to return to the Congregation, and promised that reception of the Deputies, which I desired; yea, notwithstanding that he knew as fully and throughly as I did, how they had so temerariously and unworthily (yea almost incredibly) slighted both his former messages to them.

Wherefore as well in obedience to his Graces commands, as in compliance with the Fathers, and not to single, or estrange my self wholly from them in any thing at all, wherein I might comply, but give them all the satisfaction I could, about evening I returned and entred unexpectedly to their House, even just then, when they were signing a great Parchment Roll containing their new unsignificant Formulary or Act of Recognition. As soon as they saw me entred, their chief Leaders both welcom'd me, and exprest extraordinary much contentment at my return: even their Chairman himself leaving his Chair, and coming some steps forward to embrace me twixt his arms, as he did; then telling me what they were upon, and shewing the publick Instrument of Recognition they were signing; and withal how together with it, they had for my satisfaction, prepared an other distinct Paper containing the three first of those six Sorbon Declarations, which three, or Paper containing them, as the only of those six which seem'd to them to concern their Allegiance to the King, they would then likewise presently sub∣scribe, to be together with their said Parchment Roll of Recognition presented to the Lord Lieutenant; finally praying, that I would concur with them in each, and now (after all, I had all along till the present so obligingly done for them) not to desert them in any respect or thing, but prepare a good, favourable, and graci∣ous reception for those who intended, as deputed by, and from the Congregation to wait on the Lord Lieutenant's Grace that night with the foresaid publick In∣struments, viz. the Bishop of Ardagh, and himself the Chairman; and that I would not only prepare their such reception, but accompany also, and introduce them to His Grace at such hour as I thought fit, or should be appointed by His Grace.

When I had heard out all, I answered in short, That I never intended really, either to seperate from, or be wanting to them in whatsoever I might be useful. That my late and short recess was only for their good, viz. thereby to occasi∣on their further and better enquiry into the defects of the Formulary they intend∣ed to present, and their supplying those defects. That although I returned not at the desire, or upon the proposals of any of their several Committees sent unto me; yet I begun to hope well of them, when the second Committee they sent, offered to me their intended Subscription of those six Sorbon Declarations. That thereupon I waited on my Lord Lieutenant, and informing His Grace of all the differences, and whatever else passed betwixt either the Congregation it self, or their said Committees and me, made special use of that offer of theirs (by the Reverend Fathers Nicholas Nettervil, John Talbot, and Angel Golding) and their promise consequently to subscribe the whole six Propositions; or Declarations of Sorbon; and thereby had already prepared for their Deputies, that reception they expected. That nevertheless, I saw now they intended no more but the three first of those Declarations. That, besides the note of inconstancy and un∣certainty in their offers and promises they would lye under by declining the other three, it would appear manifestly on debate, That no kind of Instrument or Profession of theirs, although backed with their signing those three first could signifie any thing at all, because that on the contradictory question they declined signing the other three; as they had already declined, not only their signing the Remonstrance, but even a simple Paper which only attested their not condemning that honest Formulary; yea, both declined and opposed so much as a debate or examination of it even by the Divines only.

That therefore I thought it concern••d mightily, even their own credit and reputation, to perform what they had so unexpectedly (without any desire, or thought on my side) offered of their own free accord, i, e. to subscribe all the six. That, whatever they did herein, or in any thing else, I would neverthe∣less (having first discharged my own duty to God and man, by telling them what seem'd to me fitting and necessary, according to all Religion, Veracity, and Justice) do of my side what I returned for, i. e. joyn with them, by subscribing their Recognition, &c. being they so heartily desired I should, and that I saw no evil therein but of bare omission, which I was not to answer for. That however at the same time I must declare to them, They neither must nor ought in any rea∣son flatter themselves with hopes of advantage, or acceptableness of their said Act of Recognition, or other Paper, because I had returned to concur with them in signing; whereas, I only returned so and meaned to sign also as many pa∣pers as they pleased wherein I found no hurt, though otherwise, very little or no real good at all to the purpose; not that I believed such Instruments by whomso∣ever sign'd would advantage them a jot; but that I thought it unbecoming me to deny them utterly at last either my presence or concurrence even by hand and heart both, where I might without sin or shame give both (albeit I otherwise expected no advantage to them by either) since I had plainly and sincerely told them so much, and moreover done what else I thought or hoped might recti∣fie their judgments, or alter their so fatal resolutions. Lastly, That if they of their sides had been but half way so indifferently (if not so rationally, and equi∣tably) disposed to concur with me, and others, by signing that only one Paper of the Remonstrance expected from them, wherein they saw not only no evil, no kind of culpable either Commission, or Omission, but even all that was honest, loyal, expe∣dient, necessary for the good of themselves, their Church and People, I might then by my return to a conjunction with them, confidently assure them of the happiest issue any Irish Congregation had these hundred years; whereas now, as they have taken their own measures, and finally, resolved, I could hope for no such matter, but rather on the contrary, fear their Resolve should prove unluckily ominous.

To this purpose, when I had fully declared my mind, the Speaker, Primat, and some others answered, That nevertheless they hoped His Grace the Lord Lieute∣nant would be satisfied with the three first of the Sorbon Propositions. That to

this purpose they had those three fairly drawn in a different Paper, but sub∣scribed only at present by the two foresaid Prelats, viz. the Primat of all Ireland, and the Bishop of Kilfinuragh Chairman, and by the Secretary Nicholas Redmond, to the end this paper also together with their Act of Recognition might be presen∣ted to His Grace. And that if His Grace must needs have the other three, and could not be satisfied with their reasons to the contrary, they would also sub∣scribe these.

Whereupon, without further dispute or reply, but believing what herein they said, I subscribed their Parchment Roll of Recognition, where they desired me to subscribe it, in the last place under the third Column of the other Subscribers: and subscribed it there (as they would likewise have me) in this manner, viz. Father Peter Walsh Reader of Divinity, of St. Francis's Order, Procurator of the Catholick Clergy; the Chairman only at a lower distance subscribing after me, much under the same Column; and at a lower distance yet, as under the third Co∣lumn, their Secretary Nicholas Redmond.

Which particular, of my Title of their Procurator in my subscription I take, notice of here, to obstruct the calumnies even of some of the late titular Arch∣bishops, especially Peter Talbot of Dublin, and William Burgat of Cashil, who in some occasions even since they have been consecrated Bishops, within these four last years have had the confidence, either to deny that I have been, or am, or at least to call in question whether I be, or have been at any time Procurator of the Clergy Regular and Secular of Ireland, as I have subscribed my self in some of my Books. Now, I am sure, if there were no other argument to convince them, either of ignorance or malice herein, that very Original Parchment Roll of this National Assembly's Act of Recognition doth, which their Chairman Andrew Lynch Bishop of Kilfinuran, and with him Patrick Plunket the Bishop of Ardagh took into their own custody, as soon as the Subscriptions had been all put to it (and for any thing I remember now mine was put to it after all the rest had done, and finished all the three Columns of their names) and so subscribed, with my name and title of their Procurator under my hand, both presented and delivered it with their own hands to the Lord Lieutenant that very night.

And so I am at last insensibly come where I would be in this Section, viz. at my waiting on these two Bishops, deputed by the Congregation to present his Grace with those two publick Instruments. For as soon as the Subscription was over, the House adjourned, and night come, I waited on them into the Castle, having first acquainted my Lord Lieutenant with the whole Contents of both their Parchment Roll and other Paper, as likewise how they fell back the one moyetie from their so late offer of signing all the six Declarations of Sorbon; and how nevertheless they promised to sign the rest, if His Grace would needs have it so; though I could not for my part be sure of any promise of theirs but what I saw first in black and white under all their hands. Notwithstanding all which, His Grace both admitted these Deputies into his Closet, and received them very courteously, taking no notice at all of what he knew of any matters past in their House. And they as confidently, as if they had with them the most fully, and clearly, and satisfactorily Loyal Instruments could be framed, even Instruments in every respect home to the point expected from them, after a short Harrangus (such as it was) delivered by the Bishp of Kilfinuragh as the Congregations Chair∣man, presented to his Grace both the Original Parchment Roll opened, and the other annexed Original Paper, whereof before, as they were signed by the pro∣per hands of the Fathers. But his Grace having received these Instruments and layed them by on his Table, answered only in a very few words, That after he had read and considered of their Petition and Instruments, they should hear fur∣ther from him. And so his Grace dismissed those first Deputies of the Congrega∣tion.

It remains therefore now to end this Section, that for the Readers fuller satis∣faction I give here an exact Copy of both the foresaid Congregational Instru∣ments, with such Titles prefixed as the Originals have; but first a Copy also of their Petition.

The Congregation's Petition delivered by the two aforesaid Bishops, on June 16. 1666.

To His Grace JAMES, Duke of ORMOND, LORD LIEƲ∣TENANT General, and General Governour of Ireland.

The humble Petition of the Romish Catholick Clergy now met in the City of Dublin.

THE Petitioners do most humbly and thankfully acknowledge the favour your Grace hath done them, in the allowance, and permission of a Meeting in this City of Dublin at this time, by which they have had the opportunity of a Free Conference together, and the happiness to have concurred in a Remonstrance and Protestation of their Loyaltie to His Majesty, wherein they re∣solve Inviolablie to continue, which they beseech your Grace to accept from them, and represent to His Majesty, the rather that it was so unanimously agreed to as there was not one dissenting Voice in all their Number. This is their prayer to your Grace, for whom, and whose Posterity they will as obliged always pray.

The Act of Recognition (as I call it commonly, to distinguish it from the former of others in 1661) or the Remonstrance and Protestation of Loyalty (as they term it in their above Petition) Signed by the National Congregation of the Irish Ro∣man-Catholick Clergy in 1666, and delivered likewise June 16, by the same Bishops to His Grace, as from and by direction of that Assembly.

To the King's most Excellent Majesty CHARLES the Second, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, &c.

VVE Your Majesties Subjects the Roman-Catholick Clergy of the Kingdom of Ireland, together assembled, do hereby declare, and solemnly protest be∣fore God, and His Holy Angels, That we own and acknowledge Your Majesty to be our true and lawful King, Supreme Lord, and undoubted Sovereign, as well of this Realm of Ireland, as of all other Your Majesties Dominions; consequently, we con∣fess our selves bound in Conscience, to be obedient to Your Majesty in all Civil and Temporal affairs, as any Subject ought to be to his Prince, and as the Laws of God and Nature require at our hands. Therefore we promise, That we will inviolably bear true Allegiance to Your Majesty, Your lawful Heirs and Successors; and that no power on earth shall be able to withdraw us from our duty herein. And that we will, even to the loss of our blood, if occasion requires, assert Your Majesties Rights against any that shall invade the same, or attempt to deprive Your Self, or Your lawful Heirs and Suc∣cessors of any part thereof. And to the end this our sincere Protestation may more clearly appear. We further declare, That it is not our Doctrine, that Subjects may be discharged, absolved, or freed from the Obligation of performing their duty of true Obedience and Allegiance to their Prince: much less may we allow of, or pass as tolera∣ble, any Doctrine that perniciously, and against the Word of God maintains, That any private Subject may lawfully kill or murther the Anointed of God, his Prince. Wherefore pursuant to the deep apprehension we have of the abomination and sad con∣sequences of its practice, we do engage our selves to discover unto Your Majesty, or some of Your Ministers, any attempt of that kind, Rebellion, or Conspiracy against Your Majesties Person, Crown, or Royal Authority, that comes to our knowledge, whereby such horrid evils may be prevented. Finally, As we hold the Premises to be agree∣able

to good Conscience, so we Religiously Swear the due observance thereof to our ut∣most, and will Preach and Teach the same to our respective Flocks.

In witness where∣of, we do hereunto Subscribe the 15th day of June 1666.

• Edmund Archbishop of Ardmagh Primat of all Ireland.
• Patrick Bishop of Ardagh. Andrew Bishop of Kilfinu∣ragh, & Procurator to the Lord Archbishop of Tu∣am, and to the Reverend Fathers Richard Scis Vi∣car General of Killalla, and Maurice Corghcar Vicar General of Aconry.
• James Dempsy Vicar Ge∣neral Apostolick of Dub∣li••. (He might have added too, and Vicar Ca∣pitulary of the Diocess of Kildare.)
• John Burk Vicar General Apostolick of Cashel.
• Denis Harty Vicarius Apostolicus Laonensis.
• Patricius Daly Vicarius Generalis Ardmachanus, ac Procurator Rapotensis.
• Oliver Desse Vic. Gen. Midensis.
• Terence Fitz-Patrick Vi∣car General of Ossorie.
• Robert Power Vicar Gene∣ral of Waterford and Lis∣more, &c.
• Dominick Roch Vicar Ge∣neral of Corck.
• Connor Fogorty Proctor of Ardfert and Achdeo:
• Nicolas Redmond Vicar General of Fernes.
• Teig O Brien Dean of Lis∣more and Parson of Dun∣garvan.
• John Deoran, Proctor for Father Charles Nolan Vicar General of Laghlin.
• Thomas Higgin Vicar Ge∣neral of Elphin.
• Ronan Magin Vicar-Ge∣neral of Dromote.
• James Phelan Doctor of Divinity, Parson of Cal∣lan, Dean of Ossory, Pro∣tonotary Apostolical.
• Thomas Lacy Substitute of Limmerick.
• Father Francis Fitz Ger∣rald Proctor of the Vicar (General) of Cluon.
• George Plunket Divine.
• Daniel Kelly Vicar Gene∣ral of Cluonfert.
• James Killine Vicar Ge∣neral Duacensis.
• Edmund Teig Vicar Gene∣ral of Cloanmacnoise.
• Owen O Coigly Procurator Derensis.
• Patrick O Mulderig Vi∣carius Generalis Dun. & Connor.
• Thomas Fitz Symons Di∣vine for the Province of Ʋlster.
• Thady Brohy Divine for the Province of Leinster.
• Doctor Angel Goulding, Divine for the Province of Leinster.
• John Nolan Master of Arts, Divine for Lein∣ster.
• Dorby Doyle Batchelor of Divinity of the Province of Leinster.
• Edmund O Deoran, Ma∣gister Ordinis Melitensis.
• Charles Horan Divine of the Diocess of Elphin in the Province of Con∣naught.
• Constantine Duffy, Vicar General of Clogher.
• John Hannin, Substitute and Official of Imly.
• Fr: Peter Walsh, Rea∣der of Divinity, of St. Francis's Order, Procu∣rator of the Catholick Clergy.
• Andrew Bishop of Kilfinu∣ragh Chairman.
• Fr: John Hart Provincial of the Order of Preachers, and a Divine for the Pro∣vince of Connaught.
• Fr: Stephen Lynch Pro∣vincial of the Order of St. Augustin, and a Di∣vine for Connaught.
• Fr: Antony Docharty Provincial of the Fran∣ciscans.
• Andrew Sall Superiour of the Society of Jesus in Ireland.
• Fr: Thomas Dillon, Vicar Provincial of the Discal∣ceat Carmelits.
• Fr: Bernard Barry Le∣ctor Jubilate of the Order of S. Francis.
• Fr: John Brady Lector of Divinity.
• Fr: Dominick Martin of the Order of S. Au∣gustin, Lector of Moral Divinity, Definitor, and Prior of Dublin.
• John Talbot of the Society of Jesus.
• Fr: John Warren Dis∣calceat Carmelit.
• Fr: Matthew Nangle Carmelit Discalceat.
• F. Henry Burgate, Divine of the Order of Preachers.
• F. Christopher Bath Divine of the Order of Preachers.
• Fr: John Welden Cap∣puccin Divine.
• Fr: James Dowdal, Di∣vine Cappuccin.
• Nicolaus Netterville S••c. Jesu Doctor Theologus.
• Fr: Christopher Dillon of the Order of S. August. Lector Jubilate and Prior of the Convent of Dunne∣more.
• By Command, Nicolas Redmond Secretary.

The Second Instrument, or that of the Three first Sorbon Propositions, or Decla∣rations, applied, &c. and delivered also at the same time with their Remonstrance to His Grace, by the aforesaid two Bishops, as from the Congregation; though subscri∣bed but by three hands only at this time, and without other Prea••ble or Title pref••••ed to it, than as here followeth, viz.

Certain Propositions of the Roman Catholick Clergy of the Kingdom of Ireland, confor∣mable to the Doctrine of Sorbon, and several Parliaments of France in the year 1663.

I. WE do hereby declare, That it is not our Doctrine, that the Pope hath any Authority in Temporal affairs over our Sovereign Lord King Charles the Second; yea, we pro∣mise that we shall still oppose them, that will assert any Power, either direct or indirect, over him in Civil and Temporal affairs.

II. That it is our Doctrine, That our Gracious King Charles the Se∣cond is so absolute and independent, that he acknowledgeth not, not hath in Civil and Temporal affairs any Power above him under God: and that to be our constant Doctrine, from which we shall never de∣cline.

III. That it is our Doctrine, That we Subjects owe such Natural, and just Obedience unto our King, that no Power under any pretext soever, can either dispence with us, or free us thereof.

Edmund Archbishop of Ardmagh, and Primat of all Ireland. Andrew Bishop of Kilfinuragh Chairman. Nicholas Redmond Secretary.

XVII.

The next day being Sunday, the Fathers rested. But on Monday, being the Eighth of their Meeting, and Eighteenth of the Month, they sate again, and re∣ceived the LORD LIEUTENANT's third and last Message, by the same Catholick Gentleman Mr. Belings, who brought the second, and (as the two for∣mer had been) read it to them out of a Paper, word by word, as here, the Title only excepted.

The LORD LIEUTENANTS Third Message to the Congregation June 16. 1666.

THat on the 16. instant I received from two of the Romish Clergy now met in this City, one Parchment directed to His Majesty. and signed by divers of the said Clergy, one Paper signed by three of them, Intituled, Certain Propositions, &c. and a Petition directed unto me in the name of them all, not signed by any of them. I think fit to let them understand, That I observe, that together with the Propositions of Sorbon, sent, and signed by them, as aforesaid, there are three material Propositions omitted, which might as well be appropriated to His Majesty and this Kingdom, as the other three are; as also, that the same number or Persons have not Subseribed to the said Proposition, as to the Parchment Instrument.

Mr. Belings being departed, the Procurator stood up and spake to the main pur∣pose of this last Message from His Grace, shewing at large by manifold and evident arguments, That the other three of the Sorbon Declarations which they had omitted to Sign, were both as material to the purpose, and not only might, but ought as well be appropriated to His Majesty and Kingdom of Ireland, as the first Three were. These three last, or three controverted Propositions, being the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth of Sorbon, you have already had pag. 660, &c. and again. pag. 663. where you may also peruse all the Six. As for those reasons or arguments urged then by me, to demonstrate, how both material, expedient, and even necessary the Subscription of the same Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Pro∣positions must have been, mutatis mutandis; because the Fourth (following) Trea∣tise (of this Book) hath diffusely them (i. e. the same arguments) pag. 43. & 44. pag. 46, & 47. &c. pag. 57, 58, &c. and must of necessity have them, as the chief Subject handled there of purpose, viz. in answer to the Reasons given to the contrary, in a paper presented from the Congregation to the Lord Lieutenant: therefore I refer the Reader for so much to that Fourth Treatise, which indeed was Printed before the First. And consequently what I am to give here now in relation to such matter, is only to let the Reader know in short, That on this Subject of those three last of the Six Sorbon Declarations, the Chair∣man, (viz. the Bishop of Kilfinuragh, though having so lately come from France, after living there so long, and throughly acquainted with the positions and Maxims of the Gallican Church) discovered himself but too too manifestly, to be not a little, if not extreamly disaffected to the then English Government of Ireland, by his earnest opposition to my own face there of all, or any of these three last Sorbon Declarations, to be applyed to the Monarch of Great Britain and Ireland, Charles the Second, and to that Congregation, or Romish Clergy of Ireland, and so to be signed by them. That (and which I much more won∣der at) even Father Nicholas Nettervil, who first of all the Committee the day before, and on his very knees to me, offered all the Six Declarations should be signed, even he himself both as confidently and vehemently now, and even also to my own face, opposed the signing of any one of those three last. That neither he, nor the Chairman were contented with their bare dissent, but made Speeches, and gave reasons too all they could to disswade the rest of the Fathers

from signing &c. That, when the approbation, or Declaration of Sorbon, as well for those Three last, as for the former Three was objected, They not only answered the disparity of the cases or applications to be very great, viz. For∣asmuch as 1. The French King was Rex Christianissimus; 2. And he main∣tained the Roman-Catholick Clergy of France, both in their respective Spiritual ju∣risdictions, and temporal Possessions too; 3. And all was otherwise in order to the application of the said Propositions they were pressed unto; but even with as much, either boldness, or rashness, as if the said French Kings Forces had been actually then ready, and even at that very nick of time resolved to Transport for, and Invade Ireland, were not shye to magnifie and cry him up so before all the Fathers, that every one understood plainly what they meand, i. e. whom they intended of the other side to lessen and cry down. That therefore the Procu∣rator both strongly and clearly shewed the unsignificancy of these answers and whatever other reasons they alledged for excusing themselves from signing even those three last of the Sorbon Declarations, applyed as they ought to be; nay, shewed most evidently, that for those very causes they alledged, Of their own Kings being of an other Communion, and of their own, not being maintained by His Majesty, and by his Laws in either jurisdiction, or Possession of any benefices, &c, They ought the rather give his Majesty and all his Protestant People, that satisfaction was justly demanded of them for clearing their Religion from the scandal of such unwarrantable Positions, by signing the contrary of those which not disowned by them, must consequently, and even justly too keep them per∣petually under those Laws and penalties whereof they complained: and that it mattered not a Pin for the truth of those Three Sorbon Declarations applyed &c, or the justice, and lawfulness of signing them, so applyed, whether our Gracious King••s Religion were Orthodox or not; because they concern'd not all, either his Religion or Communion (as every one might see by reading them) but abstracted wholly from both, and certainly as much at least every one of them as any of the three first which they had already subscribed, or were preparing to subscribe; nay, that the two last of all, viz. the Fifth and sixth, had no kind of relation to the King of England, or Clergy of Ireland, more then to the French, or Spanish Kings and their National Churches. That what other rea∣sons or arguments I made use of then to confute those evasions or other alle∣gations whatsoever of the aforesaid both Chairman and Father Nettervil, and to perswade the rest of the Congregation: you may see at large in the French Treatise, which of purpose, answers their Paper of Reasons, whereof presently. That to do all the right I can to the other two of the last Committee, sent me during my short recess from the Congregation; those I mean, who together with the aforesaid Father Nicholas Nettervil in behalf of the Congregation offered me, That they (i. e. the same whole Congregation) would sign all the Six Sorbon Propositions; I must declare, that Father John Talbot (though a Je∣suit) being one of those two, and Doctor Angel Golding the other of them, se∣conded me on the Point, and in my own hearing and presence both earnestly, and vehemently pressed the Fathers to make good what they had promised, i. e. to sign unanimously, the Six Sorbon Declarations applyed, &c; though what the said two Members did, or how they carried themselves, in my absence, I do not know certainly; but suppose the best of them. That, notwithstanding all the reasons which were given by me, or them, or any other (if indeed any other spoke to that purpose of signing those Three last Declarations; for I re∣member not, that any other did, at least concernedly, or to purpose while I stay'd in the House that day: I was no sooner withdrawn (as my custome was every day to withdraw for a time, of purpose to leave the Fathers at the more liber∣ty to conclude, after I had spoken all I thought fit) then the Factious Multi∣tude without any further reasoning, but with their own blind passions, and pri∣vat interests, i. e. expectations of preferment from the Court of Rome, hurried on by the above, either notable French Agents, or at least, not very Loyal Sub∣jects) the Chairman and Nettervil, (to whom you may well adde the Bishop of Ar∣dagh)

bear down immediately the other side, and vote no Subscription at all of those three last Sorbon Declarations. That nevertheless at the same time, they order a Committee to draw up their Reasons, or Motives, i. e. the most speci∣ous pretences they thought might be fixed upon, for excusing their not Sub∣scribing those Three last, to be together with a new Petition from them pre∣sented to His Grace the Lord Lieutenant. That the remainder of this 18th. day of the Monteh, yea, and the whole nineteenth following was chiefly im∣ployed in drawing and agreeiog on the said Reasons or Motives, and a new Pe∣tition to be annexed. That all being at last agreed upon, and assented to by the Congregation; Father John Burk Vicar General Apostolick of Cashel, and Father Cornelius Fogorty Doctor Ʋtrius{que} Juris (as he Subscribes himself) were deputed to present the said paper of Reasons, and Petition to the Lord Lieutenant, but without so much as any one hand at all Subscribed, to either that Paper, or this Petition. That these two Fathers, hoping (as it would seem) to have the better success in their Negotiation, i. e. to impose on the Lord Lieu∣tenant His Grace the Duke of Ormond (if they could have access to His Grace without the Procurators introduction of them, or knowledge of their going: (For the Procurator, understanding what the Congregation voted in his absence on the 18th. day in the evening, came not at them any more that or next day, or even until the 21. or if he did, thought not fit to stay long, or concern him∣self to know what besides they had resolved upon:) and Cornelius Fogorty, build∣ing also his hopes, partly upon the honour he had himself formerly at Paris had of some little acquaintance there with the (then) Marquess of Ormond, as also upon his fellow Deputy Messenger John Burks being Chaplain (as he pretend∣ed) to the Right Honourable, and truly vertuous Lady Thurles, so nearly related to His Grace, that I say, these two Fathers (who upon such hopes thrust themselves rather then they were out of any choice, put on this employment as it appeared after) not at all speaking nor acquainting the Procurator with their Message or intention, got some other person to go along with them to His Grace (not in the Kings Castle, but then diverting himself with some Noblemen in the Bouling-green, near the place where the Congregation sate) and on the 20th. of June but tenth day of that Assembly present His Grace with the said Petition and other annexed Paper of their Reasons, why &c. Both which exactly co∣pied, follow here.

The Congregations Second Petition, or that on June 20. 1666 presented by John Burk, and Cornelius Fogerty.

To His Grace the Lord Duke of ORMOD, LORD LIEUTENANT of Ireland, The humble Petition of the Roman Catholick Clergy of Ireland,

SHeweth, That your Petitioners have of late Subscribed and presented to your Grace a Remonstrance, manifesting the obligations of duty and Loy∣alty which your Petitioners do, and ever shall owe unto their Soveraign Lord the King, and withal subscribed Three Propositions which they hum∣bly conceived did conduce unto a further setting forth of the Principles of their Loyaltie, thereby endeavouring to give your Grace all possible satisfaction; and as

touching the Three Propositions sent unto them for to be Subscribed, they now re∣turn the annexed of the Motives, why they did not sign them from your Graces further satisfaction, hoping it may meet the success they wish for.

It is therefore the most humble Request of your Petitioners, That your Grace will be favourably pleased to dismiss them; and the rather, because most of them have not wherewithal to defray so long and chargeable Attendance in this City.

And your Petitioners shall Pray.

The Paper of Reasons, why, &c. presented at the same time by the said Burk, and Forgery,

The Reasons why we the Roman-Catholick Cler∣gy signed not the other three French Propo∣sitions.

* 113.1BEcause we conceive them not any way appertaining to the Points controverted; and though we did, we thought we had alrea∣dy sufficiently cleared all scruples ei∣ther by our former Remonstrance se∣perately or jointly with the three first Propositions we had already sub∣scribed.

And as to the Fourth, we looked upon it as not material in our Debate: for either we should sign it as it was conceived in the French Original Cop∣py, and we thought it impertinent to talk of the French Kings Authority, the Gallican Priviledges and Canons, from whence they derive their Immunities, &c. or that we should have inserted them mutatis nominibus the names being only changed, and then we conceived not, what more we might have said, then had been touched already positively in the Remonstrance; neither do we ad∣mit any Power derogatory unto his Majesties Authority, Rights, &c. yea, more positively then doth the French Proposition as may appear.

As to the 5th. we thought it likewise not material to our affair to talke of a School Question of Divinity controverted in all Catholick Ʋniversities of the World, whether the Pope be above general Coun∣cel or no? Whether he can annul the Acts of a general Councel or no? Dissolve the general Councel, or whether Contrariwise, the Coun∣cel can depose the Pope, &c? Secondly, we conceive it not only im∣pertinent but dangerous in its consequence and unseasonable to talk of a question which without any profit, either to the King or his Sub∣jects, may breed Jealousie between the King and his Subjects, or may give the least overture to such odious and horrid disputes, concerning

the Power of Kings and Commonwealths, as our late sad experience hath taught us.

The 6th. regards the Popes Infallibillity in matters of Faith, Whether the Pope not as a private Doctor, but with an especial Con∣gregation of Doctors, Prelats, and Divines deputed, can censure and condemn certain Propositions of Heresie? or whether it be necessary to have a General Councel from all parts of the World to decide, define, censure, and condemn certain Propositions of Heresie? The Jansenists already condemned of Heresie by Three Popes, and all the Bishops of France to vindicate themselves from the Censure, contest the first way; They write in their own defence, and many more against them. On which Subject is debated the Questio Facti, whether the Proposi∣tions condemned as Heresie by the Pope, be in the true sense and meaning of the Jansenists or no? whether in his Book or no? as may appear by such as we can produce if Necessary.

The Universities of France say, That it is not their Doctrine, that the Pope &c. Whether this touched our Scope or no, we leave it to all prudent men to judge. If they think it doth, let them know, that we should not hould the Popes Infallibillity, if he did define any thing against the Obedience we owe our Prince. If they speak of any other Infallibillity as matter of Religion and Faith; as it regardeth us not nor our Obedience unto our Soveraign, so we are loath, Forraign Ca∣tholick Nations should think we treat of so odious, and unprofitable a Question, in a Country where we have neither Universitie nor Jan∣senist amongst us, if not, perhaps some few Particulars, whom we con∣ceive under our Hand to further this dispute, to the disturbance of both King and Countrey.

XVII.

ON the 21 of June, and 11th. of the Congregation, the Fathers being all seated, and the Procurator also (who had the night before from His Grace what answer He gave those Deputies upon receipt of their said Petition and other annexed paper) being present, John Burk and Cornelius Fogorty rendred such an account of their success, as did seem both presently, and mightily to startle at least the major part of the Congregation; amongst whom the Arch∣bishop of Ardmagh, neither was, nor seem'd to be the least concern'd, if not more then any. For, as soon as those rarely gifted men Burk and Fogorty had related openly their manner of access to His Grace, and not only his appearing extreamly dissatisfied with their address, but his very short and positive Answer, That the Fathers might Dissolve and depart immediately, whether they pleased, be∣ing they did no good by their meeting, nor intended any the said Primat of Ard∣magh stood up, and fell so fouly on this Burk (who, as being older in years, and dignified in Office before the other, was he that gave this account) that he spared not to tell him, There could not have been any better success expected from his negotiation, who being so unfit for any such matter, had nevertheles so importunately thrust himself on. And then, converting himself to the Procurator, entreated him in the name of all the Fathers, that he would go to His Grace, and obtain for them three days more to continue their Congregation, and consider a little better how not to depart with His Grace's displeasure, but rather to satisfie Him, if possi∣bly

they could, even by signing those very three last controverted, and conse∣quently all the Six Declarations of Sorbon, applyed as they should be, mutatis mutandis. Wherein the whole House seeming to concur with the Primat, the Procurator could do no less then promise them he would use his best endeavours; and so departs for the Castle, leaving them in much perplexity; but withal, de∣siring them to continue sitting till he returned. They did so, and he by good fortune not only found His Grace at leasure, but prevailed with him for the Fa∣thers, and returned to them presently with that permission they desired. They gave thanks. He moves, That immediately a Select Committee should be appoin∣ted to consider of both the pertinency and necessity (especially as the case stood) for assuring their Allegiance to the King. To Sign even the Three last of those Six Sorbon Declarations. The Bishop of Ardagh to hinder any further progress or signature, vehemently cries out, Rather presently to the vote of the whole House, whether we shall in any wise, or upon any condition subscribe or no, those Three last? But the Procurator albeit contrary to his former custome, continuing still in the House, and consequently of one side, both by his reasons and pretence, opening the mouthes of some, and silencing others, prevailing so at last, That the grea∣ter voice cryed first for a Vote upon his motion for the Committee: and than again for stroaking on Paper: they go therefore presently to stroaking, and the far greater number is of the Procurotors side. Doctor Patrick Daly, Vicar General of Ardnagh and Judge Delegate for the Province of Ʋlster, being in the very last place to stroak (for the Fathers rose in order from the right hand, where the Primat was first to the left, and so going to the Table that stood be∣fore the Chairman, they stroaked in presence of Witnesses; and the said Doctor sitting on the upper forms, next place, but left hand to the Primat, consequently had been the last in stroaking) and, seeing his turn very near, stands up, and applying himself to the Chairman, speaks aloud, That they had no liberty, no freedom at all either to vote or to speak according to their own proper inclinations while the Procurator was present. Whereupon I answered, That although that Reverend Doctors Exception seemed by the consequence of it, not only to reflect in a very high and injurious Nature on the inclinations of the House, but even al∣so to overthrow the essential constitution of it, either by taking away the liber∣ty (even that very liberty he complained wanting) of every individual Member to speak his mind, or by excluding any one he pleased, on such false pretence of Liberty from being present at voting or debating, whenever a factious party or Cabal apprehended such a ones presence or reason to thwart their designes; yet, to the end that neither the said R. Doctor nor any other might at any time al∣ledge such want of freedom through my staying in the House after I had been desired, as much as by any one whosoever, to withdraw, I would therefore do what he desired; and accordingly withdrew; having first nevertheless told the Doctor, that he spoke too late, in order to that Vote in hand, being every one mighe see 'twas already carried of my side, and even carried so by even very near two Thirds of the House, on whatsoever side the Doctor himself would stroak.

But within half an hour after I had been gone forth, I had cause to repent my civillity to the Doctor (being I was sure the House would have sided with me, against the Doctors so manifestly unreasonable exception, and staid me within, notwithstanding it, if I had not my self chosen rather to recede.) For the adverse party seeing that when the votes or stroaks of either side were numbred, those for a Committee were far more numerous, presently take advantage of my ab∣sence; lay their heads together, and Cabal it so, that in effect they frustrated the ends of that Vote, by fixing on such Members for this Committee, as were sure to be every one against the signing of those Three last Sorbon Declarations; or if any of the other side were named, or chosen to sit in the said Committee, they were neither the men of parts were named for that side, nor at all conside∣rable for number, in respect of those chosen for the other. Whereof having notice presently brought me by some of the more Loyal Members, even just then

when the new chosen Committee had been withdrawn from the House to the Room appointed for them, and having also a list of this Committee given me at the same time, where I found the Bishop of Ardagh to be the first, and consequently Chairman, being he was the only Bishop amongst them; I saw no other way left to prevent (if possible) their intended unhappy resolve and report, but that my self (as I was desired by others of the Congregation) should assist the said Com∣mittee, as being more specially concerned and above any one priviledged by all right and equity to be present, at least in all such Committees relating to the main end of the Congregation. But upon my entry into the Committee room, the said Bishop of Ardagh meets me, and professes in plain terms, the Committee should not sit, nor debate any thing while I were present; pretend∣ing, that being not by name specified by the Congregation, I could not chal∣lenge the priviledge to sit or vote amongst them. Having replyed many things hereunto, at last I told his Lordship, I would be content to be only present while they debated the matter, and during that time to offer my reasons, and answer objections to the contrary, to the end they might the more prudently at last resolve; and that when they came to a decisive Vote, I would withdraw, to the end, that his Lordship, nor any other should pretend, that I awed them by my presence to any determination. And until then, surely they ought not to fear reason. Yet all was to no purpose. The Bishop was furiously bent to hin∣der any satisfaction to be given to the Lord Lieutenant in the point; so powerful were the late Roman Letters with him, and his own expectation to be therefore translated from the poorer See of Ardagh, either to the Archbishoprick of Dublin, or at least, to the Bishoprick of Meath, even which to him would be, if not of greater dignity, yet of greater emoluments than any other in the Kingdom. I therefore seeing he was obstinate, parted, telling him, I had done my part; and called himself to witness, that I had omitted nothing to prevent the evil which I foresaw their Resolutions would bring upon the Catholick Clergy, and People of Ireland.

XVIII.

NExt day, which was the 22. of the Moneth, and 12. of the Congregation, that excellent Committee, headed and lead by Ardagh, brought into the House even such a report as and no other then was expected from rash and factious Councellors, who only sought for new Combustions at home, and per∣ferments from abroad, for abusing so their Religion and Country. And the Chairman of the House, who had a chief hand in getting such men fix'd on for this Committee, and by all arts both encouraging and edgeing them on to a negative Resolve against signing the other Three &c, of which Resolve by the Committee Ardagh made now report: I say, that hereupon the said Chairman of the House, viz. Andrew Lynch Bishop of Kilfinuragh, applauding them, and taking thence occasion again to magnifie the French King, and in order to what comparison every one understood, and both consequently, and earnestly perswading the whole House to acquiesce in what the Committee had resolved upon, i. e. for not signing by any means any of those Three last Declarations of Sorbon, as applied, &c, the Congregation at last, i. e. the major part amongst them unfor∣tunatly is perswaded. As soon as they had finally so determined, the Procurator enters, and upon some occasion given him, sharply expostulates with the Chair∣man Kilfinuragh, even publickly before all the House, for his carriage in the whole procedure, telling him in plain terms, it favoured so little, either of a Loyal Subject, or good Catholick, much less of a Bishop, that he shewed him∣self very unworthy of that Chair wherein he sate, but wherein he should never have sate, had I once suspected him to be so strangely disaffected to all duty, justice, truth, or so byassed for Forraign Princes and Interests. Kilfinuragh, conscious to himself, how highly he had deserved this reproof, returns not a

word in answer, but very much dejected quits his Chair, and coming towards me, only says, that he was content to leave it since I would have it so. I, who never thought of any such matter, or to presume to bid him leave his Place, answered, That because he had already done his worst, even all the mischief he could have design'd by sitting in that Chair, he should for my part sit therein as he pleased, or the Fathers continued their present Congregation. And that I had no other end in expostulating with his Lordship so plainly, and publickly too than that I might in such matters both discharge my own Conscience, to God and man, and have as many witnesses also of such performance of my duty as there were Members present in this National Assembly.

Which contest between the Chairman and me being over, (not to mention here what more besides I told and freely then did speak to all the Fathers in ge∣neral) a clean copy was produced again of the Three first Sorbon Declarations applyed &c, to be signed, and accordingly was then sign'd (even as I my self did then also think) by every individual Member of the Congregation, in order to be presented to His Grace the Lord Lieutenant; because the former Copy presented to Him together with their Remonstrance had been sign'd only by three of their hands, viz, the Primat's, Chairman's, and Secretaries; and because that even His Grace had in his last message to them taken notice how all the same hands which had subscribed their Parchment Roll of Recognition were not put unto their Paper of three Propositions &c, delivered at the same time. And this was all, wherein this National Irish Council would comply with His Grace. And yet in this very matter, how unconsiderable soever, they all would not, nor did comply. For on a later and better scrutiny, that is, by comparing more exactly all the hands or names subscribed to their parchment Roll of Recogni∣tion with all those subscribed to this other Instrument of Three Propositions, I find nine of the former number wanting in this, viz, 1. Andrew Bishop of Kilfinuragh the Chairman. 2. John O Hart Provincial of the Dominicans. 3. An∣drew Sall the Provincial, or Superiour of all the Jesuits in Ireland. 4. Nicho∣las Nettervil, the Jesuit Doctor of Divinity. 5. Bernardinus Barry, the Fran∣ciscan Reader Jubilat of Divinity. 6. John Brady, of the same Order, and Professor too of Divinity (he that formerly was Agent in procuring the Censure of the Louain Faculty Theological against the first Remonstrance, or that of the year 1661.) 7. Christopher Dillon the Augustinian Professor Jubilat of Divinity. 8. John Welden Cappuccin. 9. James Dowdal Cappuccin. 'Tis true that the first of these Nine, viz. Kilfinuragh was one of the three that signd the former Copy (of the three first Sorbon Propositions) delivered together with the Parch∣ment Roll to His Grace the Lord Lieutenant. But so was the Primat, and so also was the Secretary; and yet those two are found subscribed to this second Paper of the same Propositions. Now whether out of change of judgment, or design, Kilfinuragh subscribed not the same Second Paper as well as they, I know not. However, supposing the best of him; yet we find without any perad∣venture the other eight not complying so much as in this inconsiderable par∣ticular.

Amongst which eight (or nine as you please) I must singularly taken otice, how Father Nicholas Nettervil, the Jesuit Doctor of Divinity, is one; yea, notwithstanding that he himself (as I have said before) was the very first who, as the mouth of the Committee sent to perswade me, offered even to my self, That the whole Congregation would sign all the Six Declarations &c; yea, also not∣withstanding, that after his return from France and Flanders (whether, the Con∣gregation being dissolved, he went) in the year 1667 to Ireland, even himself told me, that he had been persecuted and mortified by his own Order (viz. the Jesuits) in France, and even to the loss or deprivation of his Divinity Chair, at Amiens, where he had taught in the Colledge of the Society, punished for having concurred with the Congregation at Dublin to the signature of those De∣clarations of Sorbon, although more singularly, for having approved in that Assembly the Sixth Declarations which Sixth is only against the Popes Infallibility;

and that he was forced after to go to Brussels of purpose to satisfie in these mat∣ters the (then) Internuncio (now Cardinal) Rospigliosi. But, as you have seen already, he deserved rather to be rewarded by the Roman Court, for having jug∣led so as he did, nay contrary to his own offer and promise fallen off presently, and both opposed stifly the signing of the Three last, and not concurred at all with those who signed the Three former; albeit, I must confess, I my self thought otherwise a long time of him for what concerns these Three. But on a more exact scrutiny and review of the names subscribed, I found at last my own errour in that. Which I have thought fit to remark here singularly, because I would ingenuously confess my own mistake elsewhere in this Book, Tract 3. pag. 29. where I relate this Gentlemans Subscription to the aforesaid Three former Pro∣positions of Sorbon; because when I writ and Printed that Third Treatise (for I did both write and Print it before this First Treatise yet in hand) I never once suspected at all, but those who had signed the Parchment Roll of Recognition did also the other Paper of the Three First Sorbon Propositions, and I had both seen and read his name to that Parchment Roll as you also your self may see in the Printed Copy thereof, which you have already page. But in this other now following, though an exact Copy of the very Original Paper of those Three for∣mer Propositions, which was, on the 22 day of June, generally signed by the Con∣gregation, and consequently of all the hands or names subscribed thereunto, I am sure you will not find any Father Nicolas Nettervil.

The Paper of the Three first (of the Six) Declarations of Sorbon, as applyed, &c. which was, and as it was generally by the Congregation (i. e. by all those hands indeed wherewith it was) subscribed on the 22 of June 1663.

Certain Propositions of the Roman Catholick Clergy of Ireland, be∣ing the same of the Faculty of Sorbon, and other Universities, and received by most Parliaments of France, in the year 1663.

I. WE the undernamed do hereby declare, That it is not our Doctrine, that the Pope hath any Authority in Temporal affairs over our Soveraign Lord King Charles the Second; yea, we promise, that we shall still oppose them who shall assert any Power either direct or indirect over Him in Civil or Temporal Affairs.

II. That it is our Doctrine, That our gracious King Charles the Second is so Absolute and independent, that he doth not acknowledge, nor hath in Civil and Temporal affairs any Power above Him under God, and that to be our con∣stant Doctrine, from which we shall never recede.

III. That it is our Doctrine, That we Subjects owe so natural and just obedience unto our King, that no Power under any pretext soever, can either dispence with, or free us of the same.

• Edmund Archbishop of Ardmagh Primat of all Ireland.
• Patrick Bishop of Ardagh.
• James Dempsy Vicar Ge∣neral Apostolick of Dub∣lin.
• Dominick Roch Dean and Vicar General of Corck.
• Denis Harty Vicarius Apostolicus Laonensis.
• Oliver Desse Vicar

• General of Meath.
• John Burk Vicar General of Cashel.
• Patricius Daly Vicarius Generalis of Ardmagh, and Procurator Rapoten∣sis.
• Robert Power Dean of Wa∣terford and Vicar General of Waterford and Lismore.
• John Hannin, Substitute of Imly.
• James Phelan Doctor of Divinity, Parson of Cal∣lan, Dean of Ossory, Pro∣tonotary Apostolical.
• Connor Fogorty Proctor of Ardfert and Achdeo.
• Teig O Brien Dean of Lis∣more and Parson of Dun∣garvan.
• Angel Goulding Doctor of Divinity.
• Thomas Higgin Chanter and Vicar General of El∣phin.
• Edmund Teig Vicar Gene∣ral of Cloanmacnoise.
• Thady Brohy Divine.
• Thomas Lacy Substitute of Limmerick.
• George Plunket Divine.
• Ronan Magin Vicar Ge∣neral of Dromore.
• James Killine Vicar Ge∣neral of Killmaduogh.
• Daniel Kelly Vicar Gene∣ral of Cluonfert.
• Thomas Fitz Symons Di∣vine for the Province of Ʋlster.
• Patrick O Mulderig Vi∣carius Generalis Dun. & Connor.
• Constantine Duffy, Vicar General of Clogher.
• John Nolan Divine.
• Charles Horan Divine of the Dioces. of Elphin in the Province of Con∣naught.
• Father Francis Fitz Ger∣rald Lector of Divinity, and Procurator of the Vicar General of Cluon.
• John Deoran, Proctor for Father Charles Nolan Vicar General of Laghlin.
• Owen O Coigly.
• Edmund Deoran.
• Terence Fitz-Patrick Vi∣car General of Ossorie.
• Dorby Doyle Batchelor of Divinity.
• Nicolas Redmond Vicar General of Fernes.
• Fr: Peter Walsh, Rea∣der of Divinity, of St. Francis's Order, Procu∣rator of the Catholick Clergy.
• John Talbot of the Society of Jesus.
• Fr: Antony Docharty Minister Provincial.
• Fr: Thomas Dillon, Vicar Provincial of the Discal∣ceat Carmelits.
• F. Henry Burgate, Divine of the Order of Preachers
• Fr: Matthew Nangle Carmelit Discalceat.
• Fr: Stephen Lynch Pro∣vincial of the Order of St. Augustin.
• Fr: Dominick Martin of the Order of S. Au∣gustin, Lector of Moral Divinity, Definitor, and Prior of Dublin.
• F. Christopher Bath Divine for the Order of S. Domi∣nick.
• Fr: John Warren Dis∣calceat Carmelit.
• Nicolas Redmond Secre∣tary.

Amongst which names, although you find John Talbot of the Society of Jesus and Angel Golding Doctor of Divinity, the two joyn'd in the same Committee with Father Nettervil, sent by the Congregation to offer me their Subscription of all the Six Declarations of Sorbon. as applyed &c, yet you see neither Nicholas Nettervil himself, nor his Provincial Superiour of Ireland Andrew Sall, nor indeed any of all the nine before named, or noted by me not to have signed these or any other Paper containing the said Propositions; only Kilfinuragh excepted who sign'd the former containing them, although not this.

However, on the 23 of June (which was next day following) at night, I, as desired by the Congregation waited on the Bishop of Ardagh and John Burk Vicar General Apostolick of Cashil to the Kings Castle. Where after His Grace had re∣ceiv'd them in the usual manner privately in his Closet; the Bishop both presented His Grace with the Original of the above Paper Subscribed by so many Hands as you see, and endeavoured to say somewhat (though indeed he said nothing to purpose) in excuse of the Congregation's not subscribing the other three, or the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth of those Declarations of Sorbon, as applyed, &c; with∣al entreating, That His Grace would be pleased to represent those two publick Instruments of the Congregation to His Majesty. Which was in effect all this Bishop, and his fellow Commissioner John Burk, at or by this last Address from the Congregation, either said to, or desired of His Grace; save only, That John Burk

(as confidently and briskly, as if he had himself in a high measure deserved to be singularly looked upon) added, That now all was done, and being to return to the good Lady Thurles (the Duke of Ormond Lord Lieutenants Mother) to whom he had the honour to be Chaplain, he was ready to receive His Graces Commands to her, and prayed he might have even that additional honour too. His Grace answered in a very few words, first, as to their joynt desire in behalf of the Con∣gregation, That he would represent to His Majesty both themselves and their In∣struments as they deserved; and then to Father Burk in particular, That (says he) if you be my Mothers Chaplain, I must provide for her a fitter and better Chaplain than you. This was all he answered (for I was present all the while) and so dismist them immediately. Which, if they had not been very stupid or dull, might (at least considering his three former messages to their Congregation) have been sufficient arguments to them of His Grace's being throughly unsatisfied with their Instruments and both themselves and Congregation from which they were sent to Him.

XIX.

I had almost utterly forgot the account I intended to give of an expostulary Application, or address made (a day or two before this) to the Congregation, by such of the Ecclesiastical Subscribers of the former and famed Remonstrance of the year 1661, as were then at Dublin, and were not Members of this National Congregation. For I have observed before, that besides my self, there were only Three of the former Remonstrants or Subscribers of that Formulary of 1661, who sate in this Synod. Yet forasmuch as all the rest were much concerned, seve∣ral of them came partly from near, and partly too from remote parts of the King∣dom, (not only in Leinster, but) even from Mounster, Connaught, and Ʋlster, (besides those lived constantly in Dublin it self) to see the issue of this National meeting. These concerned Fathers, amongst whom several, even of the very best and most learned Churchmen of Ireland were, understanding every day well enough, especially from the Procurator, what the debates, consultations, results were, and consequently how the Congregation not only declined wholly the for∣mer Remonstrance, but even refused so much as to suffer it to be debated by a Colledge of their own Divines (though otherwise Members, and even Antiremon∣strant Members sitting and Voting in the House) and fearing the issue of such unreasonable, and unjust proceedings, would prove at last very fatal to the Clergy and Catholicks of Ireland in general, thought fit on this occasion to discharge once more (in the best way they could) their own duty to the Publick by an Expostulatory Letter from them, and signed by them all to the Congregation; but directed only to the Chairman the Bishop of Kilfinuragh; yet to be read by Him publickly to all the Assembly. What date it bore, I have not in my Copy, nor can remember; though I remember very well it was delivered, and read pub∣lickly in the House, a little before the House Dissolved; as I remember also, that I my self had been much against the trouble of either presenting, or writing it, because I had clearly seen all along the stubborn, unflexible resolution of the Demagogues and most of the inferiour Multitude, who would hear no reason; and consequently, that it would have no effect upon such men of byass. And yet, after all that, pressed by the reasons and importunities of many of those Loyal Subscribers of the former Remonstrance, I drew that Letter for them, and sub∣scribed it too as one of them, which I now give you here,

The Expostulatory Letter directed to the Chairman of the Congre∣gation by such of the Ecclesiastical Subscribers of the former Remonstrance (or of that of 1661) as were at Dublin, and not Members of the Congregation, delivered and read publickly, a little before that National Meeting Dissolved.

Right Reverend, and our very good Lord,

IT is notoriously known to the whole Kingdom, That the present National Representative of the Irish Roman-Catholick Clergy is now convened in this Capital City of Ireland, in order to their Signing a Remonstrance or Declaration and Promise of their fu∣ture Loyal fidelity and obedience in all Temporal things whatsoever, according to the Laws of the Land, to our Dread Soveraign Charles the Second; to the end, That not only His Majesty, nor only His Coun∣cils of State and Parliaments, but also all other His Majesties Pro∣testant Subjects (of whatever different Religion, Perswasion, or Opinion as to the way of truly and rightly worshipping God) may be throughly sa∣tisfied, That the Roman Catholicks of Ireland, even the most Reverend and Sacred Representative of all their Ecclesiasticks do now at last freely and conscientiously under their own proper hands, in a publick Instru∣ment, profess themselves to be (and even, according to their divine Faith, or true infallible Principles of right Christianity, and of the Catholick Church, to be) as much obliged (if not more) in point of conscience, to con∣tinue evermore faithfully subject and obedient in all such Temporal matters, and according to all such Laws of the Land, to His Majesty and lawful Successors in all contingencies that may happen, as any other even of whatever Church or Sects, either hold themselves bound, or indeed by the Laws of God are otherwise bound to His Majesty, or to any other their respective Soveraign Princes or States on Earth.

Nor is it less manifestly known, how great and urgent the very spe∣cial causes are, which even of necessity require such a Remonstrance, or Declaration and Promise or Protestation from this present Eccle∣siastical Assembly. For who is he can be ignorant of those just sus∣pitions (of an inclination to return again to disloyal both Principles and Practices) under which the generality of Irish Catholicks, Clergy, and People, do lye yet continually amongst their fellow Subjects of the Protestant Religion? Or who indeed but knows the true source of those very great, and not to be wondred at jealousies? especially, that which cannot be dried up in our days, even the fresh memory of all that hath been so lately acted in Ireland against the Protestant Church and Peo∣ple, by the Confederate Roman Catholicks of that Nation in the last unhappy Wars? Nay, who is not sensible of the miserable condition, even at present, of so many Thousands of our unfortunate Countrey∣men? Or who sees not, this condition is one fatal effect of that suspi∣cion, or rather (as I should say) of that firm perswasion amongst Protes∣tants

of the Disloyaltie of the Roman-Catholick Irish in general? besides is it not as generally known, How that to allay for the future that very suspicion, lessen hereafter that very perswasion (which hath even so lately, i. e. since His Majesties happy Restauration, blasted the hopes of so many thousands of our ancient Proprietors) and so to vindicate their holy Religion, from bearing any share in the blame of those unholy irreligious Practices of some (however too too many) Professors of it, and consequently to obtain the ceasing of that severe Persecution commanded, and effectually for some time continued by the Triumvirat in Ireland Anno 1660, a considerable number of Roman-Catholick Irish Ecclesiasticks then at London, headed by a Bishop of the same Religion and Nation, had in the same year thought it becom∣ing their duty to God, Allegiance to their Natural Prince, Piety to their Countrey, and the Character also of those who as the Sons of Peace desire Christian Peace and a fair, friendly, and faithful correspondence betwixt all His Majesties Subjects of whatever Church or Nation, yea and not only thought it so becoming, but after a serious debate conceived it both expedient and necessary, To sign as accordingly they did sign a Remonstrance and Protestation of indispensable fidelity and obedience in all temporal matters whatsoever, &c, or a Declaration and Promise of Loyalty indeed so full as might answer in all respects the end above mentioned? And is it not likewise known, That, with the same Irish Ecclesiastick Subscribers of that Remonstrance, the greatest and most considerable part by much of the Nobility and Gentry of our Nation at that time in London did joyn themselves and concurr even by the like subscription, then or soon after in that very place, besides many more also of the rest of the Nobility and Gentry at home in Ireland, who next Winter and since have followed the same good example given first at London? And to pass over at present, how not only several more of the Irish as well Bishops as other learned Clergymen then abroad, have much about the same time approved of that very Formulary of professing our Allegiance, even some of them by their manual Subscrip∣tions to it; and how, not only the English Noblemen advised and con∣sulted with by the Irish Nobility at London concerning it, have pro∣fessed publickly in a great Assembly of the aforesaid Irish both Nobility and Gentry, That, were the case of the Irish theirs, they and all the rest of the English Nobility and Gentry of the Roman Communion would willingly sign that Remonstrance in terminis, and even sign it with their blood, were this necessary; but also how the English Chapter of the Roman-Catholick Secular Eeclesiasticks have in a Let∣ter written on purpose by their command, signed by their Dean Hum∣phrey Ellice, alias Doctor Waring, and superscribed to the Bishop of Dromore, signified clearly so much, in effect, of their own ap∣proving likewise the same Formulary, or that very individual Remon∣strance of ours: We say that to pass at present all this over, Is it not further as manifestly apparent, how graciously that Instrument after the signature of it was received by His Majesty? How immediately the Persecution in this Kingdom ceased by His Majesties express Com∣mand? Nay how, ever since both People and Clergy of our Communion

have enjoyed the great tranquility and freedom in point of exercising our Religion and Functions which we have so gladly seen, and which we so thankfully acknowledge to be still continued to us, yea, in a higher measure enjoyed by us at this present, then we could almost have, not long since, either believed, or hoped we should live to see? But notwith∣standing such great and good effects of the signature of that Loyal For∣mulary Remonstrance by those few Ecclesiasticks that gave the first Example at London, and soon after by the Nobility and Gentry there at that time; is it not equally apparent, That too too many Irish Ec∣clesiasticks of the same Church-communion, proving (ever since, for so many years) ungrateful for so great benefits received from His Majesty, and His Majesties Lieutenant General governing this Kingdom, and received too by the means of that Remonstrance, and of the Subscription thereof by those who had no other end in either than to redeem their Nation from the severe execution of Penal Laws, yea proving to the King himself as ungrateful truly as those barbarous People were, who darted Arrows at the Sun for his comfortable beams of light and heat afforded to them, either not rightly understanding, or not well con∣sidering the Doctrinal points of the said Remonstrance, or indeed, ra∣ther out of their willful byass of proper and private interest partly, and partly out of meer envy and malice, have used their utmost endea∣vours to obtain, and accordingly in Forraign Parts have obtained, not only judicial or Scholastical Censures, both from the Roman Ministers of State, and the Faculty Theological of Louain, but other vexati∣ous and Penal proceedings against some at least of the chief Ecclesiasti∣cal Subscribers and Defenders thereof; nay before and after have both Preached and Prayed at home in this Kingdom every where against the Formulary it self; and Subscribers thereof, representing that (amongst the Ʋulgar People who cannot discern) as undoubtedly unlawful, sinful, scandalous, sacrilegious, yea schismatical and heretical too, and these consequently no better who have subscribed and yet not retracted their subscription?

Now being the Resolves of all and each of these Queries hitherto, must be in the affirmative, the consequence, if we be not much mista∣ken, must also be, That it is no less notoriously known, how great and urgent the very special causes are, which even of necessity require such a full and satisfactory Declaration, &c, as above, from this present Ecclesiastical Meeting, than it is, That the end of their being by his Grace the Kings Lieutenant, permitted to meet, and sit, and deliberate so freely as they can desire and do now here in the Capital City of the Kingdom, is no other.

All which being so; it will easily be believed, our affliction must be very great, when of one side we certainly understand The whole pro∣cedure of the Congregations debates and resolves hitherto these Eleven days of their Session makes it appear evidently, That the chief Leaders thereof mind nothing less than that end for which they and the rest of the Members have been convened, or permitted to meet; yea That they are obstinately possessed with, and set upon quite contrary designs of

their own, and when at the same time of the other side we seriously consi∣der, That the issue of such Counsels, if persisted in till the Fathers be dissol∣ved, must at long running, of necessity prove extreamly fatal even to the generality of all both Ecclesiasticks and Laicks of the whole Irish Nation, because either represented or guided by this Congregation. For being we see plainly before our eyes, that since the designes of those leading Dema∣gogues are as contrary to the just, peaceable, and Loyal designes which we and other Subscribers of the former Remonstrance (we mean that of the year 1661) had from the beginning, have at present, and shall (God wil∣ling) hereafter always continue, as even darkness and light, errour and truth, or Hell and Heaven are or can be one to another: it must naturally follow, That we must consequently and no less clearly behold all our former hopes of the Irish Catholicks welfare by this National Assembly's Convention dashed to nothing, and even not only despair of any good, but very justly fear great and irrecoverable evils to the Nation from this very Meeting, to succeed those fair and pleasing hopes, if (we say) the Fathers end as they have begun and proceeded hitherto, suffering themselves to be misled by their passionately and blindly interested De∣magogues, and even hurried on furiously into a cross and effectual thwarting for the future all those very publick ends, which, for the good of their Nation and Religion, the said former Remonstrance and both Ecclesiastick and Lay Subscribers thereof drove at. And surely 'tis not probable that any will not easily believe, that such con∣siderations, which ought to afflict all good Patriots, bring upon us by so much the greater affliction, by how much we think our selves the more nearly concern'd than others who have not ventured as far as we under sufferances from our own Church, of purpose to do that very Church and Professors thereof in the British Empire, and particularly in Ire∣land all the good offices we could, even also by subscribing, presenting, defending, and promoting hitherto, in all just ways, That Formulary of 1661, and both Doctrine and Practice thereof as the only means, or at least very first of all due means for His Majesties Roman-Catholick Subjects wherever in His Dominions to win upon, and to in∣gratiate themselves with their fellow Subjects of the Protestant Religion.

So much of our Melancholy thoughts and hearty resentments we thought fit to represent to the Congregation by your Lordship their Chairman: to the end, that, since it continues yet, and may some days farther, and several of the Members thereof are lately more and more disposed to give the Lord Lieutenant all kind of full and real satis∣faction, and therefore some hopes remain still that matters are not ab∣solutely past all recovery or remedy, we may further represent as we do by this address, and by your Lordship to the rest of the the Right Reverend Prelats, and all other the Venerable Fathers, our additional and humble both desire and Petition, That they will be pleased to ap∣point a Committee of their best or most Select Divines, to debate with us their reasons, if any indeed they have, whether Theological or Pru∣dential, why the Signature either of the Three last of the Six Sorbon

Declarations, or even of the former Remonstrance hath been hitherto excepted against? And wherefore, on the contradictory Question, such a Formulary of their own framing hath been Signed and presented by them as hath nothing material in it, not any thing truly either (in the same, or other words) of all, or any the material Points of the former Re∣monstrance? What errour against Christian Religion, or Catholick Faith, or sound Doctrine they found, or could alledge against all, or any of those Points or Clauses of the former Remonstrance, which they have so of meer design omitted in their own? Lastly, being they profess in words, They have not excepted against their own signing of the said former Remonstrance, out of any prejudice against it, or the Subscribers of it, why they do notwithstanding refuse to proffer so much in writing by a publcik Act of their Congregation, i. e. by signing the paper to that purpose offered them to be signed? unless, besides other prejudices and evils, which their proceedings hi∣therto, must, if not remedied by new Resolves, bring of necessity on all the Roman-Catholick both Clergy and People represented or lead by them, they intend also to sowe the seeds of a perpetual, scandalous, and fatal Schism amongst that very Clergy and Peo∣ple?

These being the heads of what we think necessary to be so debated, and our desires and Petition of a Committee and Conference (to such end) being no other than we likewise think every indifferent Person will hold to be very reasonable in the present circumstances; we have moreover thought fit to assure the Fathers, That in case they convince us by reason or argument which may take with any judicious indiffe∣rent Person, we shall most freely and resignedly submit to them, in all and every of the controverted Points. So little are we byassed against that Light which God hath imprinted on every rational Soul; nay on the contrary, so resolved are we to hold perpetually (to the best of our knowledge) to the Rule of Christian Belief, which we conceive to be now or as to us, and all other faithful men living, the Holy Scriptures of God, as they are interpreted by the constant, unanimous, universal Tradition of the Church, and Doctrine of all the Holy Fathers, even for Ten whole entire Ages of Christianity, until the days and Ʋsur∣pation of Gregory the VII.

But if notwithstanding all, and particularly so fair an offer, the Congregation shall (which God forbid) suffer themselves to be either misguided, or over-awed, and over-ruled still by those persons amongst them who seek not the good of either Nation or Religion, but their own peculiar worldly interest every one of them, and this even know∣ingly, to the prejudice of Evangelical truth, and Propagation or Con∣firmation of both Schismatical and Heretical Errours: or if, to pleasure such persons, the Congregation will not condescend to a desire so ear∣nest and reasonable, a Petition so equitable and humble for such a ne∣cessary Committee and Conference: this Letter will at least bear us witness, that of our part, and to our power we have done what became us for preventing those evils which we mightily fear, and are almost

certainly perswaded, the bad counsels, and further designs of some lead∣ing persons amongst them, will at last bring upon the Nation in ge∣neral.

Whether in the mean time the Congregation it self can avoid the Censure of all understanding men? whether even of those who other∣wise might be the most fiery pretending Zealots for the Church and Pope? may be worth the considering. We mean, when it shall be made publickly known, That such a National Assembly of Ecclesiasticks would neither frame a Remonstrance of their own satisfactory to the King in point of professing their Allegiance to him for the future in meer Temporal things; nor at all joyn or concur in that of others which was indeed (in all respects) satisfactory, and as such already accepted by His Majesty, and was also by not a small number of both Ecclesiasticks and Layicks of their own Countrey and Religion, and amongst these and those many persons too not only considerable for other qualifications but for their Learning and judgment, who even Princi∣pally to do them all the good lay in their power, had freely and con∣scientiously signed the former Remonstrance; nor yet (no not even) on the contradictory question would shew their Lawful exceptions, or indeed any at all against the former; nor even do so much as suffer it to be debated 'twixt a Committee of their own, and another of the Subscri∣bers of it, no nor so much as to be debated in their own House, or elsewhere by their own Divines alone, whether it contain'd any Errour, or any other cause of Lawful exception; nor finally (no not to prevent all those otherwise impending evils, especially the very worst of them, viz. a manifest, scandalous, and fatal Schism amongst the Catholick Clergy, and consequently People too of this Nation, the setting up, or continuing of Altar against Altar) would so much as testifie under their hands, or by a publick Act of their House, what they themselves professed there in word, That they had in truth no exception against either that former Remonstrance, or the Subscribers of it. We say, it may be worth the considering, whether, when all those matters and whatever else pertains unto them shall be made publick to the World, this National Congregation of Roman-Catholick Irish Ecclesiasticks can avoid the heavy Censure of any understanding man? Nay, whe∣ther all understanding men, who shall, and when they shall read a per∣fect and full relation of all, and particularly of this our present both hearty and humble Petition, and (withal) of the Congregation's declining still nevertheless to come to such an issue, will not judge, That the same Fathers, and together with them all other our Antagonists both at home and abroad, Natives and Forreigners yield up the Cause, justi∣fie us, and condemn themselves, that refuse a Tryal so equitable in it self, and so heartily and humbly desired of them by us?

This is all we have to say or pray at present; save only, That your Lordship may be pleased, either by your self, or some other Member of the House, to read publickly in the House to all the rest of the Prelats and Fathers there Assembled this Letter of our Expostulation with and Petition to them all in general; being it is only to this purpose di∣rected

to your Lordship as their Chairman. Wherefore concluding, we heartily wish your Lordship, and them our Right Reverend good Lords and Venerable Fathers (and wish them in their final Resolves before they dissolve) the efficacious influence of the All-powerful Spi∣rit of God which strongly and sweetly works all the good Resolves of men. And so with much affection and all due respect we kiss your sacred hands,

Right Reverend and our very good Lord, your Lordship's most humble Servants

• ...Secular Priests.
  • Laurence Archbold.
  • Bartholomew Read.
• ...Dominicans.
  • Fr. Clement Birn.
  • Fr. John Reynolds
• ...All Franciscans.
  • Fr. Valentine Brown.
  • Fr. Peter Walsh.
  • Fr. Anthony Gearnon.
  • Fr. Francis Coppinger.
  • Fr. Thomas Harold.
  • Fr. Christopher Plunket
  • Fr. James Tuit.
  • Fr. Patrick Carr.
  • Fr. Laurence Tankard.
  • Fr, Thomas Talbot.
  • Fr. Mathew Duff.
  • F. James Fitz Gerrald.
  • Fr. Anthony Saul.
  • Fr. Valentine Cruiz.

What the qualifications, or Titles were of these Subscribers, you may see Treat. 1. partly pag. 9. and partly pag. 47. In both which places they amongst others subscribe their names with their respective qualifications or Titles to the former Remonstrance, some amongst the first Subscribers in England, and others after amongst those who signed in Ireland. Yet I confess there is one amongst them, whose subscription was not valued, nor desired by any of the rest, but rather declined, yea and had been absolutely refused by them, if they had known how to refuse it prudently.

I was my self present in the Congregation when this Letter was therein pub∣lickly read. Sed canebatur surdis. They had before obstinately resolved against all reason. The Miracles and Revolutions they expected from the year 1666, their Forraign Intelligence and expectations, and their lying Prophecies at home, together with so many other vain perswasions of their own, fixed them unalte∣rable. Whence it was, That they neither did, nor would give other answer to this Letter Subscribed by so many, than what they had before given to my self alone, viz. That none should speak any more against the former Remonstrance, or those who subscribed and held to it still.

But how well they and their partizans have performed this verbal promise, the Second Tome of this Work shall discover. The truth is, their Cabal never once intended to perform. Whereof because I then also had been throughly perswad∣ed by unanswerable and clear arguments, in reply to their Answer I thought fit to say (as I did accordingly) before them all, and both immediatly and pub∣lickly there in the place, That both I my self, and all the rest, not only of those who subscribed the above Letter, but all others of the former Remonstrants where ever dispersed throughout the Kingdom (in whose behalf, as well as their own such as were present in town had so subscribed that Expostulatory Letter)

would be at last necessitated to declare, and would accordingly declare against them to the people, even also at the Altars, and from the Pulpits, by laying the Sin of Schism (besides the true causes too of all other evils threatning and impending over the Nation, and Religion) at their door, if they on their side did not exactly perform their promise, and perform it effectually, by silencing all the malicious and ignorant traducers of the former Remonstrance and Subscri∣bers of it. Yet I must confess, that although I did then really so intend as I spake, and was not at all by any one of the Fathers, either publickly in that Congregation expostulated with, or privately there, or elsewhere (that I could hear) even so much as murmured of, for that my freedom, in declaring what I had so resolved for all such future contingencies; nevertheless upon after thoughts of taking more prudential ways, i. e. ways of less noise, and no scan∣dal (and yet I knew St. Bernard's Maxime, Melius est ut scandalum oriatur quam veritas relinquatur.) I did while I remain'd in Ireland, i. e. till May 1669, (however provoked manifoldly in too too many instances) both refrain my self and hinder all other Subscribers of the former Remonstrance, from declaring so, or speaking in Church or Chappel, at the Altar or in the Pulpit any word or mat∣ter against them, or any of them; yea, notwithstanding I had been many times and on several occasions mightily importuned to the contrary, and that also by very good and vertuous men.

XX.

BUT to return to the Bishop of Ardagh, and Vicar General Apostolick of Cashel, these two last Commissioners employed by the Congregation to His Grace the Duke of Ormond Lord Lieutenant General &c of Ireland, I must now tell my Reader, That on Monday morning the 25 of June, and 15th and last of our National Congregation, the Fathers being Assembled to hear what their said Commissioners could report of their success on the former Saturday night upon delivering their last signed Paper, and pleading their excuse for other matters to His Grace, the Procurator gives them His Grace's positive commands to Dis∣solve that morning, and retire to their respective homes; telling them withal, That His Grace found no satisfaction in any of their Addresses. The Bishop of Ardagh on the other side endeavours to make them believe, That His Grace did seem fully satisfied with their Remonstrance, or Act of Recognition, and other Paper of the Three first Sorbon Propositions delivered at the same time; nay, and that His Grace even in express terms had promised to represent unto His Maiesty these two Instruments as satisfactory, i. e. as containing fully all those Declarations of Allegiance, or Fidelity and Obedience, which could be expected from any Roman-Catholicks whatsoever subject to His Majesty. But the Pro∣curator considering this to be the last time the Congregation was to meet, and seeing no remedy, but that he must either suffer the Fathers to dissolve and depart with so false and noxious too a Perswasion, or must oppose this Prelat even to his face, chooseth what any honest man, especially of his place and trust, would in such case. And therefore tells the Fathers, how himself having been present all the while at both times, when the Lord Lieutenant spoke, either to the said Bishop of Ardagh and Father John Burk Vicar General of Cashel, on the 23 of June at night, or before to the same Ardagh and Kilfinuragh on the 16 of the same moneth, could, and must assure the Congregation, That His Grace did nei∣ther at the one or other time give any kind of ground for this relation, viz of His seeming to have been satisfied with their said Addresses or instruments, and of promising to represent them as satisfactory, &c. That on the contrary, he gave ground enough by his short and sharp answers, and by his severe countenance shewed to the last Commissioners, viz. the foresaid Bishop of Ardagh, and Vi∣car General of Cashel (on Saturday night the 23) that he was extreamly unsa∣tisfied. That all the ground the Bishop could pretend for his relation, made

clear against him; being that when he desired, His Grace would be pleased to represent their said Instruments to His Majesty, the answer made him by His Grace had been in these words only, I will represent them as they deserve. And that men of reason or judgment, who knew in what manner His Grace had spo∣ken these words, what he said to Burk immediately after, and how without fur∣ther Ceremony, nay, with all other manifest signs of displeasure He dismissed them, might easily see the Bishop had either strangly forgotten what he saw and heard, or more strangely mistaken contraries one for an other.

This matter (of the Procurators opposing to that relation made by Ardagh) being over, the Primat stands up, and (after some few words to the Chairman) turning himself to the Procurator, tells him, what the Congregation had resolved upon in his behalf; Viz. That in regard of his pains already taken for, and ma∣ny obligations put upon the the Roman-Catholick People of the Nation, and of his great expences too for so many years past, since he was made Procurator in the year 1660, as likewise considering that neither his future pains nor future expences in serving and obliging much more yet the same people by continuing, and worthily discharging his office of Procurator for them with the King and His Majesties great Ministers of State, could be less than thitherto both had been; The Lords and rest of the Fathers of the Congregation, partly to provide for their own concerns, and partly, to shew the most effectual signs they could of grateful minds towards him, had concluded these two things. The one; to applot and raise a considerable summe of money for him; i. e. every Priest in the Kingdom to pay for his use to a Recei∣ver five Shillings yearly, during the next three years to come, every Vicar General proportionably more, and every Bishop likewise more yet according to his Bishoprick. I for my self (says He) although my Bishoprick of Ardagh as to me at present, you all know, be none of the best, but rather one of the poorest, do freely offer, and shall willingly pay Thirteen pounds sterling of this applotment. The other; to give him (the said Procurator) all the best Testimonials, and even the most special Com∣mendatory Letters too, signed by the whole Congregation, in his behalf, and super∣scribed to the Court of Rome, Papal Ministers, Cardinals, and even to His Holi∣ness.

The Procurator seeing himself now the second time and even also thus in pub∣lick either courted or tempted with such obliging offers, yet considering how their carriage of themselves in the material points expected from them, had wholly disenabled him to assure them of any certainty at all, of reaping for the future those advantages they expected from his endeavours, answered, That although he could not indeed but thankfully acknowledge their proffers, as he did with all his heart, nevertheless he would not accept of either at present. Not of the later of their testimonial and recommendatory Letters to Rome: because such Letters would render him suspected at home, and consequently lessen his credit and ability to serve them, where they needed his service most. Nor of the former of money: because by reason of their own final Resolves and An∣swers to the Lord Lieutenant, he could by no means assure them for the future of the continuance of those favours to them which might be answerable to their expectation, or such expence, and he thought it not expedient to receive their mo∣ney when he was not sure to be able to continue their liberty. This was his an∣swer in short. Whereupon the Primat, seconded by Father Oliver Desse Vicar General of Meath, and some others, pray'd him, that at least, in recompence of his former labours and reimbursement of expences past for so many years since 1660, he would accept of their so willing Contribution of money; adding withal, that whatever issue his future endeavours for them should have, they would neither blame him nor suspect his integrity or good will. But he re∣plyed, That although he had already in their service spent Eleven hundred Pounds, either acquired by his own industry, or else freely bestowed on him by other friends then any of their Clergy, or People; nay, and besides that considerable sum already spent, were at present even also indebted for some other small summs, which he had and must have borrowed, and likewise spent in their

service, and was not yet able to pay, he thought it his best course, rather to rely on the Providence of God, benevolence of friends, and his own industry in other ways for money, then to receive any of theirs, not even for reimburse∣ment of his expences past, unless, or until they would first receive and comply with some, at least, of those more sober counsels given them, for their own, and the Nations further good. And therefore pray'd them, to excuse him from receiving either Letters or money from them, on any account whatsoever, until then. For he was resolved to be also for the future, as he had been always to that hour, free of any kind of such obligations laid upon him by men of ei∣ther judgments or inclinations and affections so different from his in matters re∣lating to the King and Government: and that he would not of one side be up∣braided with their money, if his future endeavours for them had not answerable success; nor of the other suspected, for having yielded to the receiving of any at all, whether money or Letters from them. Adding withal, that indeed they themselves upon cool reflections might see it was even for their own interest also, that he should carry himself so uprightly and honestly, if they expected any good hereafter by his Negotiation. And in the last place assuring them, he would always to his power, as faithfully and willingly serve the Roman-Catholick Clergy and People of Ireland, and consequently also the very present Congregation and every Member thereof, yea, notwithstanding the Cabals of some of them, of purpose to cross him, as if he had accepted of their money and Letters both; though he could not at the same time but profess his grief openly, that them∣selves by their inconsiderate Resolves, had in effect bereaved him of much of that Power which he believed he might otherwise have to answer even the very greatest expectations any of them could justly have of their success. Which being replyed by the Procurator, they ceased from tempting him any further on that, or other subject.

But he had not so ended what he had to speak this last day of the Congregation; albeit no more on the former subject. For that being over by his positive re∣fusal, and rational excuse; and the Fathers well pleased with his so publick and sincere promise, to do for them to his utmost power, as much as he would, or or could have done in case he had accepted of their proffers; he told them in the next place, That being this was the last time of their meeting in the present Con∣gregation, he had Three things of consequence to move and recommend to their serious consideration; but such things withal as could not in reason or any like∣lihood raise such animosities or divisions of minds amongst them, as the Re∣monstrance, or Parisian Declarations had done; because they intrench'd not so much on their dependency of the Roman Court and Ministers. The first con∣cern'd not only publick prayers for both the Spiritual and Temporal prosperity of the King, but moreover due observance amongst them, and their respective flocks (the Roman-Catholick People) of the publick days of Humiliation, or Fasts and Prayers which the King, or his Subjects subordinate chief Governours of Ireland should thenceforth command all his Subjects to observe. The Second was, concerning the famed Wonder-working Priest, Father James Finachty. And the last related to two wicked Books, lately written by two Irish Churchmen, viz Mahony the Jesuit; and Ferral the Cappuccin. On each of these three heads he dilated himself to perswade the Fathers to a Congregational Act on each. And,

First, as to the former part of the first of those Three Heads, he let them know, had he sufficient causes to move it, and pray their positive Decree in it. 1. That he knew many Church-men omitted to pray in publick at their Altars for the King, i. e. at all so much as for his Spiritual welfare: yea some, for example, Father Dominick Dempsy a Franciscan (esteemed a very grave and holy man, and therefore a leading Person) and Father .................. Long the Jesuit, who had the confidence, (or rather impudence and ignorance) to assert, nay, and en∣deavour also even before his own face to maintain, That because the King was out of the Roman-Catholick Church it was not lawful to pray for him at all,

or at least not publickly on any other day in the year than good Friday; nor then in particular for him, but in general only, i. e. forasmuch as he was com∣prehended amongst the great generality of Infidels, or of Jews, Mahumetans, Pagans, and Hereticks, for whom altogether the Church prayed on good Friday as being the Aniversary of that day whereon our Saviour dyed for all the Children of Adam in general; nor yet then, or so to pray for him with∣out some further qualification, and restriction of what we should beg of God, or wish from Heaven to him, i. e. to pray only for what concern'd the Spiritu∣al welfare of his Soul; and therefore only to pray for his Conversion to the Ro∣man-Catholick Church, but not for his Temporal prosperity in this world until he be a true Member of the only true Church. 2. That although his own en∣deavours partly, and partly those, not only of the rest of the former Remon∣strants, but of other good men (who, albeit they had through fear of the Ro∣man Court, and other Ecclesiastical Superiours not subscribed the Formulary or Remonstrance of the year 1661, yet in their Souls, and where they durst, both in word and deed too approve it) had prevailed in most parts of the Kingdom against this wicked Heresie of not praying as they ought for the Supream Tem∣poral Powers; he knew notwithstanding too too well, that all opposers were not yet perswaded to decry this errour down, or to practice against it. 3. That notwithstanding the ignorance, or malice of such disaffected Church-men, the Holy Scriptures (to speak nothing at all of Natural Reason in the case, or, I mean, of that reason which directs us to wish well to all men, and love our Neighbours as our selves) were plain enough both for Praying and Sacrificeing too even for Idolatruos, and Heathen, yea persecuting Heathen Princes, and not only for their Spiritual welfare, but their Temporal: as Baruch 1.11. and 2 Timoth 2.1. at least joyned together, manifestly prove. For certainly the Princes and Kings for whom Paul desires Timothy and all other Christians to pray for Heathens, and Nero amongst them was the very first Persecuting Roman Emperour. And no less certainly both Nabuchodonozor and Baltassar in the Pro∣phet Baruch were Heathen Princes, and the former He that sacrilegiously rob••d the Holy Temple, nay utterly in his time subverted the Kingdom of the chosen People of God, and carried the miserable remainders of them Captive to Ba∣bilon. 4. That no Church-canon, or Custom, or Rubrick, or Reason, or Doctrine, or Practice, hath any power to prescribe against the Laws of God (or their eternal reason) declared in both the New and Old Testaments. 5. And Lastly, That nothing could more justly render us to all Protestants both suspected of disloyalty and odious for immorality than such our scandalous either opposing or omitting so known a duty.

Secondly, for the later, or second part of that same first of those Three Heads, he let them know likewise, That although not even the Subscribers of the very former Remonstrance (or of that of the year 1661) may be thought to be obliged by the only precise contents of that Formulary, To acknowledg either the Kings Authority in commanding any meer spiritual duties, or the Peoples obligation in point of Conscience to obey the King in such commands; yet no man of knowledge will thence conclude, that the intention or design of that Formulary or Subscription of it was, either formally, or virtually, (i. e. tacitly, and consequently) to deny all such Authority in the King, or all such obligation of conscience on either Lay people, or Clergy; but only in plain and express terms to acknowledge the Kings other kind of independent Au∣thority, viz, That in Temporals, and for commanding in all Temporals univer∣sally according to the Laws of the Land; of the misbelief or denyal and rejecti∣on of which even Ʋniversal and Independent Authority in Temporals, it behooved the Subscribers to clear themselves, or at least those in general, in whose be∣half they Subscribed and Remonstrated.

That such concern and such intention or design is very far from any consequu∣tion or sequel, implying their denyal of the Kings Authority for commanding some Spirituals, even truly such, nay or of his Authority for commanding Ʋni∣versally

all Spirituals (whether not purely, or purely such) to be duly perform'd by all Subjects both Lay and Ecclesiastical respectively, as they are in their se∣veral capacities by the Laws of God and man directed, enabled, and obliged to perform and discharge them: and therefore also very far from any conseqution, implying their denial either of Peoples or Clergys obligation in point of con∣science to obey the King whensoever He commands a due and holy observance or performance and discharge of such Spiritual works, which neither of their own nature, nor by any icrcumstances or ends prescribed by Him are vitiated or against the Laws of God, but are (in every such respect) acts of true Reli∣gion, Piety, and Holiness. For who sees not, That a general affirmation of one sort of Authority in Kings, and of a correspondent tye of obedience thereunto in Subjects, must not infer a general renunciation or denyal of another kind of Authority in the one, and tye on the other, when these latter can not be truly said to be inconsistent with those other?

That both the Examples even of the most religious holy Kings, either amongst the Jews and Israelites in the Old Testament, or amongst Christians under the dispensation of the New, yea in the more early times thereof, and the Doctrin of the Fathers, and natural reason too in the case, manifestly prove this Autho∣rity in all Kings for commanding even such spiritual duties, and consequently this obligation of, and tye of Conscience on all Subjects (of whatever Religion, true or false, the same or different from that professed by their Kings) to obey them even in all such their commands, whither given by Law, or by Proclama∣tion, or other temporary Precept.

That to this purpose, the Books of Paralipomenon do furnish us plentifully with the examples of David,(a) 115.1 Ezechias,(b) 115.2 and Josias;(c) 115.3 to say nothing now of Joas (adhuc dum bonum(d) 115.4 faceret coram domino) nothing of Salomon(e) 115.5 &c. and the Civil Laws of the Christian Emperours of Rome, the Books of the Code, Pandects, and Authenticks furnish us no less plentifully with examples of Constantine the Great, Theodosius both the older and younger, Honorius, Mar∣tianus, Justinian, Heracliuus, Leo, and many more; amongst whom Carolus Mag∣nus, and Ludovicus Pius, both very Christian Catholick Emperours deserve to be particularly remembred, being they made so many good Laws for the Govern∣ment of meer Ecclesiastical or Church affairs and persons, as may be read in their own Capitularies, though not in any of those Books which make up that now commonly called Corpus Juris Civilis.

That for what concerns the Testimony of others, i. e. of those we justly call our Holy Fathers, as whom in the next degree after the Apostles we look upon as our best Masters of Christianity, St. Augustin alone may at present serve for them all, the rather, that no man in his right senses did ever honestly or conscienciously dispute this matter. (Let the Disciples of Bellarmine, and admi∣rers of Baronius think what they please.) In hoc Reges Deo servire, in quantum Reges sunt, si in suo Regno bona jubeant, mala prohibeant, non solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem, verumetiam quae ad divinam Religionem, is the sentence of this great Doctor in several places of his Works(f) 115.6.

That reason alone might perswade the truth thereof; being reason alone, without other help, teaches all both Kings and Subjects there is a God whom all must worship and glorifie; and reason alone shews that when they, i. e. both Kings and People are once perswaded (though but by Revelation only) of the true way to worship God, and Kings do moreover know themselves to be the Vice-gerents of God, with the power of the Sword in order to the Govern∣ment of the People entrusted to their charge, and the People also believe the same of them, it must consequently, and even from the nature of Royal Au∣thority follow, That of one side Kings are empowred to command the People to worship, glorifie, and praise God for his mercy, render him thanks for his bounty, beg assistance in dangers, his deliverance from the power of enemies, &c, and therefore also to set apart some days, and observe religiously those days already set apart for such holy duties as Preaching, and Praying, and

Fasting, and invokeing God even in publick Assemblies at Church, humbling themselves before him, relieving the poor, and doing all other works of mercy, corporal and spiritual; and of the other side the people are bound to obey their Kings and other Supream Civil Governours, in such commands, how spiritual soe∣ver the matter or things enjoyned be.

Nay, That reason alone, yea without any help or illustration either of the more ancient holy Fathers, or later Expositors must teach us, That if all Sub∣jects are by the general and positive Law of God in St. Paul (13 Rom.) command∣ed under pain of Damnation or Hell to be subject to the Supream Civil Powers, without any distinguishing note of the matter enjoyn'd unless that note which makes clearly for the matter of good works to be commanded by such Rulers, it must necessarily follow, That since according to the Confession of every side, all Subjects are obliged by that very Law in St. Paul, 13 Rom. to obey their Kings in all Commands (at least which are not contrary to the Laws of the Land and) which concern temporary or worldly things alone, much more must they be obliged to obey them in all those other more excellent and holy commands which relate either immediately and principally, or mediately and consequently to their eternal happiness in another life, and therefore to the most excellent of Spiritual matters. For all the Laws and Precepts of God either those de∣livered immediately by Christ, or by the mouthes and pens of his Apostles, re∣gard (if not only, at least) principally (first, as the due means) a Spiritual life of Grace in this World, and (next, as the final end of such means) a Spiritual life of Glory in the other.

Lastly, That such Authority in Kings of commanding Spirituals being not de∣rived from the Keys of the Church, given to Peter and rest of the Apostles, but flowing naturally, originally, and necessarily too from the Supream, Royal or Civil Power of Kings, can be no more lost or forfeited by Heresie, or other In∣fidelity, nay, nor by any kind of sin or misdemeanour whatsoever than their au∣thority for commanding in meer Temporals; especially, being it is manifest enough That the Authority of commanding such Spiritual duties and Religious worship of God is often too too necessary in Kings for attaining even the very true poli∣tick Temporal, or earthly and natural ends of a Common-wealth, securing the Temporal Peace or happiness of the People, and obtaining it of God, from whom alone all both Spiritual and Temporal, both Supernatural and Natural blessings come.

So much did the Procurator let the Fathers of the Congregation know, i. e. to such purpose did he speak to them on the Subject of the first of those three heads before mentioned. And they did seem in truth to have been fully per∣swaded by his discourse. For they all assented and consented, That all both Feasts and Fasts, all days either of Humiliation or Thanksgiving commanded by the King, should be accordingly observed in their way, both by themselves and rest of the Roman-Catholick Clergy and people of Ireland.

XXI.

ON the second of those Three Heads, or that concerning Father James O Fien∣achtuy the famed wonder-working. Priest, he spoke in the next place, giv∣ing a large and very particular account of all he had either heard from others, or by his own experience known of that good Father, i. e. an account of those argu∣ments which of one side cryed him up for a Wonderful curer of all Diseases, and of the other discovered him at last to have never had any such gift of healing, or at least to have lost it lately, if ever at any time, or in any instance for∣merly he had it.

But forasmuch as the Reader may be desirous to know more particularly such matters relating to the said Fathers James O Fienachtuy who made for some years so great a noise both in Ireland and England, not only amongst Roman-Catholicks,

but even Protestants, I think it worth my labour to give here to my best remem∣brance the very speech, or at least substance of it containing that account, given so by the Procurator (i. e. my self) to this National Congregation, as follow∣eth, viz,

Account of the famed Wonder-working Priest, &c.

MY Lords and Fathers, it is no disaffection to nor prejudice against the person of Father Fienachtuy, but the general concern of all our Church in the truth, or falshood of Miracles reported (these many years) to have been wrought by him, puts me now (in the second place) upon a large discourse and very particular account of him, especially as to some later passages which cannot be known to you, otherwise then from me, or my relation to others.

The first place and time I heard of this Miraculous Priest was at London, in the year 1657, (or thereabouts) under the late Usurping Power of Cromwel. Then and there I saw by chance an extract of a late Letter (sent from Ireland, and written by an Irish Jesuit (one Ward by name, if my memory fail me not) to an other Irish Jesuit at London, viz, Father Hughs, living then with the Por∣tugal Embassadour, but now with the Queen) which related, How, amidst all the extream afflictions of the miserable remainders at home of the Catholick Peo∣ple in Ireland even God himself, from high, had both graciously and wonder∣fully visited them at last, to confirm them in their holy Religion, by raising a wonderful man indeed amongst them, James O Fienachtuy (a Secular Priest, who had formerly the charge of a Parish in the Archbishoprick of Tuam, or Pro∣vince of Connaught) and by gifting this man so extraordinarily i. e. with such a true Miraculous Power, of dispossessing Devils, and curing too all sorts of other, even the most natural diseases, that he drew the world after him, and not only Catholicks but Protestants. In so much, That he had often a Thousand, sometimes Fifteen hundred, nay, Two or three Thousand who followed him, even through Bogs, Woods, Mountains, and Rocks, and desert places whether soever the people heard him to have fled from the Persecution of Cromwel's Troups, or Governours; That Priests enough could not be had (though many accompanied him of purpose) to hear the confessions of the great Multitude drawn to Repentance and Resolutions of a new Life, by the example of his life, and wonder of his Works; That therefore he was justly, and principally, next after St. Patrick alone, esteemed another Thaumaturgus (i. e. Wonder-worker) of Ireland, as being greater in the glory of Miracles and prodigious∣ness of Signs than any even of so vast a number of Irish Saints who are in Histo∣ry Recorded to have formerly in a continual succession for some Ages flourish∣ed in that (then) Island of Saints; and therefore also That as he was of one side the greatest comfort might be to Catholicks, so on the other, he was even the very greatest terrour could be to Hereticks who saw clearly now they must fall, being God had now at last raised them an enemy whom they could not over∣come, nor indeed so much as fight by any force of Arms, whilest he conquered them by Words, Signs, and Wonders.

Having seen also (as I remember) the very Original of this Letter with Father Hughs himself, whom to that purpose I accoasted, and been further assured both by him and a general no less credulity then confident report amongst all the Irish then at London, that all was very true, and notorious at home through∣out Ireland, I could not but entertain pleasing Ideaes of invincible Arguments for the divine certainty of the Roman-Catholick Religion; viz, Arguments wholly composed of Miracles wrought so manifoldly, publickly and undeniably by one professing it, and wrought by him, even (as was further said) in ex∣press confirmation of it, by his invoking God to this purpose, and he also

himself living still in his own Countrey at home, where we might easily find out the truth of matters of Fact. For I must confess, that having from my youth dedicated my studies chiefly to Controversial Divinity, for what concern'd the differences 'twixt Roman-Catholicks, and those of all other Churches, especially the Protestant Church of England: and having even lately had occasion enough (especially at London in my frequent converse with some learned Protestants) to reflect very often upon those Notes or Signes of the only true Church, which Bellarmin, Bozius and some others give: and finding also that in my judgment all other Notes might be easily answered, save that only of Miracles, as alledg∣ed to be appropriated to, and continued in the Roman Church only, or only amongst those of her Communion; there was nothing I desired more, even for many years before I heard a word of Father Finachty, than that I might be, by some way or other, absolutely, and without moral possibility of contradicti∣on or fiction, assured of some, at least one true Miracle wrought by any of that Communion living in our days, and in any of these our own Countries at home, where we might easily see both the Person and Miracle wrought by him (or her) especially if wrought by his (or her) invoking God publickly before the Peo∣ple, or a convenient number of competent Witnesses, and begging, that his Divine Majesty would be pleased to work such, or such a true Miracle in confir∣mation of the Roman-Religion, in matters differing from those believed (as points of Faith or Christian Doctrine) by other Churches. And therefore it was that, when I had as before the first time heard at London of James Finachty, I was m••ghtily pleased, as flattering my self with great hopes of attaining at last in him my foresaid wish.

But my hopes were not long after abated, if not rather quite vanished; and that upon this occasion. Even the very next Summer following, one Father Bonaventure O Melaghlin an Irish Franciscan (and one who had for many years gone through almost all promotions, i. e. all both Local and Provincial Superi∣ourships of his own Order in the Province of Ireland at home, who had been several times Guardian, once Vicar Provincial, and now Pro-Minister Provincial) going from Ireland to the general Chapter in Spain, there to be one of the Vo∣cals, as representing the Person of the then Franciscan Minister Provincial of Ireland, took London in his way. Where finding me, and often discoursing with me, and amongst other matters even in presence of about nine or ten other Irish Franciscan Fathers (who lived then at London) and even also in particu∣lar, categorical, and positive answer to my Questions put unto him publickly before them all, concerning the reports of Father Finachty's famed wonders, or Miraculous gift of dispossessing Devils, and healing too all other diseases whatsoever, he assured me, That neither himself, nor any other of the more grave and judicious Church-men of his acquaintance at home in the Province, had any such opinion of the said Father Finachty, or his pretended gifts or cures. That, not only of his curing miraculously, either all, or any one natural dis∣ease, but even of his curing by Exorcism, or otherwise any either possessed, or obtested person, he could say nothing, much less could give any assurance at all. That, for his own part, he understood not so much yet, as that Father Finachty's pretences of so many some Possessed, and some Obsessed persons had any ground or colour; nay, nor perhaps could understand even so much, as how any one single person's being truly in our days either Possessed, or Obsessed in that Countrey, might upon rational grounds be confidently alledged. That not only not himself, but (forasmuch as he had yet learn'd, or heard) no other person how discerning soever hath at all hitherto discerned, nor indeed could discern any proper signs of meer Diabolical works in or about such persons whom Fa∣ther Finachty pretends to be under such visitations of the Devil as are truly called Possession, or Obsession. That if any such signs could be discern'd by others, or if indeed Finachty's judgment ought to be esteemed, there would be work enough for Exorcists, nay for all the Priests of Ireland, though every one of them turn'd special Exorcist; being he the said Father Finachty would make simple people

believe, that all kinds even of the most seeming corporal or natural diseases whatsoever now in Ireland are special effects of the Devils really Possessing, or Obsessing the bodies of the sick. That such being as to this matter the fa∣natick judgment of Finachty, it ought to be attributed to meer folly, or frenzy, that now for well nigh Twelve hundred years we heard nothing (from Histori∣ans) of any such Diabolical Power in any Christian Countrey; much less in Ireland, whence (as we read in our Ecclesiastical History) our great Apostle St Patrick expelled at once, so in truth miraculously, yea, and visibly too, all the (otherwise invisible) Devils, who, till then, by Possession, and Obsession, had tormented the old Heathen Inhabitants thereof. That especially in a time of a Christian Kingdoms, or Nations, or Peoples being so grievously afflicted by visi∣ble enemies, as the Roman-Catholick Irish are at present, and nevertheless bear∣ing their afflictions patiently, and continuing constantly in their Sacred Religi∣on, a man of reason should not once imagine that the mercy and goodness of God would at the same time deliver them over (so at least generally) even also to invisible Demons, as Finachty pretends. That every one who pleased to en∣quire might find, he himself (the said Finachty) was a very illiterate undiscerning person, who never had studied not only not any thing to be considered in either natural or rational Philosophy, but not one word in Divinity which might en∣able him to discern or try so much well as his own Spirit. And in the last place, That such as he himself, or they themselves pretended to have been cu∣red by him of any visible disease (from what cause soever flowing) were ob∣served to have very soon after relapsed into their former evil, or rather indeed not to have been at all really cured by him.

To this purpose, and in such company (as before I told) when Father Me∣laghlin had at large and very confidently too at several times, and in answer also to my Queries made to him, discoursed, I knew not well what to think, much less what to reply. And yet I must confess, I gave him the more credit (i. e. the rather believed, he spoke nothing of prejudice, envy, or malice, nor in∣deed any thing at all, other than what either he had heard from the most ju∣dicious Ecclesiasticks of his acquaintance (and he was throughly acquainted all all over Ireland) or knew by his own experience) 1. Because I could not un∣derstand he ever had, or well could have had any, or difference, or communion with Finachty. 2. Because I knew they had both been equally still of the same Nuncio-party in the late differences of the Nation; nay, and both even by their very names, equally lovers of that common Interest, concerning which, they would equally both desire to know, and ask too (if they knew of whom) as the Apostles did of Christ, Domine si in tempore hoc restitutes regum Israel? and, by consequence were equally wishers even of true Miracles and wonders to ob∣tain or see that restitution they expected. 3. Because it could not fall into my Soul, that the relator, Father Mellaghlin, would on that occasion freely and de∣liberately commit that kind of sin, which, as being against the Holy Ghost, is not forgiven either in this, or the other world; and that none doubted his sin would be such, if he had perversly either maligned or denyed the free grace of God in any man appearing so miraculously as was reported by others it did in Father Finachty. However, I made no doubt, his (i. e. Father Melaghlins) so confident and positive answers in the case, were sufficient to suspend at least my judgment or belief of any kind of true miraculous power in the said James Fi∣nachty, notwithstanding his being so much cryed up for such a power. Which therefore I did accordingly, and for that time no more troubled my self with enquiring after him, especially, the rather, that there was scarce any further talk of his wonders until after some four or five years more.

Then indeed, i. e. some two years after the Kings most happy Restaurati∣on, and the next August after the Triumvirats Persecution of the Irish Papists ceased, and when the Duke of Ormond as the Kings Lieutenant had arrived in Ireland Anno 1662, was the second time I heard of the powerful Spirits ha∣ving seized again Father Finachty and working wonders by him. And then

also it was that I became much more inquisitive (than before) of all was reported of him even for these two reasons. 1. I was then my self arrived in Ireland (about a Moneth after the Duke of Ormond landed) where I might have all opportuni∣ties and means to learn the truth of all the said Father Finachty's either true, or only pretended miraculous gifts and works. 2. Immediately upon my land∣ing, and presenting my self before the Lord Lieutenant, His Grace commanded me (amongst other matters) to look particularly and singularly after him (the same Father Finachty) and see he abused the People no longer, by going about so like a Mountebanke, cheating all the Nation; nay, and bringing his Coun∣trey-men also into suspition of some bad design amongst them; and this nei∣ther unjustly, nor at all ungroundlesly, if his procession about the Kingdom, and the Multitudes every where flocking to him be considered, together with all other circumstances of time, and present conjuncture of publick Affairs.

This command, and these reasons or speech of His Grace the Kings Lieute∣nant General, and General Governour of the Kingdom, added much to my own former inclinations, to enquire after Father Finachty's proceedings. And there∣fore without delay I conferr'd with the most judicious of all sorts, of both Ecclesi∣asticks and Laicks from all parts of the Kingdom then at Dublin; and amongst them with many, whereof some were of his own Countrey, or Province of Con∣naught, and Countrey of Galway wherein he had his ordinary Residence, who knew him very well for many years, and others of other parts who had gone of purpose (even some of them a long way) to see him practise on themselves and others, as they did.

What I learned of them all generally concerning his late peregrination about the Kingdom, was,

1. That by the mediation of some friends he had the Summer past of that same year 1662, before the Lord Lieutenants Landing, procured, or at least ob∣tained a Pass (from some of the great ones in Authority) to go freely where he pleased about Ireland, and accordingly had gone from Province to Province, and consequently also had met, and drawn after him many hundreds in some places, in other many thousands of people, some expecting to be healed by him of their infirmities, others (who were incomparably the greater number) to be satisfied in their curiosity.

2. That he had also in many Countries or Counties, solemnly Dedicated, Blessed, and Hallowed even some common Wells, or Springs abroad in the Fields, giving the said Wells special Titles, in imitation of the more famed, ancient, and commonly esteemed Miraculous Wells in this Kingdom of Ireland, those I mean of St. Brigid in Connaught, and St. John Baptist neer Dublin, whether People go in Pilgrimage: and that his admirers did not scruple to affirm, he had by his Blessing communicated to the said Wells of his own, or dedicated by him, part of his own efficacious and supernatural wonder working virtue, to cure all diseases.

3. That however, being encouraged by, and relying on his Pass, he had pro∣ceeded thus, as in Triumph, of one side of the Kingdom, out of Connaught to Munster, and from Thurles in Munster down to Leinster, till he came with∣in five miles to Dublin, received in all places, entertained, reverenced, honou∣red, admired not only by the common People, but by the Gentry, Nobility, Knights, Lords, Ladies, and Clergy too; and by many also presented with gifts, which he never refused.

4. That at Cluansillach, (five miles from Dublin) the last of any place so near the Capital City, where his Miraculous Scenes were for that time present∣ed, a vast number both out of the City, and adjacent Countries throng'd about him so, that some of them were troden almost to death.

5. That from thence he returned back to his own Countrey, by an other way than that he came by; but, and especially where ever he saw a great Multitude, practising still (as his manner and delight was to practise in the open fields amongst great Multitudes) dispossessing of Devils, from such as he himself alone

was pleased to judge Possessed, and curing too, or at least both pretending and attempting to cure all other diseases by praying, and exorcising, and touching, and crossing, and stroaking, and (some times also for some diseases) by blowing vehemently and laboriously too into the ears of the diseased party.

6. And Lastly, that some Protestants also having gone of purpose to see him, others of them really, to desire his helping hand, but others only to be satisfied by seeing what good or not he did to any, there wanted not amongst them, nay and amongst the very Catholicks too both men and women, some persons, or rather indeed too too many returned extreamly unsatisfied, looking unto all his feats as meer cheats and Imposture, while others cryed up several of them for true and great Miracles: and that from the former dissatisfied persons the information given to the Lord Lieutenant had proceeded.

But notwithstanding all my earnest inquisition, I could not meet with any either Ecclesiastick, or Laick, that would assure me of so much as any one cure himself had seen done, and which himself verely esteemed Miraculous, nay nor that would assure me, he verily believed the report of others, in relation to such miraculous Cures said to have been done by that good Father; save only still Geoffry Brown, and Richard Bellings, two grave Gentlemen Esquires, known Catholicks of very good repute throughout the Kingdom, both for Religion and discretion, and their publick emploiments too amongst the late Confederates, yea and the former a Counsellor at Law, and even a Galway-man of the same Coun∣try with Father Finachty, and the latter, albeit a Leinster man, yet one who had purposely gone to the said Father's last great appearance at Cluansillach near Dub∣lin to be cured by him of the Gout. Being told, those two Gentlemen of my own old acquaintance could say much of him, and that they held him in great veneration, I visited them of purpose to be informed (as they did me often on other accounts) and being not only sure they would tell me truth, but having a great opinion of their judgment, knowing they were no Bigots, and perswaded too, that neither of them (especially the Lawyer) could be too lightly credulous, I prayed them to tell me what they could say, of their own knowledge. Mr. Bel∣lings answered, That himself was perswaded in his conscience, Father Finachty had a wonderful gift from God of curing by exorcisms and prayers. But when I asked him again what he had found thereof by his own experience? for (said I) you have been with him at Cluansillach, and touched upon, and prayed for by him there; and yet you have had the Gout once or twice since as ill as ever at any time before: to this he could say nothing, but that he thought his own relapse not so altogether painful as before, and that 'twas hardly possible so many others who said they were cured by him, would lye or dissemble; and how∣ever, that what Geoffry Brown had with his own eyes beheld, and would assure me, if I enquired of him, was able to convince any man. Whereupon I went to Mr. Brown desiring the particulars from his own mouth. And he in truth gave me this account, viz, That some years past, six or seven, or thereabouts, in Cromwels time, when the said Father Finachty began first to be cryed up, he had himself been present, when in a wood in Connaught, whether a multitude of about Two or three hundred came to the Father, he had cured a Cripple, who for many years before had been publickly known in Galway to have been always a Cripple, going upon all four, only having two low Crutches not above half a foot high under his two hands, and as such living at the Augustinians of Gal∣way even eight years at least, and until they were destroyed when the Town yielded to the Parliament Forces. That that Miraculous cure was all done, not only in his own presence, and in that of the aforesaid whole Multitude, but in this manner, viz, That the Cripple being lay'd down at the feet of the Father, he the same Father Prayed, and Exorcized, and Sign••d him with the Cross all over, and at last bid him get up, and (when the Criple did not) bid one of the Assistants, who was a Lay-brother of either the Augustinian, or Franciscan Order (I remember not now exactly which) to raise him up by strength from his Crutches, and hold him stretched up, and by force to continue him so for a

time. That the Lay-brother, who was a strong man, did as he was directed, and thereupon the Cripple cryed out vehemently, he was in torture, and was not able to continue so standing, and kept stretched out by force. That then Father Finachty bid him to be let down as before on his low crutches, and then again Prayed, Exorcised, and Crossed him as formerly, and after that having bid the Lay-brother to raise him now the second time, and this being accordingly done, the Cripple was asked, Whether he felt any more pain by being kept standing right? he answered No, and that he found himself Cured, and stood alone of himself and walked before them all, and gave God thanks. That he was, and even continued so perfectly Cured, that next Sunday he appeared at a publick hurling or Play at Commans (where the Youths of several Parishes met) and played and run bolt up right, and streight with as much activity and strength as the tallest and most active of all the rest of the youths, and as if he had never been cripled, even to the extream wonderment of every one that had known be∣fore. This much did that Gentleman Mr. Geoffry Brown, assure to me of his own knowledge: as likewise, That he never heard, that that man so cured, had at any time after relapsed into his former state of a Cripple. And that this was all he could say for certain of Father Finachty, which happened (says he) I must confess many years ago in the Protectors time; adding withal, That of other mat∣ters then, or before, or since related of him, he could say nothing, nor could de∣ermine (for his own part) whether that he saw was a true Miracle or no.

This relation from Geoffery Brown, together with Mr. Belings very great and confident opinion, went far to perswade me, that in some, at least former instan∣ces (whether by reason of the Faith, or of the strong Imagination of those, came to Father Finachty, to be cured by him? or whether of any special gift, or Grace he had from God?) somewhat happened to some few persons that seem'd Miraculous. And truly Mr. Belings in particular was so confident of such Gift and Grace in him, that not long after this, my self being present, he moved the Lord Lieutenant very earnestly for a new Pass to be given to the said Father, to the end, he might freely and publickly appear again, and practice where ever he pleased, even at Dublin. Though I must withal acknowledge, that my Lord Lieutenant seem'd no less confident, that nothing done by him was truly Miraculous, but whatsoever was reported of him was either a lye, or a cheat, or (at best, and most, and where, or if any thing on some occasion, or to some ones self did seem done to himself) a work of meer fancy, and strong imagination; saying nevertheless to Mr. Belings, and me, That not∣withstanding such his opinion of Finachty, yet he affirmed not the ceasing of Miracles Ʋniversally in all parts of the Church or world; nor denyed but peradven∣ture at the very present even some Jesuits wrought true Miracles somewhere, and on some occasions in the East Indies, Japan, or China, for the Conversion of Infidels; but then also adding withal, and in the last place assuring Mr. Belings, That however (says he) if Father Finachty come to Dublin and do but one Miracle only of all the incredible numbers reported, he shall lye even in my own bed here within the Kings Castle, and be as safe and free as I, to come and go at his pleasure. But Mr. Beling (says he then concluding) look you to it, that instead of acquiring ho∣nour and converting Protestants to your own Religion, by bringing that Miracu∣lous man of yours hither, and exposing him to more prying, more narrow searchers than any he hath met with amongst men that are themselves willing to be deceived, you find not quite contrary effects, and make him an object of scorn for Mounte∣bankery, and your selves of laughter for your credulity, as I am sure you will.

Now partly because Mr. Belings, notwithstanding all his former earnestness for, and esteem of that famous man, desisted from any further prosecution of this business, i. e. from any invitation of him to come and appear at Dublin for the Conversion of Protestants, and partly too, because I heard so many others albeit no less either zealous or judicious Roman-Catholicks of a quite contrary opinion to Mr. Bellings in Finachty's concern, nor moved at all by Geoffrey Brown••s Relations, I also gave over then any further enquiry; resolved never∣theless

to renew it again, if peradventure I should hear afterwards of any more new Wonders, or new Miracles wrought. But I did not hear a word of such new matters, not even for the whole Twelvemonth next coming. Nay, he not contrary, and in the mean while, the Earl of Clancarty assured me, That him∣self was present when and where Father Finachty, during his late pass and pro∣gress about the Kingdom, Exorcised publickly at the Lady Thurls in Ormond, with all his might and strength, and consequently also exercised all his power of Wonder-working, or Curing miraculously, and there observed, That when he (the said Exorcist Father Finachty) had done with some who were brought to him, or whom he himself had fixed upon as Demoniacks, and another (thrust∣ing in through the crowd) had succeeded in their place, as having a sore shoulder, and desiring to be Cured thereof, Father Finachty, looking first on it, and seeing it even visibly sore, not only answer'd (in the hearing of all were present and near him, as I was, said the foresaid Lord of Clancarty) That it was a natural sore (i. e. an evil, or disease proceeding from natural causes only, and conse∣quently from other than any Diabolical work by possession, obsession, or other∣wise) and That he had nothing to do with any sort of meer natural disease what∣soever; but pursuant to this answer, refusing to meddle with, or practise on that sore-shoulder••d man, dismiss'd him openly, and presently, without having once at∣tempted to cure or to ease him by Exorcism, or other exercise of praying, or cros∣sing, or blowing, or stroaking, &c. Besides this relation of my Lord Clancar∣ty, I was told also about the same time by another person of very good credit, a Connaught man too of the same Countrey with the said Father, that he (viz. Finachty) had formerly been servant (in his youth) to one Father Moor, an old venerable Jesuit, and skilful Exorcist. That of this same Father Moor it was he learn'd his Art, or knowledge of Exorcising. And that besides that knowledge, and his own continual practice and long experience, wherein he might be wholly directed by the known Books of Exorcisms, as Flagellum Daemo∣num, and such other (as without question he was throughly conversant in them) he could not truly pretend to other extraordinary power, gift, or vertue. These two so particular and positive relations of men whom I had much reason to be∣lieve could not but very much further my being wholly taken off (at least for a time) from inquiring more after that good Father, unless, or until peradventure I did upon some new grounds understand more of him, and that of new Miracles, and these too more authentick than the former reported of him. And yet I will not deny, but Mr. Brown's Relation, and his Testimony, continued still more deeply fix'd in my Thoughts, and had more weight with me than I could by any means rid my self of.

But it was not very long, ere I had again the powerful Argument of universal Report, and that even from London, of the said Father Finachty's new and most prodigious and manifold signs and wonders wrought there. For about a Twelve-month (or thereabouts, or at least not much more) after he had from his former Circuit withdrawn himself back to Connaught, and and that all persons were si∣lent concerning him, and no more talk had been of any Cures done, or of any more attempts of Curing made by him, behold! on a sudden, by several Packets one after another, many Letters from London (besides many persons too come from thence) to Dublin, reporting for certain, That he was there (i. e. at Lon∣don publickly, before all the World, both Catholicks and Protestants, even in the very most Publick Chappels in that great City, as the Portugueze Ambassadors at Wildhouse, the Queens at St. James's, &c.) doing Wonders indeed; that is, not only dispossessing Devils by Exorcism, but by that and other Prayers, Curing pre∣sently all manner even of the most natural, inveterate, and habitual Diseases, as namely, restoring Sight to the Blind, Going to the Lame, Hearing to the Deaf, &c. Of those Letters, one was written by Mr. Patrick Archer then at London, to his Wife at Dublin, which I read. Another was to my self from Father Redmund Caron. The former had not so much power to make me assent, because I knew Mr. Archer to be not only not very discerning, nor only very illiterate, but (though

otherwise a good man) so indiscreetly zealous, That he would believe any thing of such nature which any Roman-Catholick Priest or Churchman would tell him. But Father Caron's had more Authority to persuade me, specially if he had writ the particulars, and those to have been done to his own knowledge, and himself being present, without any possibility of Cheat; which he did not write, but only in ge∣neral, That Father Finachty was doing wonderful things with them at London. How∣ever, these Letters, together with the universal report of others, were enough to make me (this third time I heard of that miraculous man) more inquisitive than e∣ver. And therefore, some few weeks after those Letters, I gladly heard, That Finachty was (even through fear conceived by the Protestant Clergy of England, he would by his Miracles convert their Flocks to the Roman Church) dismiss'd London, and thence honourably conveyed in a Coach of Six Horses by an English Catholick Gentleman J.D.E. through Oxford to Chester, and so to Holyhead in Wales; where he was then (with my Lord Dillon, and Gerrot Moor Esq two great admi∣rers of him) only expecting a Wind for Dublin. And within a few other dayes I yet more gladly heard of his Landing at Rings-end, together with those noble Gentlemen, who likely were able to give Testimony of some of those Miracles reported from London. But my great vexation at the same time was, That the Lord Lieutenant having some few dayes before departed to Kilkenny, I had engaged my self for some business to follow His Grace, and to begin my Journey the very next morning; as I did, in truth, hoping nevertheless to return suddenly, ere Father Finachty, and those Gentlemen come in his Company, should part from Dublin.

If any will ask here, How came Finachty to go to London? The true Answer is, That there being a Portugueze Lady, a Countess (with the Queen) who had utterly lost her sight, and was stark blind, and she hearing (from some of the Irish Chap∣lains that serve the Queen, amongst whom, the foresaid Hughs the Jesuit is one) of such a Wonder-working Priest in Ireland, she, or the Queen's Majesty, or some o∣ther, employed Father Teig Mac Eochuy* 116.1 (alias Capt. Power an Irish Dominican, and one of Her Majesties Chaplains in Extraordinary, but in Ordinary to the La∣dy Marquess Dowager of Clanricard, and Connaught man too of the same Coun∣trey with Finachty) and furnished him with money into Ireland, to bear his own Charges, and the said Finachty's, in their Journey thence to London, and he (viz. Fa∣ther Teig) undertook the Journy, came to Dublin both going to, and returning with the miraculous man from Connaught, was both times at my Chamber, yet told me not a word then of any such matter, but ship'd his said Wonder-working Com∣panion privately for England. Which was the reason we heard nothing of Fi∣nachty's being away out of Ireland, till we heard of his Miracles done at London. Nor then, nor after did I know how he came to go thither, until that being my self at London in July 1665. in the great Plague-time (i. e. after all other dis∣coveries made here) I was told these particulars at my own lodging there by the said Father Teig himself; who then also not only acknowledged to me how unsa∣tisfied himself was in point of those famed Miracles, after that Finachty had plain∣ly failed in doing any kind of good to the Portugueze Countess, for the recovery of her sight (as he did manifestly fail therein, albeit for her sake chiefly, if not on∣ly, gone to London) but that he was farther much scandalized, that such a man as that same Finachty, was after all pretending at Rome (as sayes he, he is actually now) for the Bishoprick of Elphin.

To return to the former series of my Discourse, on the fourth day of my being then at Kilkenny, the Earl of Fingall came to Town from Dublin, and together with him one Father .......... Plunket, a Regular Priest of the Order of Discalceate Carmelites. Meeting this Father accidentally that very Evening he came, and en∣quiring what News, he told me, That Father Finachty was at Dublin, practising in∣deed publickly, but withal certainly with much scandal and reproach to the whole Catholick Religion. That he had a Woman come after, or along with him out of England (some said out of Lancashire in particular) whom he gave out to be a Demoniack, or possessed by the Devil, and that amongst other his Feats, he would needs Exorcise this Woman publickly in the said Earl of Fingall's house, before

a great multitude of all sorts of People, Catholicks and Protestants of both Sexes, amongst whom the Lady Marquess of Antrim, a great Protestant, had been led thither by Father Peter Talbot; and all this forsooth, for the proof or confir∣mation of the Roman-Catholick Religion, to be the only true Christian Catho∣lick Religion. That when he had amused the beholders with expectation of dis∣possessing utterly that Woman, and making the Devil depart her, Father Peter Talbot had interposed, telling him it should be in signo visibili, that is, it should be done so, as the standers by might be persuaded thereof by some visible sign given by the Devil at his departure. That Finachty promising this, and to this purpose, or to effect this visible sign, falling again to his Adjurations, failed ma∣nifestly before all the People; nothing having been done, but the Demoniack (if such she was) scorning and laughing at all his confidence, and pretended power. And that hereupon all the People departed with extream dissatisfaction, and the Catholicks with confusion also, but the Protestants with laughter. This Rela∣tion put me presently as on a resolution to return to Dublin in the greatest haste I could, so likewise on the very last and strictest inquisition which I had for some time intended concerning Father Finachty, which was to inquire particularly of all the most judicious and knowing both Ecclesiasticks and Laicks throughout the several Diocesses of Ossory (or Kilkenny) Leighlin, Kildare, and Dublin, (where the said Finachty had some two years before, in the time of his pass or permission, publickly in his great meetings practised what he could) and to en∣quire, I say, of them all, what they knew or believed of him, or his miracles, or had seen done by him that should persuade them either the one way or other. Therefore I did presently enquire all I could first at Kilkenny, next in the Diocess of Leighlin, then in that of Kildare, fourthly in the Diocess of Dublin it self, abroad in the Countrey, all in my way back to that Capital City, and in the last place within that same Metropolitical City again the second time, and much more exactly than before. Having in eight or nine dayes, or thereabouts, ended this enquiry, and reflecting on the sum of what I found thereby, I found my self as little satisfied as (if not much more unsatisfied than) before. What troubled me most was, That all the Church-Fathers, whether Regulars, of what Order so∣ever, or Secular Parish-Priests, to whom I spake on the Subject (and I speak to a great many (having visited them of purpose for that end) even every one of them seem'd against Finachty. Others, when I spoke of him, shaking their heads, and shrugging their shoulders. Others, in plain terms, calling him a grand Impostor, and covetous Wretch, assuring me, he did in effect no other thing really, but what he did for himself, i. e. Cheat all the World, receive all was offer'd him in any place by some well-meaning, but deluded People, both rich and poor, viz. Horses, Watches, Gold, Silver, pieces of woollen and linnen Cloth, &c. which (said they) argued him not to be a man of so much as ordinary either grace or vertue, much less of extraordinary holiness, or miraculous gifts. Others, and and to instance one, viz. Father Dominick Dempsy, a venerable, old and experi∣enced Franciscan of known repute, affirming to me in the Convent of Clane, That the said Finachty's very pretence of Exercising and dispossessing Devils, was to their knowledge a lying Cheat of his own; That his custom was to get a multitude together in some open field, and there (being encircled by them, while every one of the simpler sort looked on him as an undoubted Wonder-worker) to single out before them all some young Maid; then to say she had been possessed by the Devil; and (if she denied it) to box her, and bang her lustily, until she (being so confounded before the People, and to be rid of the shame, by yielding to him) had confessed what he pleased, and answer'd all his Interro∣gatories as he would, and led her himself to the answer, during his Exorcising of her; That he had done so hard by at Downadea, where Sir Andrew Alymer lives within Two miles of the said Franciscan Convent of Clane; and That one Maid so abused by him there, came to my self to confession very soon after (sayes the above Father Dominick) accusing her self penitently, That to be rid as soon as she could of the shame of being continued so publick a spectacle, where every one believed

him, rather than her, she had against her own knowledge, and check of Conscience, ac∣knowledged her self possessed by the Devil, and suffer••d him to practise on her as such, even there publickly, before the whole multitude, and said what ever else he would have her say to his further Interrogatories, and so abused all the People too, whereas truly in her life she had never been troubled with Devil, or other evil, but was perfectly in health both of body and mind.

As for the Lay-persons some few I met that cryed him up, and others that de∣cryed him down as much. In the Diocess of Leighlin, a Gentlewoman told me in the presence of several others, That she had her self gone Thirty mile to see him practice at Downadea (aforesaid) but if he came again to the Countrey, she would not go Thirty paces, nay, nor over the Threshold to see his Miracles; so little had she of cause (in what she had already seen) to believe any truth in them, or expect any wonders from him. Yet being come to the Lady Dongans at Castle-town, and Lady Whites at Leixlip, both places in the Diocess of Dublin, and wherein Finachty had in his perambulatory Circuit appeared and practised, I found the Ladies, and other Gentlewomen, had entertained a better opinion of him. For some of those of Castle-town, affirmed to me, That he had (with them there, and themselves being present) restored a Cripled man to going, and a Blind man to seeing. And some also of those of Leixlip told me, That with themselves in that Town he had throughly quieted a Woman that before his coming was either possessed or mad, as who did sometimes walk even on the very ridge of the Roofs of Houses. Yet I must confess the Parish-Priest of Castle-town Father Gerrot Kevanagh seemed not throughly satisfied of the miraculousness of what was done there. For (sayes he to me) Father Finachty used other help than that of Exorcising, Praying, Touching, or bare Crossing. He lay down up∣on, and stretch'd out by pure force the knees of the Cripple, so that he seem'd by pure force to have stretch'd his sinews, or removed the impediment whatever it was that hinder'd him before from going: and with his fingers too he forcibly opened the eye-lids of the blind man. Besides (sayes he) neither the one, nor the other was perfectly Cured by him, whatever the means were: the Blind saw not clearly, nor did the Cripple go not even then at all so strongly and confi∣dently, but rather so as if he were to relapse again very soon, as we have seen he hath already for the matter. And this, to the best of my remembrance, was what the said Father Kevanagh told me at Castle-town, as of his own knowledge; for he said himself was present, and saw all was done, and the manner and method of doing whatever was done at Castle-town. At last when I came to Dublin, and there also enquired, I found as little satisfaction, or rather less for any matter done there by Father Finachty, though still in Town, since his late arrival, and practising daily in one place or other. I found the Protestants laughing to scorn all our Allegations of late Miracles in our Church. Nay, Dr. Loftus told me, They had been once on a resolution to bring Finachty in to the Bishops Court for a Wizard or an Impostor, and that himself had put them off till he had first spoken to me, or at least until my Lord Lieutenant's return. And from the Ro∣man-Catholick Churchmen, I understood that in those few dayes of my absence, they themselves, both Seculars and Regulars in a meeting held by them of pur∣pose, the Vicar-General Apostolick being present, had been upon a debate to for∣bid Finachty any further practice in that Town, yea, to command him away as an Impostor, or at least a Brain-sick man: and that only, at the earnest intercession of some few, not to give thereby more advantage to Protestants, they had forborn to put such thoughts in execution against him. Yea, Father James Tully a Fran∣ciscan and Connarght man, both Nuntiotist and Anti-remonstrant, living there, told me, himself was the onely man that strenuously interposed, not for any opinion he had of Finachty's Gifts or Miracles, but for the foresaid Reason chiefly, and that he alone hindred that Decree which was earnestly press'd by others, es∣pecially the Fathers of the Society. Moreover, I found that the Franciscan Convent, whereof the Guardian, and others mostly had subscribed the Remon∣strance, were the chiefest, if not the onely men amongst all the Clergy, whether

Regular or Secular of that Capital City that shewed him most countenance, as who several times had entertain••d him civilly, and suffered him to practise pub∣lickly in their house. Whether they did so out of any inward belief, or great opinion they had of his Wonder-working gifts? or whether only yielding to the Reports come from London? or above all, whether because they thought he had still, especially in other remote parts of the Kingdom, a great interest in the common people, and knew themselves, and the rest of their Fellow-subscribers to have been by some Anti-remonstrants strangely malign'd amongst the Vulgar, and that his Authority also had been made use of to hurt them, and therefore by Ci∣vilities towards him, even where the greatest Anti-remonstrants were his greatest opposites and persecutors, they would engage him now to be thenceforth of their side? or whether for all these Reasons together, or other whatsoever? I know not. But so it was, that they were at that time his only publick Friends of the whole Dublin Clergy. And so it was also, that a young Protestant Irish Gentle∣woman, by name Mrs. Agnes ......... having come to him in their House (when he was practising there) was (as her self gave out, and both they and she after told my self) Cured by him of some kind of inward pain in one of her limbs (but which I do not remember now, though I remember it was not visible to others) and was thereupon reconciled to the Roman Church, having confessed to one of the Priests of that House, and received the Sacrament of Christs body there. What this wrought on her might signifie, I leave to the judgment of others. But it was the onely miraculous Cure, whereof as done there, or at all in this Town in my absence, I had even so much certainty given me as I tell here.

Hitherto, my Lords and Fathers, you have the sum of all which in so many years I heard of this good man from others, as likewise of my own endeavours to know as well as I could from others the truth of matter of Fact concerning him. What follows, and that indeed I would be finally and principally at in this account, is from my own certain knowledge, even from that of my own eyes and ears, and conversation with him here, during five or six Weeks, immediately after ending my said last enquiries. For next day in the morning I went and found him out where I understood him to be, at Father Ailmer's (a Secular Priest's Chappel) in St. Owens Arch; where he was in the Vestry, preparing to vest himself for the Altar. I sent in my name, and being admitted, found him alone on his knees. After salutes, and sitting down together, the introduction to our discourse, was my saying, I doubted not he had by report heard some∣what of me, as I had of him very much; albeit the subjects of talking of us had been very different. He answer'd, 'Twas true. Then I told him of my great longing for many years, and that much greater of late, to see him and be satisfied by himself of the grounds of such contrary relations concerning him. And so proceeded from the first reports of him, seen by me in a Letter to Lon∣don from Ireland in the Protector's dayes, to the contradiction thereof by Father Mellaghlin; thence to the Lord Lieutenant's Commands to me; thence to my first inquisition at Dublin; thence to Mr. Belings, and Mr. Brown's relation; thence to my Lord Clancarty's; thence to that of his having learned his faculty of Exorcising from old Father Moor the Jesuit, whose servant he had been; thence to my ceasing from any further inquisition for that time; thence to the late reports of such manifold miraculous Cures at London; thence to what Fa∣ther Plunket the Carmelite had told me at Kilkenny, viz. of his failing now of late after his Landing, where he practised publickly at the Earl of Fingalls; thence to my own last inquisition through several Diocesses abroad in the Countrey as I returned; and finally thence to what I heard since my coming to Town. I ripped up, and told him clearly all whatever I had heard either of the one, or other side, for him, or against him. Yet withal assuring him, I did so without any prejudice of my own part, and only to be satisfied by himself, as being persuaded he would tell me but truth, and being resolved to believe his own rela∣tion of himself. Telling him besides, That partly for his own sake, and partly for my own, but principally for that of the publick of Catholick Religion, and

the Professors thereof, both Clergy and People of Ireland, though more espe∣cially the Clergy, I desired this favour and candor of him, being he himself could but know my employment, and that, by reason thereof, an account of him would be expected from me by the Lord Lieutenant; and that moreover I could assure him, he had been severely proceeded against even in publick Court ere then by the Protestant Officials, had they not had some little regard of me, or at least expected the Lord Lieutenants pleasure at his return. This was the sum of what I spoke to him before he gave me his answers; and spoke in truth with as much sincerity as ever I did any thing in my life. And therefore I was in∣wardly much troubled, when I found not the satisfaction in some of them which I expected. For the substance of his Answers was,

1. That he had formerly, as he thought, the general good opinion, and ap∣probation of the Clergy.

2. That of late the Jesuits were the men who chiefly both in England and here since his Landing opposed him.

3. That he never said any such thing as by my relation, the Earl of Clan∣carty reported of him to me; nay never to any, or upon any occasion denied the gracious gift of God to himself for curing whatever, even the most natu∣ral Diseases or Evils.

4. That he learned no such matter as the knowledge of Exorcizing or other whatsoever of that Father Moor the Jesuit, nor had been at any time his ser∣vant.

5. That whatever he had formerly, or lately done either in Ireland, or England, was all done by him (as Gods Instrument) only, or at least chiefly for the con∣firmation of the only true Church the Roman, and conviction of all Dissenters.

6. That as he at London desired my Lord Aubigny the Queens great Al∣moner he would be pleased to make in his behalf to the Court this offer, viz. That the Protestants should pitch upon such a number as they pleased of all sorts of sick persons, the places, and Parishes where such infirm persons lived; then bring them to the most expert Physitians to have their judgments of the truth and certainty of their being without question truly sick, and of the quality and inverateness of their several Diseases; then carry the same diseased persons to the Protestant Clergy, Ministers, and Bishops, to be cured by their Prayers, and when these had failed of doing those any good, to bring them to him pub∣lickly before as many, or such as they pleased to be present, and they should see, that by the invocation of God, and for confirmation or evidence of the Roman-Catholick Church to be the only true Church and Religion of Christ, he would cure them all; the same (saith he) which I offered at London to my Lord Aubigny, and by him to the Court, but was not accepted there from me, I do now here again offer to you, and by you to the Lord Lieutenant and Council.

When he had so confidently and positively answered, I was much troubled at the three last Articles. For I believed my Lord Clancarty told me truth. And I had much cause to believe those who related his having been servant in his youth to Father Moor, and from him learned the manner of Exorcizing. Nor did I want the fresh memory of many other Arguments to perswade me, that what ever he had done of good to any (though few) was by Exorcism only, and on∣ly where somewhat of Possession, obsession, or Witchcraft intervened. Besides that I could hardly doubt he did but little to any of so many as came to him sick of natural diseases only. I begun therefore now inwardly in my own mind to scruple both his veracity and humility, vertues I think to be expected in a worker of wonders by the pure invocation of Christ. And both I scrupled the more, that I observed him to blush when I objected his learning from, and be∣ing a servant to Father Moor, and his gifts to be confined to the only effects of bare Exorcism. Then besides, I considered how I had never read of any Saint in former days that put himself so freely and purposely in all places and occa∣sions upon working of Miracles by Exorcism, or otherwise; much less of any

that undertook so boldly, at least where so little need was. But again, remem∣bring that in Matt. 7.22, & 23.* 116.2 and withal considering the confidence of his offer I check'd my self. However, I desired him to consider well once more what he offer'd so, and the consequence of his failure; adding thus, Father Finachty I am (upon consideration of all I have from first to last heard of you) inclined to think, that in some occasions and to some few persons you have done some good; that is, that either your gift or their own Faith, or at least their own strong imagination, with some other natural helps, hath been in some measure available to them when they came to you, and you Exorcized, or Crossed, or Prayed over them, or upon that occasion of your doing so; but I am withal inclined to think, you have failed the expectations of a thousand, for one you have not; Nay, and moreover, that the gift, whatever it be, is for Exorcizing only, and not at all for curing natural Diseases. I am sure (Says he replying) I have not failed one for a thousand I have cured, and cured even of all sorts of pure Natural Diseases: and what I offer I know, and fear no tryal. This reply made me fear the flattery or folly of some half sighted, or half witted (if not worse) men had somewhat turn'd his brain: for I dared not yet for all this entertain any determinat judgment, or even scarce the least passing imagi∣nation, of his being a willful Impostor; Mr. Browns Relation, besides the late re∣ports, and Letters from London, and several other things told me (for his ad∣vantage, remaining still fix'd in my mind, and making me rather shut my own eyes, then see, or freely entertain any such thought of him. Which was the reason I would not any further at that time question what he had so positively averr'd himself. But, leaving that Subject, prayed him nevertheless (if not ra∣ther indeed the more) to tell me, when, or how long since he first had found by real experience, that God had bestowed these gracious gifts upon him? was it then first in the Protector's time when the reports came to us to London? or was it before? and what year? After a little demurr he answered, That long before that time; when I further pressed to know, was it in the time of the Confe∣derat's? and if (said I) so long ago, it is strange I that lived constantly where the chief seat of the Confederate Assemblies and Councils, and their Supream Pow∣er was even at Kilkenny, whether all the Kingdom did resort, did never hear one word of any such wonder-working man. Notwithstanding, (says he) it hath been so long since. Pray (said I) hath it been as early as your being consecra∣ted Priest? Before I received any Orders at all, greater or lesser, Sacred or not, answered he. I am sorry for that (said I) and will give you my reason why, For till now I was in good hopes, your extraordinary gift in Exorcizing so effectu∣ally, as you say you do, might be in some measure attributed to, or might be some Argument of the Authority and Power given to all Priests (though gi∣ven to them before they receive the Order of Priesthood, or any of those called the Greater Orders) even as soon as amongst the four former and lesser Orders they are ordained Exorcists. But now I perceive you were a meer Lay-man, and not so much as any sort of Clergy-man, or Ecclesiastical person at all when first so gifted by God. I was no other, says he. You will not be offended said I, at one question more, and then I••le have done for this time. What was I pray the very first particular, whereby you assured your self experimental∣ly then during your being a Lay-man, That God had bestowed that extraor∣dinary gift upon you? Here again he demurred a little, and then answered, I had a brother of my own, says he, whose breeches the Devil stole away at night. Whereupon I took a Book of Exorcisms, and thence read a Prayer over him, which was so effectual, that the Devil restored his breeches. And this was the first time, occasion, and particular you demand. When I had heard this, I could hardly hold my self from smiling; from thinking many things I could not. How∣ever I gave him thanks for his candid answers to all my Interrogatories; pro∣mising him my own endeavours to get him for that great and publick tryal which he desired, Licence from my Lord Lieutenant, so soon as His Grace were come back from Kilkenny; but withal praying him not only in the mean while

to contain himself modestly without giving further scandal to Protestants by any publick meetings of sick persons coming to him to be cured, but also to con∣sider, and seriously and frequently of the danger of scorn and laughter he would expose himself and others of his Religion to before Protestants, if upon such a License granted, and such a publick tryal made, he chanced to fail. After which advices given I parted, leaving him to his own thoughts, and devoti∣ons.

What passed betwixt us at this first Conference, I communicated to many other Ecclesiasticks then at Dublin, who came to me partly to know what satisfaction I had from him, and partly to dissuade me from yielding to his desire of such Li∣cence. But I considered, That if I did not, many others, and perhaps not a few of those very dissuaders, being several of them were interested, fierce and fiery Anti-remonstrants, would questionless take new occasion thence to inveigh against me as a person unwilling to see the Roman-Catholick Faith confirm'd amongst Protestants by Arguments of Miracle and Wonder, that could not be any way evaded. Besides, I was not wholly dispossessed yet of all good opinion of Finachty, nor without some imaginations of his being peradventure both in∣spired by God to demand such Licence, and by the Holy Ghost secured of a pow∣er to perform in such a great occasion, though he had fail••d in others of less con∣cern. Then I considered also, That if he was either an Impostor, or mad man, this was the very best and surest way (if not the onely) to disabuse the World. For these Reasons I resolved to work his Licence, if he persisted in his desire of it. Wherefore to know whether he did so persist, though also partly to be civil to him, as partly for my own further satisfaction, I visited him twice or thrice at his Lodgings, during my Lord Lieutenant's absence; the rather, that I under∣stood he kept his Chamber, as being troubled for some dayes with sweating, though without pain, or other distemper. For each time, I observed that after some hours of sweat, he did rise, dine, Exorcize, and otherwise practice and pray over the sick who came to him from several parts, and whereof I saw some brought to Town on Carrs from remote places; nay, that he went also abroad to walk, and visit, and dine too, when and where invited; yea, that he seemed wholly as strong and active, and vigorous, as before. Which I note here of pur∣pose, for some reason to be seen hereafter. But what pleased me most in visi∣ting him, was, That one day not finding him at home in his own Lodgings, or in those where I had seen him last, and being directed where he was at Dinner, and coming thither, and finding the door shut, and a great many people of the ordi∣nary sort, Men, Women, Boyes, Girls, before and on each side of the door abroad in the open street, some standing, some sate down upon the stones being weary, and all staying his leisure to be admitted in to him, in order to be Cured by him, as they expected, I took this opportunity of seeing his practice, which I had not seen before, nor indeed after desired to see. He was just after Dinner, with some Citizens, Men and Women, yet not risen from the Table when I came in. I told him before them all, how I had seen such a number in the open street, expecting his leisure, and thought they should be rather admitted in, and dispatch'd as soon as could be one after another, than be an occasion of needless talk of him by the Protestants that passed by. Whereupon, they being about Twenty or Thirty, or thereabouts, were presently admitted, and led into another Room, and he as confidently, as if he had the very true Wonder-working vertue of Peter the Apostle, or of Christ himself, begins immediately to Exoreize and Cross, and Pray over each of them one after another, I standing by his side, and observing all his words and actions very attentively. Some complained of their Head, others of their Back, others of their Shoulders, several of Aches in other parts, one of weakness of sight, some of deafness in their ears, &c. but none of all these or those, had any visible Disease, nor complained of Spirits, save onely one Boy, whose eye-lids had been almost quite closed together, and one Girle that pretend∣ed she was troubled with Fairies. His Prayer and Exorcism was very short, and said without Book. His Crosses he began first in the limb that ailed; thence

having driven the pain (as he said, or they answer'd) to other parts, he fol∣lowed it thither with Crossing, and Praying, and Con••uring, till after some two at∣tempts, commonly two or three at most, the Patient, when put the question by him, answer'd at last, he or she was Cured. Which being answer'd, he bid such party go on the other side of the Room, and give God thanks on bended knees. In the mean time he fell to another, and so to all one after another, as many as he could dispatch. The difference I perceived in his manner of Curing, or pretend∣ing to Cure, was, That besides Exorcizing, Praying, and Crossing, he used to blow very long and very strong into the Ears of such who complained of Deafness, or pain in that organ, laying his mouth on the affected Ear, and blowing so vehe∣mently hard thereinto, that it must have been both painful to himself, and natu∣rally (i. e. without any Miracle at all) in some measure effectual to work in that affected organ some alteration. But whether so or no, I was not much con∣cern'd, because I could not perceive any thing or sign of the Deafness, or other evil of their Ears who complain••d of them, as neither of the Cure done to them or others, whose neither Disease nor Cure was visible to, or perceivable by any third person. This made me long to see the blind Boy taken in hand. When his turn came, I judg'd him to be aged about 12, 13, or 14 years at most, and there was none present but must have judg'd and be certain he was stark blind; which was the reason I was very intent upon him while under the Exorcizers hand. But to no other purpose at last, than to see the poor Boy Cross'd several times on both his Eyes, and a short Prayer made over him, and a white Hand∣kerchief pulled out, and hung betwixt his Eyes, and the light of a Window (against which he had been directly placed with his face to that light) and then demanded by the said Exorcist Father Finachty, whether he could see any thing? And the Boy answering, He could not: and therefore again the second time prayed and practised over, and then also the second time (upon hanging of the same Handkerchief as before) ask'd by the same Exorcist, Whether he could see now any thing? And the Boy returning again the foresaid Answer, and every one at present observing by their own seeing or looking on the Boyes eye-lids, there was nothing at all done, no kind of change, and Father Finachty thereupon (i. e. so soon as the Boy had the second time answer'd, He could see nothing at all) very carelesly, without any further ceremony or notice taken thereof, giving over and turning from this blind Boy, to some other of those by, that expected their turn, but had no visible disease or evil, and practising upon them.

When I had so particularly observed this of that blind Boy, what my Lord Clanc••rty had long before told me, presently came to my mind, viz. That in his own presence at Thurls, Finachty disown'd the power of Curing meer natural dis∣eases. It remained therefore now, that I should see him practice on the young Girle, that was said to be troubled with Spirits, or Fairies. For it growing late, there was an ordinary Countrey woman standing by that came to me, and pray'd me to speak to him for her Daughter, a young well-complexion'd Girle of about Thirteen or fourteen years old, that they might be dispatch'd in time, as having two Miles to go out of Town that Evening to Crumling (a Village near Dublin) where she said she dwelled. I ask'd the woman what her daughter ail'd? she answer'd, That lately her Girle having gone abroad into the Fields, she returned home much troubled with some apparition of Spirits she had there seen, and continued ever since troubled with them, especially at Night. This occasion I embraced the more willingly, that I doubted not his extraordinary gift (if any he had) consisted only in Exorcizing Spirits, or Curing such distempers as commonly proceeded (or at least were supposed to proceed) from such evils, Spirits or Fairies; though at the same time I considered well enough not only that there nothing was visible to, nor perceptible by any other (of us there present) of any such evil afflicting that young Maid, but also that meer imagi∣nation, and heat of blood, or some other accident distempering her brain, might have made her apprehend the trouble of Spirits, where all the evil was from

other causes, and such as were natural in her own body or constitution. How∣ever, because I thought withall she was such a sort of Demoniack as all the very worst of those (in that Countrey then) commonly reputed Demoniacks by him and his Admirers, I was desirous to see on this occasion the method of his pra∣ctice on such. And therefore pray'd him to turn to that Maid, and examine both her self and Mother, and then proceed with her as he thought fit, because it was growing late, and they had a longer way to go than others that Night. He yields readily, and seems glad of the opportunity, when I told him she was said to be troubled with Spirits. And, after some few questions put by him to the Mother in publick before us all, he says he must speak in private to the Girl, and thereupon takes her away with him to another more private Room, where none was but he and she together, and there remains so for a pretty while, I suppose examining her self more strictly; though it seemed somewhat strange to me, that he did not at least desire me to goe along with him, and be present all the while at least in the same room) at any even whatsoever such private ex∣amination, the rather, that I was the only Church-man with him that whole af∣ternoon. At last he calls for me, and with me as many of the rest go as plea∣sed, or could well stand in the small room where he was. We found the young Girl placed by him in a Chair just against the Window, that is, her face turn'd thither, and the Casement opened. Then he stands over her, falls to his for∣mal Adjurations, and after he had Sign'd her several times with the Cross on the head and fore-head, within, a while asks her, where she felt her evil? and upon her answer, that in her neck, or shoulder, arme, or side, &c. pursues it still from limb to limb with Crossing that part of her body, and continuing still his Exorcism. Then he demands again and again, was she well yet, or did she feel it elsewhere? Some time she answered, she was well and felt nothing any more; but then he box'd her, and told her she lyed; and then also, but af∣ter some further Adjuration by him, she crys here, or there, viz. in some other part of her body; where he pursues it in the same method till he comes down to her feet, and then rubs hard, or rather strikes, or stroaks hard her foot with his own over it in a sloping manner, so that her toe was the last he touched with his sole, as pretending to drive out the Devil from that last habitation, or retreat of his into her toe. Then bids her look stedfastly through the Case∣ment or opening of the Window, and tell what she had seen there, and how ma∣ny go out that way. And, if she demurr'd upon her answer, threatens her, and so leads her to confess she had seen some go out. Then again he asked her what more did she see? or did she not see a great Mountain far of, and a great fire upon it, and a great number of black fellows fighting, and killing, and chop∣ping one another in pieces, and throwing also one another into the fire? when she had answered yes, then he renews more vehemently his Conjurations. Wherein (as I took particular notice) he used even from the beginning of his Ex∣orcisme, to insert a special command to a hundred thousand Devils, enjoyning them to come from Hell and carry away that evil Spirit, companion of theirs, or those many such that possessed or molested this Creature of God, and to leave her thenceforth free from their vexation, &c. But it seem'd nevertheless even by his own confession in that very place and time, before and to us all pre∣sent, that some of those evil Spirits (at least of those pretended by him to have possessed her) continued still extream refractory and stubborn. For after he had tyred himself, and well nigh wearied the beholders (at least me, I am sure) it growing very late, and he having once more asked the Girl, whether she did not find her self well? and she answering yea, he told her she lyed; and then converting himself to the beholders, but particularly to the Mother, declar'd, she was strongly yet Possessed, she must come or be brought to him again at better leasure, and that he must take much more pains with her than he could for that present.

Whereupon all parted. How well satisfied others were, I know not; but sure I am, I was my self much troubled at all I had seen and heard; not being void

even of some suspitious thoughts coming on me (whether I would or no) that the reason of his retiring first in private with the Girl, was only to Cathechize her how to behave her self, and answer to the questions he should put her in publick as soon as he call••d us in. However, I clearly saw he gave no proofs that day of any Miraculous gift for curing either the one or other sort of dis∣eases; I mean, either those proceeding immediately from some extraordinary Diabolical operation, or those which have other immediate ordinary causes vi∣sible or natural.

And yet I dared not judge that he had no such gift, although he failed that time; but rather, would even then perswade my self he might have it in some occasions, and in order to some persons, according to the good pleasure and mercy of God; being continued even then in so favourable an opinion of him by the returning Memory of what was lately written of him from London, and what some others told me, but especially of what Geoffry Brown related. And yet withal I could not but judge out of what I had my self that day seen, his great proffer could be no less than subject to a very great contingency.

Notwithstanding which judgment of mine and of many others too, declared again and again by my self to him, I saw his confidence always such in demanding Li∣cence for the more publick tryal before mentioned, that I would even shut my own eyes a little longer, and see only with his. Which was the reason that upon his coming to lye at one Mr. Raughter's (his own Countrey-man) in Kennedy Lane within two or three doors to my Lodging, I not only visited him again early in a morning, but (finding him there on his knees all alone at his private De∣votions) desired him to sign with the sign of the Cross even my self, from the crown of my Head to the very soales of my Feet in every part of my body, and pray over me; telling him I had a little spice of the Scurvy for many years, encreasing still more and more by my sedentary Life, and though not with pain, yet often with weakness, and numbness of my Arms and Legs, besides other evident signs thereof, especially spots of all colours of the Rainbow to day ap∣pearing, and next day again disappearing. And certainly during all the time he signed my limbs, and prayed over me, he standing, and I kneeling, no man I think could ever have less prejudice or more resignation than I had, even in order I mean to his gift, or effect thereof on my self: being as before and after, so at that very time resolved not to frame any judgment of him out of his want of success on me, nay nor on any other one, or more persons whatsoever practised on in private, but to suspend my judgment till I had seen the success of the publick tryal himself desired. So far was I all along unto the very last from either disaffection to, or prejudice against Father Finachty. Though as neither in, or from this practice, or effect thereof on my self: so neither in, or from that I had seen of his on others I could see any argument for him.

Therefore to come at last to his own great and publick Tryal (because he him∣self would needs have it so, even against all my advises and reasons given him at several times) as soon as my Lord Lieutenant was returned from Kilkenny (which happened to be some days, if not weeks before Father Finachtys pray∣ing over my self) I acquainted his Grace with that great and confident pro∣posal made; having withal given him at large the best and truest account I could of all was said for, and against the said Father, and what besides I had ei∣ther learned from himself, or seen my self otherwise by him; adding also my reasons, why it were fit to yield to his Petition. For (said I) if he have any such true Miraculous gift from God, it must be a sin against the Holy Ghost to oppose it wilfully, or willingly; such being that of resisting, or impugning the grace of God appearing to the World in any man of what Religion soever. And if he have no such gift indeed, but only pretends it wittingly as an Impostor, or imagines it unwittingly as a frantick man, then without any peradventure such a publick Tryal as he desires, will be the readiest and most certain way of any to discover at last unanswerably the Imposture, or frenzy, or both; and that so fully and notoriously too, that simple well-meaning people may be no longer abused.

Upon my first application His Grace did seem very unwilling to grant a re∣quest which, if condescended to, and accordingly complyed with by Finachty, must end not only in laughter and scorn of him amongst all beholders; but, amongst all Protestants, in reproach also of the credulous folly of Roman-Catholicks in general. Yet my importunity, joyn'd with that reason presently given, pre∣vailed so at last, that His Grace resolved to let him have his will. And there∣fore bid me go to him the said Finachty once more, and as from himself (i. e. from His Grace the Lord Lieutenant) to put this question exactly, viz. Whether he excepted against any kind of natural sickness? for albeit, I told my Lord, he did not, but undertook to cure all universally, as before; yet His Grace would have me go from himself, and tell Finachty, I was commanded to him so of pur∣pose by His Grace upon this express Errand. I did therefore obey, and Finach∣ty did again and again assure me, that he excepted against no sort of sick persons whatever, even the most natural, inveterat, and habitual Diseases they had; and bid me answer so from him to the Lord Lieutenant, as also that to evidence be∣fore the World, That the Roman-Catholick Religion was the only true way of Salvation, he would undertake to cure miraculously, before all the beholders, such a select number of whatever sick persons who had been so tryed as before by their own Physitians, and so prayed over by their Priests and Bishops of the Protestant Church, but not cured, nor curable by them. When I had delivered this positive answer, My Lord presently concluded, that without further delay he should have matter enough furnished to him for making his offer good; they would find out the sick; let him look to the rest. And yet (says my Lord) because I am sure he will fail in performance of any Wonders, I will take care there shall be but a few Protestants there, and such only as shall be discreet men, and I would advise, that you suffer but a few also of the discreeter Catholicks to be present. Yet if Finachty will have a Multitude of these, who can help it? though otherwise I desire not by any means of my own part to expose the weak∣ness of Roman-Catholicks in giving credit to so much Knavery, or at least to so much frenzy, nor even to confound him, but before the smallest number of both sides may conveniently be. However, bid him be ready, and let him know we shall be ready for him within two or three days. Thus my Lord Lieutenant. Much about that same time Father Finachty sent and came also himself to let me know, he had now stayed six whole weeks in town expecting that Licence, and occasion; adding, that he could stay no longer for it (but would depart to Con∣naught) if not suddenly granted. He withal soon after, and early in the morn∣ing sends me word, that he would say Mass privately in my lodging, and accor∣dingly comes, and says in a private Oratory I had there, my self serving him at Mass. When he had done, and was come down and sate at a fire (for 'twas Winter and cold weather) ready to drink his mornings draught with a toast, which was a preparing for him there, he complaining of weakness, and drowth, by reason of the continual sweat every night, whereunto he had been for some days before, and then subject, in comes to that same room, unexpectedly, Sir Willi∣am Petit Knight, a learned acute Physitian, and great Traveller, and with him an other ingenious young Gentleman Mr. Robert Southwel,* 116.3 likewise for some years a Traveller in other parts of Europe, both of them Protestants, and both of my acquaintance. I, having known nothing of their coming or cause thereof, did think they only came to see my self, as at least Mr. Southwel used sometimes to do. But it appeared after, that Sr. William Petit was commanded by the Lord Lieutenant to go together with one Doctor Yarner an other Protestant Phy∣sitian and find me out, and tell me how the sick persons were now in town, and all other matters ready of their side, and bid me therefore give notice thereof to Father Finachty that he might fix his day, his place, and company he would have present of his side. Now because Sr. William could not meet then with Doctor Yarner, he brought along with him Mr. Southwel, who both could shew him the way to my Lodgings, and was willing enough to come upon such an oc∣casion, which suspended the thoughts of many. This was the cause of their com∣ing,

as my Lord Lieutenant himself told me after at night; for they did not, as being surprized with a suddain curiosity, when they saw one with me, and that to their question, asking me aside, who it was? I answered, he was a person they would perhaps desire to be acquainted with, even the famed Wonder∣working Priest Father James Finachty. For I had no sooner told them so, then without any further reply or Ceremony, they both go to the fire where he sate, and sitting down by him (who seemed at first to take no great notice of them) Sir William Petty being next him begins to speaks to him in this manner, or at least (I am sure) to this purpose: Father I have of a long time heard much of you, and lately much more than formerly. For my own part, I am on this oc∣casion, and for what concerns Religion, as a piece of white Paper. You may write in my Soul what you please as to the way of worshipping God, if you attest that way by plain Miracle. And therefore if you do by your Prayer remove this Wart which you see on my finger (and thereupon shewed that finger of his hand, and the Wart thereon) I will presently declare my self of your Religion. So soon as I had heard Sir William out, I thought it high time for me to interpose, as know∣ing his acuteness in Philosophy, and Father Finachty's dulness even in mat∣ters of Divinity. And therefore I desired Sir William to consider better of what he proposed; and how unsutable it was to the ordinary custom we read of Saints invoking God, and applying themselves immediately to him for a favour above nature to such as desired their intercession. This was or only, or (doubt∣less) customarily to ease them, and cure them of some disease, or evil which was an affliction to them, and could otherwise have no help for it in their own power. That this Wart could not be said to be such, because either he could easily remove it by many sorts of natural applications known well to himself, or, if he could not, that yet it brought neither pain nor deformity, nor other inconveniency with it. And therefore such demand of his side, and such at∣tempt of Father Finachty, could be no less in either than a manifest temptation of God, even that kind of sin which Divines with much reason teach to be very mortal in it self, and abominable to God. Besides, let me tell you Sir William (said I, adding to what I now immediately related) that unless you bring along with you a great Faith in God, and very pious disposition of your Soul, you can expect no Wonders to be done for your sake, not even there where other∣wise the subject matter could not be denyed to be fit enough. Read St. Mark the Evangelist* 116.4, c. 6. and you shall find, that not even our Saviour Christ him∣self could work Wonders in his own Country where the people were incredu∣lous, and that he therefore admired their incredulity to be such as hindred him. This I added purposely, because I would forestall his further tempting of that weak man Father Finachty, and obviate his consecutions to be drawn from any failure he should peradventure see. And it indeed together, with what I said before, made Sir William so considerative, that he not only quitted insisting on the removal of his Wart, but desired to read that Chapter and passage in Mark which I alledged, and accordingly did presently read it even in the Pro∣testant English Bible which I called for of purpose to satisfie him. Which be∣ing over, he recollects himself again; and attacks anew Father Finachty, telling him, That he had in truth an infirmity was very troublesome to him. I am purblind, Father (says he) I can read at such or such a distance very near my eyes; but cannot a word at any other wherein others do. If you will cure me of this troublesome infirmity, I shall humbly and religiously acknowledge, as I ought, Gods both merciful and wonderful hand therein. I had by chance walked over towards the Window on the other side of the room, when, and as soon as Sir William had ended these few words of his later proposal. But sooner then I was half way returned back, I saw Father Finachey first standing up, then saying to Sir William, Let us try; and then also immediately advancing a few steps and kneeling, his back being turned to them, and his face to the wall; and consequently by private prayer to God, preparing himself to his other exercise, viz. both of Praying audibly over, and visibly Crossing Sir William's

eyes, and invoking God to cure him there in all our presence. I was truly much perplexed at the suddenness of the Father's Resolution; but had no time to consider when the foresaid two Gentlemen Sir William, and Mr. Southwel came where I stood, asking me very concernedly, what they should do? What (said I) other than to lay your selves likewise to your knees reverently behind him, and Pray heartily, but first preparing your selves inwardly with a lively faith and hope and love of God, and consequently with a true and full repentance of all your sins, and effectual resolutions of a new life, and then beg of God, that for the Passion of His only beloved Son our Saviour Christ, your incredulity or other sins, may not obstruct his mercy or his grace to be shewn (said I to you Sir William) by the Ministry of that good man, who now prepares to practise on, and invoke God over you. Whereupon the two Gentlemen laid themselves immediately to their knees, and I also with them on mine, praying devoutly. As soon as Father Finachty rose, I gave him a Priestly stole to put about his neck, and the Aspersorium to sprinkle them first with Holy Water; both which he used, as the manner is. Then having placed Sir William stand∣ing betwixt him and the light of the Window, he himself also standing, falls a Crossing both the Purblind eyes, and saying loud in all our hearing a short Latin Prayer, and a Prayer too proper only for the eyes. And then having done his whole exercise over (I know not whether once onely, or oftner) he bid Sir William take the Bible, and try whether he could read it in the same distance other men did commonly. Sir William takes the Book very readily, and was so desirous and hopeful to of amendment (as himself said presently) that at the first opening of the Book he thought his sight mightily mended; but then immediately finding his own Errour, and that he could not read but as before, he tells Father Finachty, how it was. Whereupon all the former me∣thod of Crossing and Praying was repeated the second time by the Father; and then the second time also was Sir William desired by him, to try again whether he could read the Book otherwise than before. But upon Sir Williams trying so the second time, and then answering, he could not, Father Finachty, without further attempt or ceremony, or word spoken by him, turns aside, pulls off his Stole, puts on his Hat, goes over to, and takes his former seat at the fire with his back turn'd to us, even as unconcernedly as might be. Sir William, per∣ceiving there was no more to be expected, puts on also his Hat, comes to me at the Window, and asks Whether I had ever read any thing in Necromancy? I an∣swered, I had not. Truly (says he) no more have I in all my life until within these two days, when by meer chance going to a certain house in town, I lighted on a Book which I am now to shew you, and withal therein to a word, the very Prayer that Father Finachty hath now prayed over my eyes. For in my reading so lately this Book through, I remember that very form of Prayer amongst others to be therein. Which having said, he draws out of his pocket a thick Octavo Latin Book, in a fair writing Italian or Roman hand, the Title thereof pretending it to have been written by Frater Petrus Lombardus Minor in Civitate Magna Alexandria, and the Subject altogether Necromancy; as by turning it over and looking on the Schemes and Prayers, and other matters, I could not my self but presently see: as neither can I deny, that the very same Prayer of Father Finachty was immediately turn'd to by Sir William, and shew'd to me before I look'd further into that Book: only, to my best remembrance there was some little alteration of some few words; but an alteration I confess that was nothing material. What I answered Sir William was, That Necromancers do sometimes in their Mysteries, to blind the World, make use of even the very best of Prayers, even the Lords Prayer it self, nay, and of the very Sacrament of the Altar too; but withal by their wicked intentions, and more wicked compacts, by the Power also they invoke, besides their own Diabolical additions, and other materials, abuse that, whereof the Ministers of God may, and do make right and holy use: and that that Prayer which Father Finachty used was in it self a good Prayer, not∣withstanding its being found in the Necromantical Book. Against this Answer,

Sir William had nothing to reply; but declining it, spake to this purpose,

To be short (says he) Father Walsh, Let this Gentleman (meaning Finachty) get himself into the greatest Field he please, environed with as many hundreds or thousands of people, and even sick people of all sorts as he can (for I understand he desires such Fields and such Multitudes to practise amongst them) and let me be there with him. I••le lay down a Hundred pounds in Gold, that I will Cure by my own touching of, and speaking, or praying to, or over those diseased Persons, he shall be pleased to allow me of that number, as many as he shall of those left to him; and if I do not, or whoever else please to lay the Wager, he shall presently take my Hundred pounds, and I will be at the loss of both my Gold and credit. And then he further added: Father Walsh, The Mystery of this Gentleman's desiring such open Fields, and great Multitudes of sickly folks, and other people about him, when he would practise his Art, is nothing else but this. Tis a hundred to one, but of a great number of sick, especially when their Diseases are divers, one or other may not find a change, an amendment, and even a total recovery on that very day, or sud∣denly afterward, as being then arrived to the very Critical time, when by course of Nature, i. e. of their own bodily constitution, and of the Disease affecting it, the predominant and peccant humour must, being either totally spent, or mightily weaken∣ed, a change must be, without either Miracle, or even so much as the natural help of Physick. Nay, 'tis twenty to one, that of twenty persons lying, or being sick of many several Diseases, whether visited or not visited by either Miraculous Priests, or Natural Physitians, one or other should not find in himself, any day you pleased to fix on some alteration from worse to better, especially if going all into the open Fields in fair weather, such as that is when and where such Multitudes meet; and yet more especially, if meeting there with some desirable object heightning mightily to a very great degree their imagination. I am sure we in our profession scarce, or rather perhaps never visit twenty such diseased persons, but one of them finds an alteration and amendment soon after; and yet we know not certainly whe∣ther any thing we give them works it; nor whether some of them had not recovered as well, though we had given them nothing at all. Now these matters not being known to, or at least not reflected on by vulgar understandings, and the vulgar sort of people having never so much as once imagined them, it happens by course, that when a man is cryed up for a Holy Miraculous man, if one of a Thousand, nay if one of ten thousand poor diseased persons chance but to recover, or amend after (or at least immediately after) his praying over him, or her, though all the rest be never the better, yet that one persons recovery must be ascribed to the holy mans Miraculous gift: and it must be withal want of Faith, or other sanctifying dispo∣sitions in all others that were not cured, and no want of power in the holy man, was it that hindred their cure. All which Father Finachty having by experience found to be true, and the advantage to himself, of so great a vulgar Errour to be considerable; we must not wonder at his desire of rendezvousing still in large Fields, and the vastest numbers he can of poor sickly people to environ him; though we cannot but extreamly wonder at the confidence of his late offer to the Lord Lieutenant, as we hear. Thus he the said Sir William Petit. And so lea∣ving me the foresaid book of Necromancy for a day or two, to peruse it through at my leasure; he and Mr. Southwel parted without so much as once saluting, or bidding Good-morrow to, or taking at all any further notice of Father Fi∣nachty, though sitting still at the fire in the same room, but in truth regarding them as little, or at least seeming not to regard them, nor be at all concern'd in them, or their talk; for he could not but hear every word.

This upon Sir William Petit was the last experiment I saw of that good Father's gift. For, as you shall now presently hear, when matters came to an issue, he would not stand to the grand Tryal, however by himself proposed, and mightily importun'd all along untill this very day. And yet I declare in my Conscience, That I would not of my own part, not even that day, nor even I mean after his afore∣said ineffectual attempt on Sir William, entertain any fixed prejudice against him; though I could not wholly banish or free my self of some unsetled imaginations.

But having fairly expected the last issue, which I met with partly that very night, and partly, yea (for what remained) throughly and wholly next morning, I had (I must confess) no further power to suspend my own inward, even fixed and positive judgment. Wherein nevertheless whether I had reason of my side, may be judg'd by others, considering what follows now to end this prolix account.

After these Gentlemen had departed, I sent for the Guardian of the Franciscan Convent, James Fitz-Symons, to keep company at Dinner with Father Finachty in my own Chamber, where I Treated him the most civilly I could till Evening. Then I desired him to go with Father Fitz-Symons to Supper at the Franciscan Convent, where he was both expected, and much respected too. Thither (said I) will I come to you about Supper-time, and bring you my Lord Lieutenant's final resolution: for His Grace promised me I should have it this very night, without any further delay. And in truth my Lord Lieutenant was as good as His promise. For, having at my relation of that mornings work smiled first, then pleasantly said, That sure Finachty was a mad man to go and practise on a Purblind man; at last coming to be serious, He told me, those two Gentlemen, both Physitians, (viz. Sir William Petit Knight, and Dr. Abraham Yarner, in whose place Mr. Southwel went) had been sent of purpose by Him to give me notice of all things being ready for Father Finachty's publick Tryal of his miraculous gift, even as himself desired, to the end I might give him notice thereof, and that he, viz. Finachty, should fix on the Chappel or place, and give them notice of such place the next day, or as soon as he pleased, that they might bring their sick men with them, and see the issue. But when I answer'd, That Finachty complained of his having been stayed too long, even whole six Weeks, and that now Winter being come, and he too not perfectly well, he was therefore desirous to be gone home to Connaught; Nay then (sayes my Lord) he is certainly an Impostor, if having put Ʋs to all this trouble, he will now be gone without doing any thing, or abi∣ding that publick Test himself so earnestly desired. I had nothing to reply, but that His Grace should know further next morning. And therefore having taken leave, I went directly to the Convent. Where finding Father Finachty at Supper with the Community, who respected him very much, I thought not fit to tell or mind him then of such matters, which I feared might lessen his satisfaction in the Company, or their Treat given him. Yet I judg'd it not inconvenient to speak to him familiarly (and by way only of divertisement) something of the no less opposed than famed Remonstrance, being the Company that entertain'd him then were all Remonstrants, i. e. Subscribers of that controverted Formulary; and be∣ing also that as I had been formerly told by some, there was great use made amongst the common People of his vogue to cry down that Formulary and Ec∣clesiastical Subscribers thereof (amongst whom the Franciscans lay under the greatest share of malicious detractions) so I suspected this perhaps might prove to be the last opportunity I should have of speaking to him before Company of any such or other matter whatsoever. For these Reasons, I put him briefly the question, Whether in all his either peregrinations or retirements, he had heard of the Remonstrance? And if so, What himself thought thereof? His answer was, That he had often heard of it, but had never seen it, and therefore now desired a sight thereof. After Supper, when he and all the Fathers had withdrawn to another Room, it was brought him, and he read it leisurely, and distinctly every Clause thereof, in presence of all the Fathers, approving each in particular, and when he had done all to the end, affirming, that he wonder'd any man of under∣standing should condemn or oppose, or deny the subscribing it. Whereupon I only then and there told him, I was very glad of his approbation thereof, and satisfaction he found in it, hoping he would thenceforth endeavour to disabuse others in a matter of that consequence. But presently after taking leave there, when I had him home to my own Lodgings (for he had all day before design'd to lodge with me that night, and accordingly did go and lodge with me) and after some other little divertisement, when we were together alone in my own Cham∣ber,

he taking occasion to speak to me again of the Remonstrance, and (••••••ther to please me or no, I do not know) both applauding it, and the design of it, I added nevertheless, That by my consent he should not sign it, until at least his publick Tryal were over; for (said I) if you should fail therein of doing those wonderful Cures you have offered to do before all the World here in confirmation of the Roman Church to be the onely true Church of Christ, either you your self perad∣venture, or certainly some others for you would be apt to impute such your failure wholly and absolutely to such your signature, had this preceded or been. And there∣fore at present laying aside all thoughts of that matter of the Remonstrance, con∣sider much rather what more nearly concerns your self now; I mean your ap∣pearing in publick to morrow, if you please, and in that manner you your self have desired, and to work those wonders you have offered. For this Evening have I received, at last, my Lord Lieutenant's signification of His own plenary consent, and final resolution, and of all other the materials being ready for you to work upon whensoever and wheresoever you will at any hour and place in this Town, and without any kind of further delay, being it may be too morrow if you think fit; His Grace having further this same Evening told me, those two Gentlemen you saw here in the morning (and would practise upon one of them, and have failed in doing him any good) were sent by Him of purpose to let me know so much, that I might give you notice thereof; as likewise that he you have so practised on, being a Doctor of Physick, is he, that together with another Protestant Doctor also of Physick is to bring the sick men to the place you shall choose, and be present to bear testimony of your miraculous Curing those sick persons, if God concur with your endeavours to Cure them.

I had no sooner mentioned this matter of Licence, and all preparations ready so for his publick Tryal of skill, but the poor Gentleman discovered even in his countenance his inward anguish and extreme trouble. Whereby, and however clearly by what he then said, and after did, it appeared sufficiently, he never ex∣pected that Licence, or to be suffered by the State to come to such publick Tryal. For presently he answer'd, That for this time he could not stay, but must go next day for Connaught. That there were in Town some Horses returning that way, which, as belonging to Friends of his, were offered to him whereby to save char∣ges. That besides, he was not, nor had now for some dayes been very current in health, or strength of body, because of a great sweat coming on him commonly at night, which weakned him much; and that, being he must labour mightily in Exorcizing and Praying to Cure those sick persons effectually, in case he should appear in Publick for such end, and that good health, and great strength of body was requisite for such labour, he thought it necessary to look first to the recruiting of his health and strength. That when, after being some time in the air of his own Countrey in Connaught, he had by experience found himself throughly recovered, he would be ready whensoever I called him to appear at Dublin, and (for my Lord Lieutenant's satisfaction, yea, and that also of all both Protestants and Catholicks) to perform then what he had indeed lately and freely offered, but what nevertheless now he thought necessary to decline for a little time.

As soon as I had heard him out, I know not whether he himself was more troubled than I. Which made me reply to this purpose. Father Finachty, you cannot but remember how seriously and often these six whole Weeks past, even from the very first moment you motion'd to me your desires of such a publick Tryal, I have dehorted you. Nor can forget my reasons given, and freedom used to dissuade you from so rash not only attempt, but proposal. Nor likewise how on the other side you, notwithstanding all, have continually to this very day, partly by your self, and partly by messages by some other friends, urged and pressed, and importuned me to get you this Licence; nay, nor how before this present hour and speech of yours. I never understood from you, that you intend∣ed not really to stand to what you so freely and only of your self offered by me to, and beg'd of His Grace the Lord Lieutenant. And now, that His Grace

hath of his part condescended to all your demands, will you on such pitiful pretences decline of yours to perform? Have you no more regard of your own credit? no more even of the Catholick Cause, which you so expose in this Country to contempt and laughter? What's become of your extraordinary Zeal? What of your wonderful confidence in your own Wonder-working virtue? As for your motives or pretences to depart presently, who is it think you will not laugh at them? Besides, if those you have given be all, how easie is it to remove them? All and each I will my self remedy, if you please to stay and stand by what you have offered. I will then whatever issue your en∣deavours have procure you a Horse for Connaught, notwithstanding you lose this offered to you now; nor shall you want another for your Servant, if you have any. And for the want of health and strength which you complain of, and to recover both, (albeit every one sees you strong and healthy; that you eat, and drink, and sleep well; go abroad without fear of being ill; yea, and Exorcize, and Practice every day on such diseased persons as come to you pri∣vately; and consequently see not your sweating some nights, or some hours, hath been hitherto any argument of your want of health or strength to hinder you from appearing in publick on such an occasion specially which you have your self so vehemently pursued; yet however to make you more vigorous, and better prepared in all respects, especially by recollecting your inward thoughts, and all other motions of your Soul) you shall have for as long as you will this Chamber, and that Closet with the books in it, and the private Oratory above your head, and a Servant to attend you, and meat and drink (and Physick too, if you please) and whatever else, even company or loanliness, until you find your self recruited perfectly wherein you think your self decayed: and I will in the mean time both excuse you, and put off the day of the publick ap∣pearance till then. Which if you refuse, and rather choose to expose your self immediatly to a long journey of a hundred miles, in foul wayes and sharp weather, who can but see you are not sick at all, nor apprehend any danger from your sweating humour? And then consider also, that men are not such dolts as to be perswaded, that your vehemence of balling, or blowing, or box∣ing is it that can miraculously cure; or that such a Supernatural gift as you pretend to have, must depend on your bodily health in case you wanted both. But if notwithstanding all these considerations, and proffers too I now make, you must needs (without other pretence than those already given by you) de∣part immediatly out of town for Connaught, and consequently disappoint the great expectations you would needs breed in others hitherto, of what you would do in case of your Licence granted: then I pray withal consider, whe∣ther all the world, both Protestants and Catholicks, will not justly hold you to be a meer Impostor, and to have been no better at any time past since you first pre∣tended your Miraculous gift? I assure you my Lord Lieutenant himself hath al∣ready this very evening said so much to me of his own judgment of you, in case you depart on any such pretence of your own sickliness, or what ever else you please before you appear now, and endeavour at least to perform of your side.

To this discourse of mine, Father Finachty at last answered: He would then stay and appear without further delays. And I, for my part was better pleased he should do so, than not, whatever issue he had therein; for I thought it less harm he were reputed a mad frantick man, than a knavish Hypocritical Impostor. But he had no sooner declared that his final fixed resolution, as now, and as I thought it to be, than he presently added, O that I had again those two Possessed Women which the Jesuits brought to me the other day! This not only troubled me anew, as I was carelesly walking the room before him, but extorted from me this return, O Father Finachty! would you had believed, or yielded to me when at our first acquaintance I told you freely my own opinion of you was, That if any, or whatever gift you had, was only that of an Exorcist, i. e. only that of helping sometimes, peradventure some persons against Witchcraft,

Possession, or Obsession, but not any one from Natural diseases, proceeding from other causes! However, yea and notwithstanding I see not why you should desire those very two Women at such a publick Tryal, being you have not Cured them, albeit you have Exorcized them, and cannot be certain, whe∣ther your Luck even so much as with or on them can be better there than else∣where it hath been; yet if they be to be found at all in town, or near, you shall have them brought to you. All which objections or doubts of mine, not∣withstanding, he concluded again, and assured me, That by God's grace he would not fail to appear, and put matters to an issue even on those very same diseased persons whatever they were that were prepared by the foresaid Protestant Physitians. On this assurance given so by him, I took leave with him for that night, not doubting of the sincerity of his promise, and left him there in my own Chamber and bed, leaving also one to attend and serve him, if he had wanted any thing, and went my self to lye in the private Oratory that was in the same house over his head. But I was scarce out of my bed, when unex∣pectedly even by the break of day, I saw him (even also as accoutred for a march) come up into that room where I lay, and telling me in plain terms, I must ex∣cuse him, in that finding himself not well, and having been all night in so great a sweat, that he throughly wet the sheets, as I might find (says he) if I pleased to look, he must and would be gone out of town presently, and take his jour∣ney to Connaught; praying me withal to excuse him to the Lord Lieutenant, and assure His Grace that so soon as he recovered his health and strength, he, would not fail to come (if I called him) and perform what was either expected from him, or himself had offered. It may well be thought how concerned I was in this plain discovery, or rather in the consequential reflections thereof upon the Roman-Catholicks, that for so many years had suffered themselves to be so strangely deluded by such a man. For I saw 'twas obvious to any man, that he could not be very ill, nor wanted health nor strength sufficient to Exorcize, Pray, and Cross infirm persons, nor consequently to appear at, or in that pub∣lick Tryal offered by himself, who could, nay (where and when he might otherwise freely choose) would needs venture, even in the beginning of Winter on so long a journey on Horse-back from Dublin to Loghreogh i. e. about an hundred En∣glish miles: yet seeing clearly it was to no purpose to object any more to, or expostulate with him on that Subject, I only answered, That I was sorry it was so with him that he could not perform his great undertakings: and that I thought nevertheless, it was very fit he excused himself by Letter to the Lord Lieutenant, and gave therein to his Grace that assurance he then gave me, viz. of returning to perform as soon as he had found himself recovered as to his health and strength. But he prayed to be excused in this also, alledging that he was not so great a Master of his Pen, as that he would presume to write to the Kings Lieutenant. Father Finachty (said I) you both have a legible, nay fair Character, and can write good sense when you please, for I have seen some of your Let∣ters. And being it is so, and that such your suddain departure now may ap∣pear, if not incredible, at least very disadvantageous to your self, unless you excuse it in some probable way to His Grace, I pray write to Him under your own hand, and with your own Pen what you say hear to me for excusing it.

No, he would not venture to write. Why then (said I) if you be diffident of your own stile, or phrase, at least give me leave to indite your sense in such a Letter, and then transcribe it your self, adding or substracting what you please. Nor that neither by any means would he; but insisted still on my own excu∣sing him by word of mouth. Well then Father Finachty (said I) being you will needs so unexpectedly go, and will not so much as write a few lines to ex∣cuse your self on such an occasion; Let me at least perswade you to go directly your journey to Connaught, and place there you intend to abide in, without diverting in your journey either to the right or left hand, or holding at all any publick Meetings, or giving any Fields (for that is your own phrase) to Peo∣ple, or so much as practising in private on any sick person whatsoever, until

first you have for some weeks recollected your self in spiritual exercises, i: e. in retirement into, and examination of your own heart, and both Humiliation of your self before God, and hearty Repentance too for any thing truly charge∣able on you before him, if but peradventure some vanitie you took in some gift appearing at any time heretofore to have been bestowed on you. Which advice, if you observe, I doubt not you will find more spiritual comfort and true advantage thereby, then you have hitherto found by all your desired Fields: Nor consequently doubt, but your eyes will then be opened more clearly than of late they have been, to see how far you should venture on such Wonderful undertakings: nay, nor doubt (or at least am not without hope) of the return of your former Miraculous gifts, if ever at any time indeed you had any such, even in any sort of degree, or measure. As for the rest know, there is nothing could happen in this World, I would be more heartily glad to hear, than the absolute certainty of true Miraculous, or Supernatural Wonder-working gifts indeed, either again returned, or anew bestowed on you, or in truth on any other person whatsoever in this Country, where I might see with my own eyes the Miracles done.

This was my last discourse with, and those (or other to such purpose) my very last words to Father Finachty; which he answered by promising to do so as I desired, viz. to go directly to his home in Connaught, to hold no meet∣ings in the way, to attempt no further cures at all before he had first recollected himself, &c. And then remembring how he had (though indirectly) but the last night insinuated some want, I gave him what money I had in my pocket, i. e. about fourteen shillings; which having taken, he departed from me; yet he had the confidence, within two hours after, even that very morning before he left the Town, to send me a little Printed English Book (in Twelves or Six∣teens) of his own Miracles lately done at London.

My Lords and Fathers, this is the account, which ever since that Book of Mi∣racles given, or rather sent by him to me, I intended to give you all, whensoever it pleased God I should have the honour of speaking to you Assembled toge∣ther. For I held my self bound in several respects to give it you. And now that I have discharged my self of that obligation, see you whether it be not fit by universal consent to obstruct all such future both attempts and pretences of Father Finachty, and not only of him, but of any other* 116.5 if other such there be, for Miraculous curing either any kind of meer natural disease, or any sort of Possessed, or Bewitched Person: that so you may as much as lies in you, vindi∣cate your selves, and your Church, and Religion, from the scandal, reproach, ignominy of such manifest arguments, either of crazy heads, or vile Impostors, or both.

Thus having done with what I intended to say on the second of those three Heads before mentioned in the former Section (pag. 706.) and none having con∣tradicted a word of what either I had so related of that weak man, or advised concerning him, but rather all condemning his follies: and some also telling, That notwithstanding his having been so convinced and confounded at Dublin, yet he at∣tempted afterwards to practise, and did practise on some weak Creatures in Con∣naught, especially Women or Maids, whereof some as Demoniacks (but reputed such by him) he shut up in Portumna, and by Discipline and Fasting made almost mad; as likewise that for his further saying, That all the Women of Ireland were possess'd, i. e. by the Devil specially possess'd, the Archbishop of Tuam (with∣in whose jurisdiction he was) had forbid him all such Exorcisms and Exercise: others relating, that he came into, and attempted to practise somewhere in West∣meath, but was discountenanced there: and in fine, all the rest either by their words, or silence, appearing to be utterly dissatisfied with him, and concurring to what I desired, even a general opposition and prohibition of his feats everywhere thenceforth: I pass'd on to the third and last of the foresaid three Heads.

And yet I must let my Reader know here, 1. That, notwithstanding so publick and general notice taken of him (the same Father Finachty) I have been told (in the year 1649, before I left Ireland last) he had got himself lately made Vicar-general by the Clergy of the vacant See of Elphin in the foresaid Province of Connaught; though whether that report was true or no, I cannot avert, nor did I enquire.

2. That no sooner had this Roman-Catholick Irish Priest Finachty, been so dis∣covered at Dublin, but at Cork (a Town also in Ireland) starts up one .......... Gratrix, an English Lay-Protestant, to supply the formers place, by making People believe he himself too had a Gift from God to Cure all Diseases by Praying and Stroaking, and accordingly practises everywhere on many, even also at London, whither he came at last to Cheat the World, as the former was thought to have done. What became of this Gratrix, I neither know nor care. Only this I know, That, not long after his practises on Folks at London, he went out like the Snuff of a Candle, just as Finachty did.

XXII.

VVHat I discoursed on the third and last Head was not long, because the two Books were extant, and the Authors known, and the designs and ef∣fects of them such, as none of all the Fathers (how otherwise willing soever at least some of them) of that Congregation, durst publickly in that place open his lips to justifie. And therefore my relation of that discourse shall be answerable, i. e. very short. For as to the first of these Books, I thought enough to let them know,

1. The Title of it, which is, Disputatio Apologetica, De Jure Regni Hiberniae pro Catholicis Hibernis adversus Haereticos Anglos.

2. That it hath another small Treatise annexed (as an Appendix) which bears this Title, Exhortatio ad Catholicos Hibernos.

3. That both pieces are own'd by the same Author, though under the Capital Letters only of C. M. as he owns himself to be an Irish man. For in the Fron∣tispiece, or Title-page of the Disputation, he sayes, and only sayes, Authore C. M. Hiberno Artium & Sacrae Theologiae Magistro: and after the second Title, or that of his Appendix, or Exhortation, he adds again, Authore C. M. Hi∣berno.

4. That in the former Title-page 'tis pretended to have been Printed at Franc∣fort (Francofurti Superiorum permissu typis Bernardi Gourani) Anno Domini 1645; though we had reason to think 'twas Printed in Portugal.

5. That albeit the Author was unknown to me for so many years after I had seen the Book, yet at last I came to know certainly, and this from the there present Lord Bishop of Ardagh, That he was an old Irish Jesuit living in Portugal, by name Constantine, or Cornelius (in Irish Con, or Cnochoor) and by Sirname O Ma∣hony, a Munster and County Cork man of the Barony of Muskerry: as likewise that the same Bishop (having in the late general ruine of his Countrey (when subdued by Cromwel) departed, and gone to Portugal, of purpose to offer his Episcopal service to that Nation wanting Bishops at that time) was by the said Father Cornelius a Sancto Patricio (for so he called himself there amongst his Order) presented with a Copy of that Book, owning himself Author thereof.

6. That the Subject of the former piece, or Apologetical Disputati∣on, is the same Authors utmost devoir to persuade the then Con∣federate Catholicks of Ireland, That no King of England,* 116.6 nor Crown, nor People, nor State of that Kingdom, had at any time any kind of Right to the Kingdom of Ireland, or any part there∣of; that their Title to it was but meer usurpation and violence; and that therefore the old Natives (i. e. the meer Irish) might choose and make themselves a King of one of their own Irish, and in the then present circumstances of Charles I. of England's being an Heretick, ought (i. e. were bound in Conscience) to do so, and throw off together the yoke of both Hereticks and For∣reigners.

7. That to this purpose of persuading his Countreymen to so daring an attempt, he makes it his work in that piece, from pag. 7. to pag. 64. in five several and large Sections to answer all the Arguments com∣monly made use of to prove the true Right of the Kings of England to the King∣dom of Ireland, viz. those of Donation by the Pope (or Bull of Adrian IV. to Henry II.) Conquest by the Sword, Submission (of the Irish Kings, Princes, Bi∣shops, People) and Prescription even almost of Five hundred years.

8. That the whole remainder of that Apologetical Disputation (i. e. the last Section thereof) even from pag. 65. to pag. 102. is taken up by him in pro∣ving an Hypothesis, not only no less treasonable, but if not manifestly heretical in the grounds, yet I am sure much more pernicious to the World in general, as to the same grounds. For that Hypothesis, or conditional Assertion, is in these very terms: Dato ergo,* 116.7 & non concesso quod Reges Angliae olim fuissent legitimi ac veri Domini Hiberniae (ut aliqui Angli, immerito contendunt) nihilominus Ordines il∣lius Regni optimo jure poterant, ac debebant omni dominio Hiberniae privare tales Re∣ges, postquam facti sunt haeretici, atque tyranni. And those grounds, or Scheme of them, you may see in these other words immediately following: — Hoc enim jus,* 116.8 & potestas deponendi Principes tyrannos in omni Regno & Republica est, sive Guber∣natio sit Monarchica, sive Aristocratica vel Democratica. Jam si consensui Regni, vel Reipublicae in hac re accederet authoritas Apostolica, quis nisi haereticus vel stul∣tus audebit negare, quod hic affirmamus, & Doctores Theologi, & Juris utriusque pe∣riti passim docent, rationes probant, exempla suadent. Thus he makes sure work on every side, by affirming (as you see now) That granting, or supposing (what till then he labour'd to prove was very false) viz, That the Kings of England, from Henry the Second's time downwards, until they became Hereticks, had a true right of Lordship and Sovereignty in the Kingdom of Ireland, yet the Three Estates of that Kingdom might and ought to deprive them as soon as they turn'd Hereticks and Tyrants. For (sayes he) such right, and authority for deposing ty∣rannical Princes, is in every Kingdom and Commonwealth, whether the Government be Monarchical, Aristocratical, or Democratical. And then (sayes he again) if to the consent of the Kingdom, or Commonwealth in this matter, the authority of the See Apostolick be added, who but an Heretick, or Fool, dare be so bold as to deny what we affirm here, and the Doctors both of Divinity and of the Civil and Canon Law do commonly teach, Reasons prove, Examples persuade?

9. That the whole and consequential both subject and scope of his other an∣nexed Piece or Tract, called his Exhortation to the Catholicks of Ireland, is to ex∣hort the Irish, and from all the other Topicks he judg'd most expedient, even to enflame them to a putting that in execution which he had already (as much as in him lay) shewed to be not only lawful for, but obligatory on them, i. e. to a re∣nouncing the Protestant King of England, and electing presently amongst them∣selves a Roman-Catholick Irish Native to be their King; as may be seen partly in these words (in the beginning of the first page of the same Exhortation, albeit the 103 page of the whole Book as composed of those two Pieces) viz, In se∣quenti Exhortatione opto persuadere Hibernis, ut Haereticorum jugum semel excus∣sum numquam iterum admittant, nec permittant, sed potius eligant sibi Regem Ca∣tholicum,

& vernaculum seu naturalem Hibernum, qui cos Catholic•• gubernare pos∣sit, and partly in these other (pag. 117.) Eligite igitur Regem vernaculum fratrem vestrum Catholicum aliquem Hibernum; as likewise partly yet in these (pag. 125.) Hiberni mei agite, pergite & perficite incaeptum opus defensionis & libertatis vestra, & occidite haereticos adversarios vestros, & eorum fautores & ad utores e medio tollite, especially if expounded as they must be by those other given before in his Apol. Disp. pag. 45. viz. Ʋnde non solum haereticos Anglos & Scotos expellere debetis, sed etiam Hibernos cujuscumque conditionis haereticis auxiliantes, vel aliquo modo faventes e medio tollere deberetis, tanquam Patriae proditores & hostes; non enim ignoratis poenas quas in Jure incurrunt haeretici & illorum santores. Legite caput 32 Exodi, & invenietis quod sanctus Patriarcha Moyses praecepis occidere 23 millia Haebreorum, ob peccatum Idololatriae. Legite similiter caput 25 Libri Numerorum, ubi ob peccatum Infidelitatis & Idololatriae praecepit Deus tollere cunctos Principes populi, & suspendere eos in patibulis. Quinimo eodem die occisa sunt 24 millia ho∣minum Israelitarum. Jam supra dixi haresim comparari cum Idololatria, & haere∣ticos esse similes Idololatris, sunt enim infideles Deo, & hominibus. Quare ut ma∣lum a vobis tollatur, e medio tollite haereticos, & eorum fautores, etiamsi, alioquin, sint fratres & proximi vestri, sicut Deus praecepit & Moyses fecit.

10. That beside this extreme cruelty he exhorts unto, of putting to death all not only English and Scottish Hereticks remaining in Ireland, but all whatsoever even Roman-Catholick Irish, albeit their own flesh and blood, their very next Neigh∣bours, yea, dearest Friends, Cousins, and Brethren too by the same Fathers and Mothers, who should continue faithful to their Protestant King, or would oppose this advice of choosing and creating another King of Ireland, &c, he moreover hath by manifold arguments all along in his foresaid Apologetical Disputation, as much as in him lay, sowed the seeds of a civil, cruel and perpetual War amongst the Roman-Catholick Irish Nation in general, yea, amongst even such of those very Confederates who peradventure might be drawn to approve jointly, the choo∣sing a Roman-Catholick either Native or Forreigner to be their King, and consequent∣ly the renouncing and deposing of their Protestant King. For by the said argu∣ments, which take up his said whole Apology, hath not he evinced clearly, if we believe himself, That the Kings of England have been all along these 500 years meer Usurpers of Ireland? And consequently, That all, at least those of either old or new English, or other Forreign extraction, living in Ireland, and deriving originally and only their Titles or Rights from those Kings to the Lands possessed by them in that Countrey, must be likewise unjust Possessors? And therefore al∣so, That the more ancient Natives of Ireland, otherwise called the old and meer Irish, retain still fully all the ancient Right which their Predecessors enjoy'd be∣fore the Conquest of Henry II. in the year 1167, or thereabouts? And by a far∣ther and as clear a consequence, at least in his Doctrine, That by vertue of that old Title, they might lawfully take Arms, and by plain force recover all the Lands and Goods of Ireland, any where possessed hitherto at any time by such usurping and unjust detainers, originally of English, or other Forreign Extraction, however of late Confederated with them to choose a new King? Now, who is ignorant, that the far greater part of the Roman-Catholick Nobility, Gentry, and other Proprietors inhabiting and possessing quietly great Estates when the War begun in 1641, and before even time out of mind, and most of them for some hundreds of years, derive their Extraction from those old English, or other Forreign Con∣querors under Henry II. of England, and His Successors, in the Conquest of Ireland? And we have already seen, That an honest Author C. M. hath warrant∣ed his Kindred of the more ancient and meer Irish (as they are commonly called) of the lawfulness and justice, and equity also of their forcing out of all possession those unjust Inheriters, and putting them all to the Sword, if they did resist. And therefore it is plain he hath (as much as in him lay) sown the seeds of a civil, cruel and perpetual War amongst even the Roman-Catholick Confederates of Ire∣land themselves, and even those amongst them who would otherwise peradventure freely enough follow his advice in choosing another King.

11. That of this wicked Book, many Copies had been in the Nuncio's time pri∣vately dispersed up and down amongst trusty men throughout Ireland; but not dis∣covered or known by the contrary side (i. e. by those Confederates that were known to be for returning to their Duty to the King) until about the year 1647, or 1648, when it was found or seen (by some of them) with John Bane the then Parish-Priest of Athlone; which Priest the Nuncio refused to deliver to Secular justice (i. e. to the Supreme Council of the Roman-Catholick Confederates of Ireland) for keeping such a Trayterous Book, and not revealing it, or from whence he had it, to the Supreme Council, or others concern'd.

12. That, however, the same Supreme Council had it publickly burnt by the hand of the Hangman at Kilkenny the said year 1648.

13. That I my self soon after, had five Sundayes and Holydayes, one immedi∣ately after another, Preach'd nine Sermons in St. Kenny's Church (the Cathedral of that Diocess) chiefly against the wicked positions and designs of this damnable Book upon this one Text or Theme out of the Prophet Jeremy, Quis est vir sapi∣cus, qui intelligat hoc, & ad quem verbum oris Domini fiat ut annuntiet istud, quare perierit terra, Hierem. 9.12. Wherein after I had shewn the insignificancy of the Solutions given in that Book to the three main arguments, proving the lawful Right and just Title of the Crown of England to the Kingdom of Ireland, viz. Conquest, Submission, and Prescription (for that of Pope Adrian's Donation I va∣lued not) and consequently had confirmed those arguments, I enlarged my self further on another, even a fourth, late, and indeed insoluble argument, proving against that vain Babler, and wicked Scribler, That in case all his Solutions, were admitted, yet he had nothing to say, nor could find any possible way to evade the perfect, full and free both acknowledgment and obligation of the late Oath of As∣sociation, made and taken, yea, so often renewed by the Roman-Catholick Confede∣rates of Ireland, by their Archbishops, Bishops, Earls, Viscounts, Barons, Knights, Gentry, Commonalty and Burgesses, even by all their Three Estates Spiritual and Temporal in their National Assemblies, nay, even principally, and in the first place by all the chief men of the meer, or most ancient Irish (those very and only Au∣thors indeed of the Insurrection in October 1641, and consequently of all the Civil Wars that followed) being they were the men that drew (if not in a great measure forced) the Descendents of the old English Conquerors to rebel, or join with them in that unhappy War, and to that end, of themselves freely and volun∣tarily first in the said year 1641. framed that Oath of Association, to persuade not only those other Natives, but all the World, They notwithstanding their ta∣king Arms against oppression, did religiously acknowledge Charles I. of England to be their lawful King, and holily swear true Allegiance to him, and his lawful Heirs and Successors the Kings of England, as the undoubted, just, and lawful Kings of Ireland too, however otherwise known Protestants. This was the argu∣ment that in the last place I insisted on as absolutely unanswerable, though we did (which yet we could not) freely grant, that all other were avoidable. Wherein the Reader will manifestly see I had reason of my side, when he shall turn in this present work of mine (Append. of Instrum. pag. 31.) to that very Oath, accord∣ing as it was renewed at Kilkenny 26 July 1644. in and by the General Assembly of the Roman-Catholick Confederates of Ireland, held then there. For here was at least a free and voluntary both acknowledgment and submission even of the very meer Irish to a known Protestant King of England, and both also by a sacred Oath freely and voluntarily framed first, then taken, and lastly retaken and renewed by themselves, without any compulsion at all from the King, or his Protestant people to that same Oath, nay, so far from any such, that these were all against it mighti∣ly, though not for our acknowledgment or submission contained therein, but for other undue branches thereof. And therefore were it granted, That before the said Oath in 1641, or in 1642, there had never been any full and free submission, or consent of the old Irish Natives; yet C. M. was in this very point perversly and wickedly out in his foresaid Book, because first published and printed by him in the year 1645, that is, even after he had manifestly and manifoldly known of that

very Oath of Association (which was the only essential tye of the Roman-Catho∣lick Irish Confederates as such) as I think out of that his own very Book pag. 101. may appear he had; where he tells us of the first (though he there call it the last) General or National Assembly of the Confederates begun at Kilkenny, Oct. 24. ann. 1642. and continued there above two Months, i. e. to the Ninth of January next following, whereon it was dissolv'd; nay, tells and gives some of the very Laws Enacted there (in their Module of Government, if I be not mistaken) though Laws in truth contradicting his unjust, erroneous, bloody, cruel both principles and designs; yea, consequentially overthrowing both his Disputation and Exhor∣tation in all their parts.

14. And lastly, That, being all these things were notoriously known, it became the Fathers of this National Congregation, by a publick Act of their own, to con∣demn immediately to the fire so damnable a Book.

As to (and of) the other Book, or that of Richard Ferral the Irish Cappucin (for to him only the common vogue attributes it) because what I spoke to the Fathers, was the same in substance which upon another occasion I have before re∣lated pag. 504, I remit the Reader back again to that place. And being I have said much already there of the subject and design of this Book of Ferrals, as in effect concurring to the same end with the former of Mahony, I will only add here,

1. That this of Ferrals (though presented to the Cardinals not before, but much about the year 1658. (I am sure not heard of till then by others most concern'd) particularly drives at restoring the former late Confederacy of the then surviving Roman-Catholicks of Ireland, but principally, if not only, of those of the more ancient, or (as they are call'd) meer Irish Septs (the Author having represented at large all those other Irish, or (as they are by him and his party nick-nam'd by way of contempt, English-Irish, Gauls, Forreigners, Saxons, &c.) and rendred them as unworthy to be trusted in so holy a League, because descend∣ed from the old English Conquerors.)

2. That in this so particular, and indeed principal design of his, it would seem he had an Eye to the Declaration and Excommunication of the Roman-Catholick Irish Archbishops, Bishops, and other Prelates at Jamestown in Connaught, 12 of August 1650. not only against the then King's Lord Lieutenant General, and General Governour of Ireland, the (then) Marquess (now Duke) of OR∣MOND, by devesting Him of all power, but for the former Confederacy, by restoring it, as much as in them lay, and commanding others that it should be ef∣fectually restored. And would seem likewise he knew well enough and related to what the Committee of the said Congregation (I mean the Committee of Bishops sitting at Galway even after that Congregation was dissolv'd) thought fit to answer the Proposals made by the Commissioners of Trust on the 29 of October, the same year 1650, wherein the said Committee insisted chiefly upon the Nations returning to the Confederacy. See (in the end of this Tome) in the Appendix of Instrum. pag. 65, &c. the said Declaration; and pag. 70. the annexed Excommunication. Item, in the second Appendix (or in that other of the Marquess of ORMOND's long and excellent Letter) pag. 128, and 129, the said Answer of that Committee of Bishops.

3. That both the Address and Title of this Book of Ferrals, is this (and no other) Ad Sacram Congregationem de Propaganda Fide. Hic Authores & modus eversionis Catholicae Religionis in Hibernia recensentur, & aliquot remedia pro con∣servandis reliquiis Catholicae Religionis & Gentis proponuntur. After which, imme∣diately he begins his Book (of indeed very false information, and as wicked ad∣vice (in too too many particulars) to the said Congregation of Cardinals) thus: Hibernia, quae olim Scotia, & Insula Sanctorum dicebatur, &c.

4. That although (as I have also in this present Work elsewhere noted) the Reverend Father John Lynch (i. e. the Author of Cambrensis Eversus) had learnedly and fully, under the name of Eudoxius Alithinologus, answer••d that per∣verse writing first in his Alithinologia (printed anno 1664, and under this Title, viz.

Alithinologia, sive Veridica Responsio ad Invectivam mendaciis, fallaciis, calumniis & imposturis faetam in plurimos Antistites, Proceres, & omnis ordinis Hibernos a R. P. R. — F. —C.—Congregationi de propaganda fide, Anno Domini 1659. exhibitam.) and then again in his Supplementum Alithinologiae; yet never∣theless (or rather the more) I thought it became me to move their Paternities to the same condemnation from them this Piece also, which I had already desired of the former of Mahony's.

Having to such purpose, as hitherto, discoursed to the Fathers on both these Books, and so concluded not only what I had to say on the third and last Head, but whatever I intended to say of all the three Heads or Articles, They decreed una∣nimously, i. e. nemine contradicente, the burning of both Books. And I remem∣ber that one of the Cappuccins related (if not there, I am sure elsewhere even to my self; for I do not exactly, or certainly now remember the day, or place) That the very General Chapter of the Cappuccins themselves beyond Seas, had condemn'd both Ferral's said Book, and himself too. But whether any one either in that Congregation then or at any other time declared, That the Clergy at or of Galway, i. e. any General, or National, nay, or Provincial, Diocesan, or Local Assembly of Irish Clergymen, had formerly at Galway (or even elsewhere) condemn'd Maho∣ny's Book, I do not remember at all; General or National I am sure held at Gal∣way, I am sure none did: because I know there was no kind of National Assembly held there in my dayes; for the National Synod which the Nuncio had summon'd thither when he was in opposition to the Supreme Council, was hinder'd by the same Council. Whereof I thought fit to advertise the Reader, because I am now to give the Congregation's Secretary's (Father Nicholas Redmond the Vicar General of Fern's) account by Letter to my self of the Acts of the said Congregation. For when the Congregation was dissolved, or at least upon dissolving, I desir'd him to give me, or at least send me soon a perfect Copy of their Acts. And I confess I desired this chiefly, to see whether what I desired in point of each of the last three Heads (whereof I gave now for substance the same account I gave the Fathers on that last day, if not hour of their sitting) had been inserted in their publick Acts, according to what I expected, and I think expresly desired too. But, whether he mistook, or not, I found not that the Copy which he (about a Fortnight after) sent me, answer'd my expectation wholly in any point, save only in that concern∣ing those two Books; their decree, consent, or sense against Father Finachty being not mention'd therein; and but very little of what I drove at in my discourse on the first Head concerning our obligation to observe religiously both Feasts and Fasts, and other spiritual holy duties enjoin'd by the King. For that Copy you have here exactly in this following Letter of his from Ross, 7 July 1666, to me at Dublin.

Very Reverend Father,

IN compliance to your last speech with me, I here insert such acts as I have writ, though I may not say they are formal ones, by reason they were not seriously di∣gested, and couched by select Committees: but only upon the motions and allow∣ance of the House for my memories sake pen'd by me, they being not the principal scope of that meeting.

Primo. Electus est Prolocutor Roverendissimus D. Andraeas Finiboren. Episcopus. Electus est Secretarius Nicolaus Redmond Vic. Gen. Fernen.

Secundo. Statutum est quod nihil in presente Convocatione quoad Vocationem, Sessionem, Praecedentiam vel Subscriptionem actum, cedat in praejudicium alicujus cu∣juscunque dignitatis aut instituti in futurum.

Tertio. Statutum est, ut quilibet Sacerdos saecularis, & cujusvis Ordinis Regula∣ris singulis diebus dominicis & festis, & specialiter omnibus diebus quibus vel a Rege, vel Pro-Rege preces publicae indicuntur, fundat certas preces, & Laicos similiter fa∣cere moneat, Pro foelice successu Serenissimi Regis nostri Caroli Secundi, Regina, totiusque domus Regiae, necnon Excellentissimi Domini Jacobi Ducis Ormoniae, & familiae ejus.

Quarto. Liber inscriptus C. M. alias Cornelio sienti antehac Galviae a Clero, & Kilkenniae a Supremo Concilio Confaederatorum condemnatus, & ignis datus est: ita etiam in hoc coetu condemnatus, & igne cremari dignus judicatus est. Quare omnibus & singulis utriusque Cleri, qui librum istum penes se habent, vel alibi inventum repe∣rerint praecipitur, ut illum ad suos respective Superiores deferant, & in ignem conjici faciant.

Quinto. Similiter fiat de libro attributo Ricardo Ferrall Capucino.

Sexto. Quicunque Sacerdos Saecularis deprehensus fuerit distinctiones facere inter Provincias, & Provincias, inter modernos & antiquos Hibernos: pro prima vice qua de hoc crimine convictus fuerit, solvat quinque solidos; pro secunda viginti; pro tertia fuspendatur ad beneplacitum Ordinarii.

Septimo. Quicunque Regularis cujusvis Ordinis de eodem crimine convictus fue∣rit; pro prima vice ad quinque dies pane & aqua idque super nudam terram vesca∣tur; pro secunda decem; pro tertia voce activa & passiva privetur ad beneplacitum sui Superioris.

Octavo. Quicunque deprehensus fuerit circumferre unam Remonstrantiam falso Franciscanis impositam, qua non solum temporalis, sed omnis etiam spiritualis potestas Regi tribuitur* 117.1; aut etiam Remonstrantiam modo ab hoc coetu compositam & Pro-Regi exhibitam, falsificare praesumpserit, falsariorum paenis subjaceat.

This much with my love and service to your Reverence, and the rest of that Se∣raphical Family there. I take leave, and rest,

Very Reverend Father,

Your affectionate Friend and Servant, Nico: Redmond.

Rosse, 7 Julii. 1666.

However, i. e. whether this Father Secretary gave me fully or truly all these Acts or no, what is more to my main purpose, is to let my Readers know, That presently after I had ended my Discourse on the last of the foresaid three Heads, and the Fathers had delivered their Sense and Censures, by common consent they dissolved, the Chairman having pronounced the ordinary dismiss, Ite in pace. And so we see at last this National Congregation ended.

XXIII.

VVHat remains therefore to see also this long Treatise ended, is to give here (in one entire, and the last Section thereof) 1. Those other passages relating to the Lord Lieutenant and Bishops, which happen'd immediately after the Congregation was dissolved. 2. The Procurator's judgment of this Congregation, leading Members thereof, and of their several interests and ends. 3. How after their dissolution, the doctrine of Allegiance in Fifteen several complex Propositions, or short Paragraphs, was debated for a whole month by a select number of Divines. 4. And last of all, The Paper of Animadversions given to the Lord Lieutenant, and His Grace's Commands laid on the Procurator. These are now the only remaining Appenda∣ges.

What I have to say of the first of them, is, That as soon as the Fathers had so dissolved, as we have seen before, every one preparing to depart the Town to their several homes, Father Ronan Magin* 117.2, a Roman or Italian Doctor of Divinity (i. e. graduated so abroad, though otherwise an Irish man) Dean and Vicar-gene∣ral of Dromore, and one too who had (some time before the Congregation sate) signed the Controverted Remonstrance of the year 1661, desired me to go with him to the Kings Castle and Lord Lieutenant there, that he might have the honour of kissing His Graces hands, and receiving His Commands before he had departed home to his Diocess. I willingly yielded, the rather that my own duty required I should my self however wait that morning on His Grace, to give Him an account of the Congregations being dissolv'd; and I was glad to have some one of the Mem∣bers present when I gave it, because my further duty required I should therein let His Grace understand what other matters had been treated of that Morning be∣fore the Fathers dissolved.

Being therefore both together admitted by His Grace in to his Closet, and I giving that account, and amongst or before other matters, how I was necessitated to oppose the Bishop of Ardagh to his face before all the Fathers, in that either through wilfulness, or dulness, he had so strangely misrepresented (in publick to the whole Congregation) His Graces answer to him (and his Fellow-Commissio∣ner) and thereby endeavoured to amuse the Fathers and make them hug their own stubbornness, and his and his Cabals unhappy contrivances: that which mightily grieved me then to hear, and was never since (upon any due occasions) out of my mind, and therefore thought fit to take special notice of here, is what His Grace thereupon with very great feeling declared, viz. That (sayes he) these Twenty years I had to do with these Irish Bishops, I never found any of them either to speak the truth, or to perform their promise to me; only the Bishop of Clogher excepted; for during the little time he lived after his submission to the Peace, and Commission received from me, I cannot charge him. No could I choose but be mightily troubled, when I heard from His Graces own mouth, and on that occasion, and before another wit∣ness too, such a character of so many Roman-Catholick Prelates, even all the Arch∣bishops and Bishops of the whole Nation, being Five or six and twenty, or there∣abouts. For I know there was no man alive had reason, or the opportunities and occasions to know them better than he did; no man that try'd them more to the quick even in the weightiest matters could be; and I knew very much of their failings my self: and was no less certain even by the experimental knowledge I my self likewise for so many years (ever since 1648.) had of His Graces ve∣racity, That he spoke his own inward Conscience in that testimony, how general and pungent soever; and therefore I concluded, That surely he must have very much prejudice against a Religion or Church that was chiefly and generally (throughout a whole Nation) governed by such spiritual Guides.

And this Conclusion, which I derived then presently, was it that so much troub∣led me when I heard him speak that his testimony, and withall observed not only his action or gesture, viz. how at the same time he laid his hand on his breast, but even his religious asseveration in these other words, As I am a Christian, premitted to the said either testimony, or whatever else you please to call it, whether Decla∣ration, Answer, Observation, or Complaint. Of which action and asseveration, I took indeed the more special notice then, and now again do take here, that I never observed him before or after on any occasion whatsoever to have averr'd (or de∣nied) any thing in that manner, i. e. either with any such laying of his hand on his breast, or any such calling his Christianity to witness, as neither in truth with any other kind of Oath. As for the rest, not only my trouble, but my wonder (for I did also wonder much those Irish Bishops generally could have been such men) had been very much less even at that very time, had I before seen his long and excellent Letter (of all the Transactions 'twixt him and those Bishops but for two years only, i. e. from the year 1648. to the 29th of October in 1650.) writ∣ten by Him, as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, from Kilcolgan, the second of Decem∣ber 1650, to the last General Assembly of the Three Roman-Catholick Estates of that Nation, which very Letter I do now (for the reasons given in my Preface) communicate to publick view in Print, annexing it by way of Appendix to this present Work (or First Tome) in the end thereof.

But to leave this digression of my own thoughts or passions, and return to the prosecution of what besides speaking of his remembrance of matters past, the Lord Lieutenant gave me of His Commands upon the foresaid occasion of my re∣lating how the Bishop of Ardagh had to the Fathers misreported His Grace's an∣swer, what I am now to tell, is, That His Grace even at that very time command∣ed me to go presently to the said Bishop of Ardagh, and to the Bishop of Kilfinu∣ragh (the Chairman) too, and let them know from Him, That He would speak to them both together, before they left the Town. For he took the said misre∣porting of His answer so much to heart, That He was resolved not only to expo∣stulate with them for that disingenuity, but even to rebuke them for it in presence of half a dozen Noblemen and Gentlemen of their own communion, to the end he might have Witnesses enough, and such men too against whom those Bishops could take no exception; and so dismiss them free to stay or go whithersoever they would. And this, and no other was the design of that Command given me, as even himself declared then.

But Kilfinuragh (it seems too conscious to himself, all along for the design he drove and carried in the Congregation) prevented this Message, by shifting pre∣sently his Lodgings as soon as the House dissolved. For so Father John Burk the Vicar-General Apostolick of Cashil (another great Intriguer, though in all things else dull enough) told me just as I was in my way to find Kilfinuragh out: as moreover he told me, it was to no purpose for me to seek that Bishop, because he was either by that time out of Town, or would suddenly be, and that in the mean time (if he was not already gone) he would not have the place of his retirement known.

Which being related to the Lord Lieutenant, His Grace presently sends Mr. William Summers (chief Clerk in Secretary Lane's Office) to the Bishop of Ardaghs Lodgings (at his brother Sir Nicholas Plunket's house) and not to him only, but to the Primate also, where he lodged, with an express Command to them both, not to stir out of Town till further orders: this Messenger being further directed, That, in case he found them not within, he should leave that Command at their Lodging, to be notified to them immediately on their return. Which be∣ing accordingly received by them, and their trouble thereat signified to me, I went to see them both, and quieted their trouble, by letting them know what the occasion and end of it was; that there was no further hurt intended them, or either of them, but that of a bare verbal expostulation; that after such, they should be as free to go where they pleased, as before; and that in the mean time there was no hard∣ship in their restraint, which allowed them the liberty of a great City and Suburbs,

and pleasant Fields on every side thereof. Yet the Primate (whether more con∣scious to himself for any late design, than Ardagh, I know not) was so fearful to transgress, That from that day he never once dared to walk abroad into the Fields, lest it should be interpreted a breach of his duty, or of that Command laid on him.

Within a few dayes, the Lord Lieutenant parting for some weeks to Kilkenny, before His departure sends for me, and tells me, He had somewhat more to say to the Primate, than I knew yet. And then commands Sir George Lane Knight (His Grace's chief Secretary) to lead me into His Closet, and shew me that part of a certain Letter which concern'd the said Primate Reilly. Sir George did so, and therein shews and reads to me, how the Earl of Sandwich, Ambassador for the Crown of England in Spain, had inform'd thence, That as he passed through Gallicia to Madrid, the Roman-Catholick Irish Bishop of Ferns inform'd him of Edmund Reilly the Roman-Catholick Archbishop and Primate of Ardmagh's being gone to Ireland from France, and with a real purpose, and out of meer de∣sign to raise the Irish again into Rebellion, or at least to prepare for it by all the arts he could. This was the substance of what Sir George Lane shewed me: for the words I remember not, as neither do I know, nor did I enquire from whom the said Letter shewn me was, or whether it was Sandwich's own Letter, or the Secre∣tary of States at London, or any others.

What is more material to know, is, That presently after having return'd to my Lord Lieutenant in the Gallery, His Grace commanded me to go directly to the said Primate, and tell him what was shewn me, and all the particulars, and how therefore he must be under a Guard of Souldiers; but withall to bid him not to be thereat frighted nor startled, but to bear all patiently for a few dayes; that there was no further hurt intended towards him, but to keep him from hurting others, by too much liberty; that no less than to be so restrained might be ex∣pected where and when such an information was come; and finally, that within a very little time, he should be sent back safely from whence he came last.

I must confess this Errand was not welcome to me, by reason chiefly of the mention which I must have made therein of the Bishop of Ferns, for whom I had much respect and kindness. For I well foresaw the Primate would, if ever they met, challenge and charge him with the said Information; and thereby in all like∣lihood add to the afflictions of that already too much afflicted Prelate, being he was still abroad an Exile, and consequently in some degree or way depending of the favour of the Roman Court and Ministers; or at least concern'd mightily not to raise anew their anger against him, especially after he had (in hopes to be ad∣mitted to return home) quitted the good condition he had in Gallicia from the Archbishop of St. Diego, and come to Flanders, where the Bruxels Internuncio was able at any time to hinder him even from the charity of the very Prelates. But on the other side, I considered not only the necessity of obeying (in such a mat∣ter) the King's Lieutenant, but the equity also of my own letting the Primate know all, even in case I were not commanded, seeing (I say) matters come to that pass. Otherwise he would questionless, and others for him, would have misrepre∣sented me, or perhaps (which was yet worse) the Lord Lieutenant Himself, as who had a mind or design to entrap him (the Primate Archbishop) or at least had without any cause made him Prisoner. This, and no other consideration whatso∣ever, was it made me not only tell himself what I was commanded, but others also what I had so told himself; though with inward grief still, for being so ne∣cessitated to a relation, which I feared might some way prejudice the good Bishop of Ferns; though withall I well enough saw at the same time, that nothing could be proved against him Canonically there, where I feared he might be so pre∣judiced or hurt; as on the other side, that some conjuncture might happen, when so dutiful an Information, given by him to the Kings Ambassadour in Forreign Parts, might advantage him at home; as truly, I think, it ought.

However, when I told all to the Primate (notwithstanding I first prepared him to constancy and tranquility of mind, as well as I could) his countenance altered, and he seem'd almost besides himself upon hearing the intelligence come from the Ambassador; but the mention of a Guard quite dejected him. Which made me cheer him with all possible assurances that he should suffer no more than a few dayes very civil restraint. Whereupon he presently removed his Lodging to a better Air, and there expected the Guard of Souldiers, which accordingly was put there on him; but observing him with much respect, and hindring no person whatsoever, man or woman, of any degree to visit and stay with him as long and as many toge∣ther as they or he pleased, as neither him even to say Mass to them, or exercise o∣ther Priestly or Episcopal Function. I was my self daily with him to keep him in heart; though all I did or said to that purpose, could not altogether free him of frightful apprehensions, until he found by his own clear experiment the perfor∣mance of all my words even to a tittle.

And that he found in this manner. According to the Lord Lieutenant's order, left to the Privy Council upon his departure to Kilkenny, they within about a week, or (at most) fortnight after, sent for the (Archbishop, or Primate) Prisoner to be brought before them. Where appearing, he (though much contrary, or at least be∣yond his own frightful imaginations) found himself not so much as in any kind of point whatsoever examined (so far was he from hearing a word of his confine∣ment to the Kings Castle, the best and most favourable doom himself believed did attend him from them) not so much as look'd upon severely; but only told first they had orders to dismiss, or rather send him safely (as a banish'd man) into any Roman-Catholick Countrey (he pleased) out of the Kings Dominions; and then in the next place briefly, and obligingly ask'd, Whether he would choose to go to France? and if so, Whether by long Sea, or through England? told with∣all, he should have his own choice. He answering, That he would choose to pass through England to France, the Lords of the Council bid him then be ready to ship with the first convenience, telling him, They would send one with him to the Secretary of State at London, who (I mean the Secretary) would take care for his farther safe passage to, and transportation from Dover; as also that the per∣son who should accompany him, should not be at his charge at all, but should have from them whereby to defray his own charges. All which being de∣clared by the Lords of the Council, they dismiss'd him civilly back to his Lodgings.

The person they fixed upon to wait on him to London, was the City Major, one Stanley, who accordingly had Forty pounds from the Council to bear his own charges. As soon as the wind served, and the Primate was ready, they went both to Rings-end, where I my self was daily with them till they ship'd. As soon as they came to London, however the Primate feared even his own shadow there, especially because the Parliament of England was then sitting, yet he found no other there also than a full performance of what he was promised at Dublin. For without any examination or question, he was thence fairly dismiss'd under the keeping of the same Stanley to Dover, and there ship'd by Stanley for Calais; where he Landed safely, went to Louain, and thence writ to me that he was dealt with truly, fairly and civilly in every particular, as I had promised him he should be. Stanley also, and the Primat's own servant being re∣turned to Dublin, the former from England, and the other from Flan∣ders, assured me of all the particulars of the Primat's Journey through England.

What became of Kilfinuragh and Ardagh, the other two Bishops, and the one playing least in sight, and the other (as I told before) under an easie confinement (i. e. to that of the whole City of Dublin) till further orders? if the Reader will know, what I have to answer, and first as to Kilfinuragh, is

1. That as Kilfinuragh, when he was told of the Lord Lieutenant's desire to speak to him, departed suddenly and privately out of Dublin: so he likewise soon after no less privately in some remote Harbour (some said Cork) ship'd away for France.

2. That, for my own part, I could not imagine any other cause of his flight, if not either the check of his own Conscience for his carriage in the Congregation; or his great hopes of both a Home Insurrection, and Forreign Invasion; or his little care of his own peculiar little Flock or Diocess, being also as pitifully poor and ungainful to him, as it is indeed little in extent, i. e. eight Parishes onely; or finally his far more gainful pretence (abroad) of banishment, or of being forced to flie, for Catholick Religion forsooth; a pretence yielding him at least 300 Pi∣stols a year in France, ever since that year 1666 (as it did also before since the year 1652, or thereabouts.)

3. That I am sure he had no cause given him by the Lord Lieutenant, and as sure that His Excellency intended not to give him other than only to speak and expostulate with Ardagh, and him together, in presence of five or six others, as I have before related.

4. That if the fear of such bare speaking and expostulation, could be a suf∣ficient cause or motive for a Bishop to flie away from his Flock, and never look after them since, any thing may be.

5. That besides he knew very well that of all the Bishops of the whole Pro∣vince of Munster, or Archiepiscopal Province of Cashil, he alone was alive; that there were nine Diocesses vacant in that Province; that for so many years before, since Cromwel's Arms and Intrigues of the Bishops, forced the Kingdom to sub∣mit to the Parliament of England, there was no Episcopal Confirmation admini∣stred in that whole Province: and that as consequently the whole Episcopal care of the whole Province and every Diocess therein (viz. the charge of Confirming the Baptized, of Ordaining Priests, of Consecrating Altars, &c. yea, of calling Pro∣vincial Synods) was devolved upon him until other Pastors were provided, so it must have followed that doing his duty therein, he could not come short (by stay∣ing at home) in any respect of whatever even Temporal emoluments he reaped by his flight into France.

6. That I may therefore here rationally ask, What made, or moved him then to go away, nay, and to go so as if he had been forc'd to flie for his life?

7. That his continual stay in France for so many years after the Kings Restau∣ration, until 1666 (yea, notwithstanding my own several Letters and Messages to him during those very years both from London and Dublin, praying him to return home to his Diocess, and look to his Flock, as others did in other parts of the Kingdom to theirs, and assuring him of all permission to do so) and now again since the Duke of ORMOND's removal from the Government of Ireland, i. e. since the year 1669, to this present 1673. (during which latter time, even Thirteen or fourteen new Bishops, and amongst them four Archbishops, all created by the Pope, do publickly and freely live and exercize their Functions at home in Ireland) must plainly evince, it was no true fear of the Duke of OR∣MOND (the KING's Lieutenant in 1666.) nor of any persecution from His GRACE then, made him the said Bishop of Kilfinuragh flie away so as he did immediately after the foresaid Congregation of 1666.

8. That nevertheless I will not here deny, but I have known of late, how 'twas possible the same Bishop might have had then some remembrance of his own having formerly been one of or amongst the Jamestown Committee of Bishops at Galway in the year 1650, who (on the fifth of November the same year) de∣livered unto the Commissioners of Trust, the disloyal Answer to the rational Pro∣posals for accommodation made to them by the same Commissioners of Trust. I say of late: because then, or in the year 1666, I knew not so much; as having not then, nor indeed at any time after, until this very last Month of May 1673, perused throughly and seriously the Marquess of Ormond's long and excellent Let∣ter in the year 1650 to the General Assembly at Loghreogh. By which Letter it appears (as you may see hereafter, pag. 135. of the Second Appendix to this pre∣sent Work) Kilfinuragh (alias Kilfenora) had been one of those very Jamestown Committee Bishops at Galway; yea, one of the very six Bishops that delivered the aforesaid Answer. For these six Bishops were Killala, Ferns, Kilmacduogh, Clonfert, Kilfenora and Dromore: as appears by the attestation of the above Commissioners of Trust (who also were six) viz. Lucas Dillon, Richard Barnwall, Richard Eve∣rard, Gerald Fennel, Richard Belings, and Geoffry Browne) who received the said Answer from them.

9. But withall I do affirm, he might have very well and clearly seen, That none of all those old matters or transgressions how high soever, did reflect on any even of the chief Authors, i. e. were not so much as thought of by the Duke of Or∣mond the King's Lieutenant, in order to any such purpose as the taking away any ones either life or liberty, or to hinder his free living where he pleased in the King∣dom. Witness not only the Bishop of Dromore, who was one of the above six Bishops, and yet when he return'd to Ireland in 1663, was by the Duke both civilly received, and with much respect also treated alwayes after, until he dyed in 1664; but even the Bishop of Ferns, another of those six, and one also, that soon after the year 1650 had, even abroad in France, and particularly by his Printed rela∣tions, and, I think, unjustly, both reflected on, and exasperated the Marquess of Or∣mond, and yet in the above year 64, was by the Duke of Ormond, the King's Lieu∣tenant, heartily forgiven all, and with His Grace's express permission invited home to Ireland by me, yea, and assured both of protection and favour; though Ferns him∣self would not make use thereof, because he would not correct the error of his late Letter in justifying anew the old proceedings of Jamestown. Witness moreover the Archbishop of Tuam John Burk, living then (i. e. an. 1666.) at home in Connaught with all freedom, notwithstanding he had formerly sign'd the very Declaration and Excommunication too of Jamestown, and never made by Retractation, or otherwise, any satisfaction therefore. Nay, witness several other persons in particular, whom I could name (were it necessary) as I my self introduced them to His Grace in the years 1663, 1664, 1665, and 1666. some of them Subscribers of those dis∣loyal Acts of Jamestown, and the rest known violent Nuntiotists all along former∣ly against Him, yet received civilly by Him, without seeming once to remember any their former carriage. And, besides these in particular, witness also in general all the whole body of well nigh 2000 Churchmen, whereof the far greater part had formerly joyn'd with, or submitted unto his Capital Adversaries, the Nuntio and his Prelates, and yet all now indistinctly under His own Government, and by His Authority and Clemency protected at home. So much of Kilfinuragh, and by his occasion.

Of the Bishop of Ardagh, what I can say, is, That notwithstanding his untrue relation, and rash and violent carriage in the Congregation all along, yet his re∣straint was soon over, and he permitted to go whether he pleased, as freely as before, either to his own Diocess, or any other part or place in the Kingdom, and stay there still, or return back to Dublin when he would. That accordingly he went sometimes to the Countrey, though returning soon after to, and residing com∣monly in Dublin, but never in his own Diocess of Ardagh. For which his non-residence, let himself answer the Canons: As likewise for his endless Imposition of hands, i. e. Ordination of so vast a number of all sorts of even the very

most illiterate, and otherwise too in all respects contemptible persons, whereby the order of Priesthood is now despised even amongst those of the Roman-Catho∣lick Profession in that very Countrey; it being now reported to be more easie to find a Priest in Ireland, than a Horse-groom, or Cow-heard. But this not be∣ing my business at present, I leave himself in this point also to answer the Canons of the Church, and his own Conscience, and the great complaints likewise of that kind of moving intervention which hath been all along from the very first begin∣nings of Christianity so severely and manifoldly and penally too forbidden by all the Laws of God and man relating to the ordination of Clerks.

What is my purpose here, is to assure the Reader, That both he, and all the rest of the Members of the Congregation, nay, and of all the Roman-Catholick Irish Clergy in general throughout Ireland, were at full liberty, even after the said Con∣gregation was ended, and notwithstanding even any carriage, or rather miscarriage of any, or all the Fathers therein, or elsewhere, and certainly continued so free during the Duke of Ormond's being Lieutenant of Ireland. Unless peradventure some ma∣licious man will take exception here at the restraint of some few Priests long after, viz. in the year 1648; those Priests I mean, who in some Counties of Ʋlster and Connaught, were for some little time secured upon account, or at least suspition of their favouring and abetting, or at least their not discountenancing the Tories (or Outlaws, Woodkerns, and Highway men) that in great numbers run out, and wast∣ed the Countries. But even these very Priests, though only on such account sei∣zed, were all of them within a little time set free again, entring Security to answer when called upon.

Of all which matters any way relating to the King's Lieutenant, and those Bi∣shops, and their now dissolved Congregation, I would in this place inform the Rea∣der, because I know by experience they have already been falsely represented by some others, and may be yet further by their Historians, if they see nothing extant otherwise in Print to check their false reports.

On the second of those points, or (as I called them before) Appendages, viz. The Procurator's judgment of this Congregation, leading Members thereof, and of their several interests and ends, what I would say here is,

(1.) That when I had seen with my own eyes, and heard with my own ears, the carriage and words, and answers, and final resolves of the Fathers in that Assem∣bly; but more especially had considered their clapping of hands, and stamping of feet, and their denying to debate any thing Theologically, or indeed at all by rea∣son; nay, their absolute and so great slighting of the King's Lieutenant's three se∣veral Messages to them: that even then, I say, St. Gregory Nazianzen's judgment of the Councils which himself had seen, and his aversion too (for their sake) from all other Councils to come (or to be held after) occurred both immediately and frequently to my remembrance; as that holy Saint himself delivers both in his Epistle to Procopius, and (there) in these words: Ego,* 117.3 si vera scribere oportet hoc animo sum, ut omnem Episcoporum Conventum fugiam: quoniam nullius Concilii fi∣nem laetum & faustum vidi, nec quod depulsionem malorum potius, quam accessionem & incrementum habuerit. Pertinaces enim contentiones, & dominandi cupiditates (ac ne quaeso me gravem ac molestum existimes, haec scribentem) ne ullis quidem ver∣bis explicari queant: citiusque aliquis improbitatem arcessetur* 117.4, dum aliis se Judi∣cem praebet, quam ut aliorum improbitatem comprimat. Propterea memet ipse collegi, animaeque securitatem in sola quiete ac solitudine mihi positam judicavi.

(2.) That therefore I could frame no better judgment of this Irish National (Council, Synod, or) Congregation, as to their decisions either of matters of Fact, or Questions of Right whatsoever, than Gregory Nazianzen did of any of those he perstringed so as we see in his own words; especially when I further considered the fate of so many other National Congregations of the Irish Clergy which I had formerly seen in my own dayes, viz. that of Waterford under the Nuncio, and those other of the Bishops after at Cluanmacnoise, Jamestown, and Galway; the same Spirit which possess'd them ruling also, and yet more unreaso∣nably in this of Dublin.

(3.) That consequently my judgment of the leading Members thereof in ge∣neral, must have been certainly no other than, That their immoderate, excessive, endless ambition or desire of both Rule and Gain, and their consequential fear of Rome abroad, and mutual too of one another at home, hurried them all along, and made them resolve so peremptorily, obstinately, desperately, even against all their own inward lights of religious reason, and checks of Christian Conscience. In particular, That the Primat, who could not well aim at a higher Title than amongst them he enjoyed already, had nevertheless continually before his eyes to byass him the temptation of 5000 l. old yearly Revenue belonging to that Title, and there∣fore due to him, as he thought, however possessed by another, viz. the Protestant Archbishop and Primat Margetson. And the Bishop of Ardagh had been a long time solliciting at Rome by his Agent Oliver Plunket, and was now daily ex∣pecting a translation to a better, richer and more honourable See, i. e. from that of Ardagh to the Metropolitical of Dublin, or at least the more beneficial of Meath. And Kilfinuragh too had his thoughts wholly intent on the Succession of Tuam (whose then present old decrepit Archbishop John Burk was for the matter alrea∣dy dead) or, if that failed, on some other good one at least, in exchange of his own so little poor and contemptible See amidst the Rocks of Burrin, that he never desired to visit or see it. And James Dempsy the Vicar-General Apostolick of Dublin, and Capitulary of Kildare, no less had long'd for a new Creation, i. e. the Episcopal Title and Mitre of either See. And John Burk the Apostolical Vicar of Cashil had been likewise a daily Expectant of a new Bull whereby to be created Archbishop of that See, by the sollicitation of his Agent in the Court of Rome Father William Burgat, who yet (it seems) was more successful for him∣self, than for the said Burk that employ'd and maintain'd him there for so many years. And the Provincials of the Dominicans and Franciscans John O Hart, and Antony O Docharty, had been vying one another a long time who should for the like ends, i. e. a Bull and Mitre, or Episcopal Title, ingratiate himself most at Rome, by what arts soever, even by denigrating each one the other. And the Au∣gustinian Provincial Stephen Lynch, had likewise not been without hopes of the like preferment, or at least continuation in his office of Provincialship, being he kept his own Order so entire from signing the controverted Remonstrance, that not one of them did sign it, save only Father John Skirret the Prior of Galway, and who therefore hath been ever since under persecution. And again, the foresaid Bishop of Ardagh, had surely promised himself (if by others too he had not been assured of) such matters indeed, as had no motive of Religion or Catholick Faith in them, when about the beginning of the Session, as he and I on some oc∣casion walked together in the street near the Convention house, and to his questi∣on, viz. Whether if they did not sign the (controverted) Remonstrance, His Grace the Lord Lieutenant would suffer the Bishops depart for France? I had answer'd, Yes, without any doubt, he presently and over-passionately replyed, Then it shall never be sign'd; I have a sure and safe, and commodious harbour in France, even 300 Pistols a year, besides a House and Garden, expecting me there; and therefore I will not sign, nay, will be glad to be turn'd away for not signing. And lastly, That Father Nicholas Nettervil the Jesuite Doctor of Divinity, could not but seem to me as far transported as any other with downright earthly considerations, with∣out any mixture at all of heavenly or spiritual regards, yea, and peradventure somewhat higher flown that way, than most others even of the more Leading Members, when after he had in full Congregation refused to submit to the decisions of the House (for what concern'd the Jesuits continuing or abstaining from fur∣ther use of the pretended priviledges of exempted Regulars, wherein they preju∣dice the Secular Clergy) on this accompt, That he was no member of the Irish Province of his Order, but of that which is called the Province of France, and yet would be and continue a member of this National Congregation, he withall soon after (but whether also after his and Kilfinuragh's publick Speeches, magnifying so speciously and vehemently the French King, yea, expresly endeavouring to shew as of one side the necessity, or at least equity of making even all the six

late Sorbon Declarations as they were in terminis, meant only of, and directed to that King; so of the other to prove even manifest iniquity in the application of them, although mutatis mutandis, or at least of the three latter of them to our English King? or whether before this occasion? And whether in the House, when all the members were present, or not? I do not remember now determi∣nately and certainly. But yet remember very well it was during the Session, and in the presence of many of the Fathers, amongst whom I was my self one, hea∣ring his words, and observing his gesture, and no less admiring his boldness at such a time, when we were in open War with both Holland and France, That he should dare, then I say, to carry himself so rashly in publick before company, as first laying hand on the hilt of his Sword (for he commonly wore one, and certainly that day did) then presently, and in a braving manner to say, I will never lay this Sword of my side, till I go to France, and see the Most Christian King.

(4.) That if the Reader will be further satisfied as to the point of the several interests and ends not only of these more leading men, but of all other the Mem∣bers in general (whether leading, or not leading) of that Congregation, he may be pleased to look back to the First Part, Sect. ix. & x. from pag. 21. to pag. 41. where they are at large both delivered and answer'd.

(5.) And lastly, That notwithstanding all or any thing hitherto said (any where in this Book) of the true genuine apparent (either general or specifical) causes, or even of some one particular and individual such cause or motive as proper to any one person, and I mean said, as if such cause or causes had been the only true original Spring whence the final, inflexible and fatal obstinacy of the Congregation did pro∣ceed; yet I must after all acknowledge, That I am my self now (as I have been still from the very time of that Congregation) more than sufficiently convinced, There was truly one other (but indeed latent) cause or end, and that both peculiar to one only of those leading Members, and peradventure wholly unknown to any of the rest, which had at least as great an influence on the original contrivement, and fierce management of the Resolves of the said National Congregation, as any of the former apparent causes, if not rather much greater (though wholly hidden, or secret) influence than they altogether had. And yet being this hath been so latent a cause or end, that I my self could not so much as once suspect or guess at it, un∣til by meer chance (a few dayes ere the Congregation dissolved) relating to a certain person somewhat of my trouble to see one of those leading men so vio∣lently declaring himself, and furiously hurrying others on against all reason, I had the secret told me with such clear circumstances (and that too by one who had all the best means to know them) that I was convinced; and being it is still neverthe∣less I hope as to others a secret (for me, I am sure, it is:) I cannot give my Rea∣der any other knowledge of it, not even in general (not even without reflecting so much as indirectly on any particular person) than what he may understand by my assuring him, That if he please to read the ΑΝΕΚΔΟΤΑ (or Historia Arcana) of Procopius Caesariensis (whether Alemannus or Eichelius be in the right concerning that History) and therein consider well what kind of thing that was to which this Author attributes not only the original influencing of Justinian in all those wicked counsels, and prodigious evils related of, or ascribed unto him (whether truly or falsely* 117.5) in that Book, but the consequential ruining of Belisarius, even amidst the glory of all his victories, he may also thereby easily guess at the foresaid latent cause or end; especially when I do likewise assure him, this was a concernment in some such other unhappy thing. Nor may any one justly blame me for this obscurity, whether of relation or reflection, who considers of one side the Laws of History, and on the other the rules of Equity prescribed by Cap. In Scripturis. dist. 69. taken from and composed of that saying of Constan∣tine the Great, which is recorded in Theodoret l. 1. c. xi.

Concerning the third Point, or Appendage, viz. How immediately after the Na∣tional Congregation had been dissolved, the doctrine of Allegiance in Fifteen several Propositions was debated for a whole Month by a select number of Divines, you are to observe,

1. That when I had withdrawn for a day or two from the Congregation, with some thoughts of not entring to their House any more, if I saw them not coming to more sober counsels, yet retaining still my former affection to them, and withall considering they still pretended to come home to the substance of the controverted Remonstrance, though out of respect to the several Censures of the Roman Dicta∣tors, and Louain Doctors, they would not to the form or words thereof: I re∣solved to try them in this also. And therefore I drew up another Form of the sub∣stance of that, i. e. of the Doctrine, Protestation and Promises of Allegiance contain'd in the said Remonstrance, and fram'd all into Fifteen several Heads, Paragraphs, or complex'd either Propositions or Declarations, or both.

2. That when I had done this, I sent for the Reverend Father Bernardinus Barry a Franciscan Reader Jubilate of Divinity, one of the Members of the House, and of their ablest and most judicious Divines, and one also, that although he had never sign'd the controverted Remonstrance, yet had often the two years past de∣clared himself fully and clearly before many for the lawfulness of signing it but abstain'd nevertheless of his own part to sign, because he pretended to the Pro∣vincialship of the Franciscan Order in the next Chapter, which was to be held in July then at hand, and feared the greater number of Votes would be against him, if he had sign'd that Formulary. Besides that, having been formerly bred at Rome, and been after Commissary General over the Irish Franciscan Col∣ledges at Prague and Louain, and being now ancient, and consequently as on the one side he knew himself in a fair capacity of a Bishoprick, es∣pecially when once chosen Provincial, so on the other he foresaw by his own ex∣perimental knowledge abroad, that certainly he could expect nothing from the Roman Court, if he had once sign'd. However, he it was I sent for to come to me where I was when I had that Paper of the Fifteen Heads fairly engross'd: and having told him my ends therein, desired him to move the reading of it in the House, and both apptobation of, and concurrence thereunto by signature, as a medium to reconcile all differences, if the Fathers continued still their resolution of not offending the Court of Rome, by signing the Form so mightily, and so lately too in the last Letters decryed by that Court.

3. That Father Barry having approved of both Paper and design, and promi∣sed his utmost devoir, and parted, and then in the Congregation offered several times to read those Heads, and yet either out of want of courage or willingness, failed in his attempt, and other matters (viz. those of the Sorbon Declarations) intervening, and the Fathers proving resty in all matters, and therefore at last dis∣solved (as you have seen) but their ablest Divines staying in Town for some time, and other Divines too of the ablest in the whole Nation being likewise then in Town, some out of curiosity, and some others of them staying for the Provincial Chapter of the Franciscan Order, which was to be held in that same City of Dub∣lin, and sit upon the 25 of July (i. e. within a Month:) I was desired to call to∣gether all the said Divines, both these and those, and have in that interval (i. e. un∣til the day appointed for the Franciscan Provincial Chapter) the doctrine of the controverted Formulary, in all parts thereof, throughly debated by them, since the National Congregation would not do themselves, or others, that right. And that accordingly, and to such purpose, I did invite not only the said Divines, but all other Fathers in Town (whether so great Clerks or not, and whether against or for the said Doctrine and Formulary) to meet at the same House, and in the same Rooms, wherein the National Congregation and their Committees used to sit; having to this purpose hired again at my own charges the said Rooms for another Month.

4. That hereupon the said Divines meeting, and having chosen a Secretary to write their final resolutions upon each question after a full debate thereof, I pro∣duced both the controverted Remonstrance, and that Paper analysing it into those

complex Propositions or Declarations which I had formerly given to Father Bar∣ry, but altered somewhat with new additions to make out more fully the true in∣tent and scope of the said Remonstrance, even also in particular against the late wicked Positions of Extrinsick Probability, and to comprehend moreover clearly the six Sorbon Propositions, with an express Declaration too both against the Cen∣sures of the Louain Theological Faculty, and Letters of Cardinal Barberin, and the two Bruxel Internuncio's, Hieronymus de Vecchiis, and Jacobus Rospigliosi. And that they all, having seen that Paper, and heard it read publickly, agreed to debate it after throughly from first to last, taking apart each Paragraph, and each single Proposition too of those many contained in so few complex ones.

5. That the Rule observed by them was, not to depart from the first Proposi∣tion, and so for the second, third, fourth, &c. until every one that pleased, or saw cause to object any thing, had objected all he could say, and been throughly satis∣fied either by me that was commonly the Defendant all along, or by some other of my opinion on the point in question: and when all were agreed, the Secretary to write their such agreement even as to the least tittle of the very words of it: or, if any word were in the Proposition, against which word any of them continued still unsatisfied, then to change that word, or leave it wholly out, according as they had all at last unanimously agreed it should be done.

6. That during the time they continued that Meeting, which was about a Month (and excepting Sundayes and Holydayes, they ordinarily met (as far as I can remember) every day, or at least other day, according as they adjourned their Meeting) they passed through, and concluded unanimously upon the first eleven whole entire Paragraphs, or complex Propositions, even to a tittle as you have them Printed in this present Work, immediately after the Fourth Treatise. See there pag. 80. For albeit this Part or Treatise and Section of the Book, where I am at present, were the more proper place to give the said Propositions of Alle∣giance; yet forasmuch as they are already Printed where I now told (I having thought fit for some Reasons to give them in that place when some five or six years since I Printed the three next following Treatises, viz. the Second, Third, and Fourth, before this present First which I am now ending) and that to Re∣print them here again were needless, and but increase of Charge in the Printing-house; therefore I direct the Reader to the said Treatise 4. pag. 80. where he may see those Propositions, and under this Title: The Fourteen Propositions of F. P. W. or the doctrine of Allegiance, which the Roman-Catholick Clergy of Ire∣land may with a safe Conscience, and at this time ought in prudence to subscribe una∣nimously and freely, as that only which can secure His Majesty of them, as much as hand or subscription can, and that only too which may answer the grand objection of the inconsistency of Catholick Religion, and by consequence of the toleration of it, with the safety of a Protestant Prince or State.

7. That in this Title may be seen what end I had both in writing those Propo∣sitions, and having them so debated; even the same end which the controverted Re∣monstrance it self, and all my Books written, and Persecutions too suffered in de∣fence thereof, had hitherto, and shall have hereafter.

8. That in the same Title I attributed these Propositions to F. P. W. viz. to my self, not so much because they were wholly my own draught, and had not a word either added to, or detracted from them by the said Divines, save only in one or two places at most, where to satisfie some of the Fathers, I mollified the ex∣pression of my own Copy in a word or two, or rather indeed left out, and wholly blotted those words; but chiefly because the Franciscan Provincial Chapter ha∣ving come on and sate before the Divines had run over, and throughly debated any of the three last Propositions or Paragraphs, and the same Divines being conse∣quently forc'd to adjourn for that time, and such new distractions too having hap∣ned in that Provincial Chapter as occasioned the departure of several of those very Divines who debated the former eleven Propositions, there was no further meeting held either about the examination of the other remaining three last, or subscription of any of all the Fourteen by these Divines, as was at first intended.

Which want of subscription by them to those even eleven Propositions (albeit otherwise throughly debated and approved by them all unanimously, in the very terms even to a syllable wherein I give them printed, Treat. 4. pag. 80. 81 and 82.) and want also of through examination by them (i. e. by the said Divines) of any of the three last (although otherwise read publickly by them, and not at all excepted against in that reading by any of their Colledge) made me not to ven∣ture on publishing the said (even so much as the first eleven) Propositions in their name, but only in my own all the Fourteen, until they were (or happen'd I mean to be hereafter) actually subscribed by others. Because if I had done other∣wise, I was not sure but some would peradventure say I had no authority for doing so, being I had no actual subscription yet; and consequently was not sure but such Title involving others, and consequently the Propositions themselves would be disown'd at least by some of them. But I was certain of my self to own both my own Title, and whole Work, even every individual of the Fourteen Propositions to the least word and syllable.

9. That for my change of stile, in the Thirteenth (Paragraph, or Complex) Proposition (which contains the three last of the six Sorbon Declarations, made by that Faculty in the year 1663.) or change thereof, I mean from assertory (of the outward object) to promissory, or rather only declaratory of an inward un∣alterable resolution of mind (whereas in the eleven former it is assertory; but in the said thirteenth only promissory, i. e. or declaratory, as now said, containing only a promise, or rather declaring our unalterable resolution never to approve, or practise according to any Doctrine or Positions which in particular or general assert the contrary of any one even of the very three last of those six late Sorbon Declara∣tions made against the extravagant and uncanonical pretences of the Pope) the rea∣son inducing me to this kind of change, and to an abstaining also therein from any kind of Censure against those contrary Doctrines or Positions (how otherwise false and wicked soever in themselves) was, That I feared several of the said Di∣vines would hardly be drawn to concur unto, approve of, and least of all subscribe an assertory expression (viz. upon the matter of the said three last Sorbon De∣clarations) but doubted not they would easily be persuaded to come off to such a promissory, or such a declaratory one without any Censure of the contrary Doctrines. For otherwise had I (in the Copy or Draught proposed to them) express'd fully my own sense, and what I would my self dare maintain publickly even under my own hand, I had done it as to the outward object, i. e. in plain terms categorically either asserting or denying the outward object, or subject (which you please) to be so or so. And therefore 1. as to the Fourth of those Sorbon Propositions, I would have spoken thus: The Pope hath no authority which is repugnant to the Supreme Royal Jurisdiction of our King: no nor any which is so much as contrary to the true liberties of the Irish Church, and Canons received in the same Kingdom; and by consequence it ought not, nor cannot be maintain'd (for example) That the Pope hath any authority at all to depose Bishops against the said Canons. And 2. as to the Fifth, I would have express'd my self in this manner: The Pope is not only not above the General Council, but is under every Oecumenical Council truly such. As likewise 3. and as to the Sixth, I would have no less plainly thus: The Pope is not infallible, not even in questions of Right arising about the Articles of divine Faith, but certainly fallible in all even such points, if (or wherein) he hath not the consent of the Catholick or Ʋniversal Church. Nay further, I had to such my Assertions added as smart Censures of the contrary doctrines as any of those are which you find in any of the former eleven Paragraphs or Propositions.

But my business, or design, in drawing those 14 Propositions, and consequently the Thirteenth of them, having been partly to draw them so, as I might rational∣ly expect to prevail with the Colledge of Divines for their concurrence, I judg'd it necessary to alter my stile from assertory, to promissory, and make use of no Cen∣sure at all when I came to the said Thirteenth; especially considering that the pro∣mise (and declaration thereof) made in that Thirteenth, is delivered in such words as must of necessity argue though not a formal, yet a virtual assertion (because

a supposition) of each of these three last Sorbon Propositions in that very ma••ner I have now presently express'd, or of the truth of them, and by consequence al∣so a virtual censure and condemnation of the contrary Tenets. For otherwise how could We declare truly, honestly, and conscientiously, That it is our unalterable resolution, proceeding freely from the persuasion of a good Conscience, and shall be ever with Gods grace, First never to approve, or practise according to any Positions which in particular or general assert any thing contrary to His Majesties Royal Rights or Prerogatives, &c. and consequently never to approve of or practise any thing con∣trary to the genuine Liberties of the Irish Church, &c? Secondly, not to maintain, defend, or teach, that the Pope is above a General Council? Thirdly, also never to maintain, defend or teach, That the Pope alone (under what consideration soever, &c.) is infallible in his definitions made without the consent, &c? as at large in the said Thirteenth complex Proposition, or Paragraph. How I say could We, or any persons whatsoever, declare truly, honestly and conscientiously, in such terms, such a resolution as to such matters, unless we or they were at the same time inwardly and throughly persuaded of the verity of those three assertory single Propositions (which I say are previously, and at least virtually supposed) and (by consequence also) of the falsity of the opposite doctrines? For no man, at least no Divine, Preacher, Confessor, Leader and Guide of others by his Calling, and Function, may or can honestly profess in publick to the World such an unalterable resolution, unless he be inwardly persuaded that doctrine he disclaims in is false, and the con∣trary true: because the Apostle, and reason too assures us, That whatever pro∣ceeds not from Conscience, is a sin: and consequently that it is unlawful for any man, at least who is bound to be the spiritual guide of others, to profess (especi∣ally in such manner) such a resolution against doctrines (pretended to be Religi∣ous and Evangelical) of the falsity of which he is not throughly convinced; be∣ing it is clear enough, that want of such conviction, would argue his Soul to be either habitually or actually depraved (i. e. resolved to run wilfully the hazard of opposing an Evangelical Truth) and therefore to be in a wicked state.

10. That the foresaid Colledge of Divines, consisted partly of graduated, or licensed, and instituted Professors of Divinity, and partly of other qualified Fa∣thers, but who were also Divines, although not, as the former, instituted Professors to teach in the Schools; and that the names, and qualities too or titles of all both these and those, I mean as many of them as I can exactly now remember to have ordinarily come to that meeting, were as followeth, viz.

• Fr: Antony O Docharty, Minister Pro∣vincial of St. Francis's Order in Ire∣land.
• Fr: Thomas Dillon, Vicar Provincial of the Discalceat Carmelits in Ireland.
• Laurence Archbold, a Secular, and Parish-Priest, formerly Vicar General of Dublin.
• George Plunket, a Secular Parish-Priest, and Archdeacon of Meath.
• Fr: Antony Gearnon of St. Francis's Or∣der, several times formerly Guardian, viz. of the Convents of Dundalk, Dublin &c.
• Fr: John Reynolds of St. Dominick's Or∣der, Protonotary Apostolical, &c.
• Fr: Thomas Talbot of St. Francis's Or∣der, one of (Her late Maiesty) the Queen Mother's Chaplains.
• Fr: Valentin Brown of St. Francis's Or∣der, Reader Jubilat of Divinity, and formerly Minister Provincial of Ire∣land.
• Angel Goulding, a Secular, Parish-Priest of St. Owens in Dublin, and Doctor of Divinity.
• Fr: Bernardinus Barry of St. Francis's Order, and Reader Jubilat of Di∣vinity.
• Fr: Thomas Harold of the same Order, Reader Jubilat of Divinity.
• Fr: Simon Wafer of the same Order, Reader of Divinity.
• Fr: John Grady of the same Order, Rea∣der of Divinity.
• Fr: Peter Walsh of the same Order, Reader of Divinity, and Procurator, &c.

In all Fourteen; whereof Nine Franciscans, three of the Secular Clergy, one of the Carmelits, and one of St. Dominick's Order; and this last, viz. Father John Reynolds, was also their Secretary, or he that writ down what they had agreed upon, and kept the Papers.

This is a true account of the occasion, end, time and manner also of debating, as likewise of the persons who debated the said Fifteen Propositions, or Doctrine of Allegiance contain'd in them.

And now there remains but a few other particulars I would have here briefly advertised. 1. That several other Churchmen at several times came to that lit∣tle meeting; as it was free and open for any that pleased to come, and go when he would, and object whatever he thought fit; but that I do not remember any of those others that came so to have objected any thing. 2. That Father Harold was he, as he is a very able man, that disputed most, and press't hard against me on the controverted points or arising difficulties, though he concurr'd at last with my sense on every point. 3. That where I speak of a select number of Divines, by that word select, I would signifie only those who of the foresaid whole num∣ber of Fourteen were School-professors of Divinity; who were indeed but seven, whereof I am sure that five were as select as any our Countrey could then af∣ford. 4. That amongst the same foresaid number of Fourteen, there were three who had been actual Members of the late National Congregation, viz. Antony Do∣charty Provincial of the Franciscans, Thomas Dillon Provincial of the Carmelits, and Angel Goulding Doctor of Divinity. 5. That six of the whole number had neither before nor after sign'd the controverted Remonstrance, viz. Antony Dochar∣ty, Thomas Dillon, Bernardinus Barry, John Grady, Angel Goulding, George Plunket. 6. And lastly, That I have been by so much the more exact in giving the particulars of this Colledge of Divines (held after the National Congregation was dissolved) and of the matters debated therein, by how much I found it, and my self also even for it, traduced by false relations thereof sent over Seas. For my Lord Bishop of Ferns, out of his own candid nature, and some kindness also to me, was pleased to let me know so much, though not before the year 1669.

The words of his Letter, dated the 6th of October said year 1669, to the pre∣sent purpose, are these: Father Peter Walsh is said to have used fraud and force in the Congregation of the Clergy at Dublin, anno 1666, and that he kept an Anti-Congregation of his own faction to vex them. I saw a relation, sent over, of that. I saw also severe lines of a great Cardinal to that purpose. Whereunto he further adds kindly some further notice (viz. of the late cause of their anger against me at Rome) in these other words: It was ill taken by all, That after Cardinal Franciscus Barberinus's Letter in His Holinesse's name to the Clergy, he (viz. Fa∣ther Peter Walsh) no way lowr'd his Sail, but remained obstinate and insolent. I likewise saw a great Man's Letter, I mean a Roman, termed him and Caron Apostates.

But I hope, as it hath appear'd manifestly before in the former Sections, that I have not used in any manner, not even in the least degree whatsoever, any kind of either fraud or force in that Congregation: so by what I have said hitherto in this present Section, and third Appendage therein, it doth no less now appear, that I kept no Anti-Congregation at all, much less any such of my own faction to vex them the foresaid National Congregation. For (to pass over now as not material, that the foresaid Colledge of Divines was not held at the same time with, but first assem∣bled after the Congregation had dissolved, and four parts at least of five departed to their own respective dwellings in other parts of Ireland) neither can it be said, 1. That that Colledge was of my faction: being it had from the beginning, even the first day thereof almost one moyety of Anti-Remonstrants, and was free and open for ten times so many of that sort to enter it after at any time they pleased. Nor 2. That it was called either to determine any thing contrary to what the Congregation had professed, or as much as to debate on that which they had concluded. Nor 3. That it did in truth determine or debate any such matter. No nor 4. can it be said that any

such was the design or scope of calling that Colledge: whereas interessed Members of the Congregation were to compose it; and that after all, nothing was to be therein carried by the greater vote, but by the stronger reason, and clearer con∣viction, and full concurrence at last of every individual person. And therefore as that Colledge ought not to be, nay, could not in any reason, or with any truth be called an Anti-Congregation: so ought it be said, 1, To have been composed not only not of those of my faction (or not of them more than of those of the contrary) but not of any persons whatsoever that might in any wise, according to their own rule proceed factiously, if otherwise they would. And, 2, To have been kept for a much better end than to vex them, or than that could be of vexing the Congregation. Unless peradventure any can shew, That to secure His Majesty of the Roman-Catholick Clergy of Ireland, as much as hand or subscription can, and thereby to answer home, and fully refute the grand objection of the inconsistency of Catholick Religion, and by consequence of the toleration of it, with the safety of a Protestant Prince or State, be not a much better end than that of vexing the Con∣gregation. Or at least can prove, That to secure so His Majesty, and to answer so that grand objection, was not the end which Peter Walsh proposed to himself in calling, or keeping that Colledge. Which yet can never be proved: being so directly even against the very (so long since printed) Title of those Fourteen Propositions, which he prepared and presented to be, as they were indeed, the only matters to be agreed on by the Divines of that same Colledge.

Now if out of all it doth not appear, that I kept no kind of Anti-congrega∣tion, much less any such of my own faction to vex them the foresaid National Con∣gregation: I know not how any thing can appear. For the often mention'd Col∣ledge of Divines, held upon the Fifteen Propositions, being cleared of that scanda∣lous name of an Anti-congregation, there was no other held by me, or by any other besides me, to be charg'd with it: because neither I, nor any other hold any kind of other Colledge, Congregation, or Meeting, while that National Congregation sate, besides it self; nor after it dissolved, but only the foresaid Colledge of Divines upon the Fifteen Propositions.

A Letter indeed (and but that one Letter you have before (pag. 696.) ad∣dress'd to the National Congregation it self, yea, address'd by way of humble de∣sire and Petition) was, during the Session, subscribed by Eighteen of my Friends (or of those who had formerly subscribed the Remonstrance of 1661.) and de∣livered to the Speaker, and read in the House. But I assure the Reader, That the Fathers who sign'd that Letter, kept neither Anti-congregation, nor Congregation: because neither Colledge, nor any Meeting at all in any house, or place, or time, or upon any other business, or even upon that very Letter; whereas only some of them first, and others after met (some by chance, and some perhaps of purpose walking in a Garden hard by the House where the National Assembly sate) as they were desired, and they themselves thought also good, did singly sign that Letter.

And yet after, and notwithstanding all such known manifest Truths, I believe my Lord of Ferns did see (as he sayes he did) that false relation sent over to Flan∣ders out of Ireland, and those severe lines also of a great Cardinal to that purpose. But who can hinder either the lying of Lyars, or even the severe lines of an in∣terested Cardinal on such a Subject?

As for the other friendly advertisement given me in the same paper, and next place therein by my Lord of Ferns, viz. How it was taken ill by all, that after Cardinal Franciscus Barberinus, &c: because it doth not properly or indeed at all concern my present third Appendage, and that I have elsewhere at large in a more proper place answer'd it, I will only say here 1. That as you may see before in this Trea∣tise (viz. pag. 632.) that Letter of Cardinal Francis Barberin, which the Bishop means here, so you may see also there (pag. 636, 637, 638, and 639.) my brief animadversions both on that same, and other Letters too as well of the said Barbe∣rin, as of the three Bruxels Internuncio's (immediately succeeding one after ano∣ther these ten years past) Hieronymus de Vecchiis, Jacobus Rospigliosi, and the last of all ........ Airoldi. 2. That if I had lowr'd my Sail in any kind of way or

sense the said Cardinal desired, I had by doing so renounced the Catholick Faith as to one essential (or at least material and necessary) point thereof, and even betrayed my Countrey to boot; and consequently by doing so, or complying with the Cardinal in any way, must have at the same time profess'd my self an im∣pious Rebel against the Church, and a perfidious Traytor against the King, Crown, and Kingdom. 3. That refusing to do so, is so far from remaining either obstinate or insolent, that (without any doubt) it is, on the contrary, remaining constant and resolute in the very best cause I could (and was in Conscience obliged to) un∣dertake and maintain against the corrupters both of Loyalty and Christianity. 4. That, being it appears now more than manifestly, more than abundantly, as well out of the Louain Ʋniversities Censure (which I have given pag. 102.) and the Franciscan Belgick Declaration (pag. 116.) as out of the said Cardinal Barberin, and the two Internuncio's de Vecchiis, and Rospigliosi, their own proper many Letters (first, pag. 16. and 17. and then pag. 513, 515, 531. and again pag. 634, 636. and further yet pag. 647, and 648) and also out of the Belgian Commissary General's Citation or Summons to Father Caron, and rest of the Sub∣scribers, dated and sent in the year 1663, (pag. 104.) and moreover out of both Father Caron's, and my own Answer also to that Summons (from pag. 105. to pag. 115.) and further yet out of my own two (and they also very long) Let∣ters written to the Internuncio Hieronymus de Vecchiis (pag. 533. and from thence to pag. 555.) yea, also out of my special animadversions on the foresaid Cardinal Barberin's last Letter in the year 1666, (See them from pag. 636. to pag. 639.) and my former observations too particularly on two Letters of de Vecchiis (from pag. 516. to pag. 522.) yea, and out of my long disputes in so many intire Sections consequently, against the four principal grounds of the Louain Ʋniver∣sity Censure (pag. 117. to pag. 487.) nay, out of even this whole History, or First Tome thereof (as it shall hereafter yet as clearly appear out of the Second Tome, and very great variety also even of other Arguments therein, than any given in this First Tome) That the only ground of terming Me, and Caron Apostates, was, and is our subscribing, promoting, and defending by word and print, The Loyal Irish Remonstrance (presented to the King in the year 1661. S. V.) or of the Doctrine of Allegiance, and both profession and promise of Obedience (contained in the Remonstrance) to His Majesty in all Temporal things, according to the Laws of the Land, and withal our constant refusing to retract our said manual Subscription: therefore I may with all justice and confidence, answer that great Man, or great Roman (who ever he be, whose Letter the Bishop of Ferns saw, that termed Me and Caron Apostates) and may answer him so (I mean also) with all truth and certainty,

1. That if by the term Apostates, or rather abstract thereof, he mean to sig∣nifie, or we understand that which is commonly or usually imported thereby, and that indeed which to perstringe, hurt or annoy us, would be the only material sense to be intended by him, viz. a backsliding, or falling off either (first) from the profession of true Christianity (or of some Article thereof:) or (second∣ly) from our Sacerdotal Function: or (thirdly at least) from the Regular In∣stitute of St. Francis, to which by solemn vows we have obliged our selves: then certainly it is not Walsh and Caron are Apostates in such proper usual harmful meaning, nor even in any at all of these three respects now given; but he him∣self and his Associates in terming us so that are indeed the true Apostates in that sense, and Apostates too I mean in the very first (and consequently worst) of the said three relations, i. e. Apostates from Catholick Faith, and Christian Doctrine (because from an essential Article, and Evangelical necessary truth) and from reason also to boot. Or, without question, That the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul, and all the holy Fathers following them immediately one after another for a Thousand Years, till Pope Hildebrands dayes of Antichristian usurpation, were grand Apostates in that very sense, and first relation also.

2. That if the said great Roman, who ever he be, meant only to term us so in a diminutive, restrain'd, improper, unusual, forreign and false acceptation, meaning, or sense of the word Apostate, or in that which only may (according to the generical or etymological sense) import an Apostacy, backsliding, or fal∣ling off from the worldly, corrupt, and unjust interest of the Roman Court, i. e. from any defence, assertion, belief or good opinion of their tyrannical and con∣tinual, not only oppressing the Liberties of all other Churches, but invading the Rights of all other even Secular Princes, if I say he meant only this, neither I, nor Caron (when alive) would be much concern'd to answer him. Though we could say, that in that very case, or in this very generical, or etymological meaning, his supposition had been false; being we were never at any time in our lives for that wicked interest; and therefore could not be, in any kind of even generical or ety∣mological sense, Apostates from it.

In which respect, as I can speak assuredly for my self, That even from the beginning, ever since I understood any thing in Controversial Divinity, I both abhorr'd, and upon occasion declared against the unlawful encroach∣ments of either the worldly Court, or particular Church (which you please) of Rome, on the Temporal Rights of Supreme Secular Princes, and both un∣canonical and tyrannical either usurpation, or administration of other Patri∣archal, National, Provincial, Diocesan Churches, throughout the earth: so in behalf of Father Caron (who dyed at Dublin in the Month of May 1666, a lit∣tle before the National Congregation there assembled) and of his manifest, read, un∣doubted conscientiousness all along in both signing first, and defending after the controverted Remonstrance, and alwayes to his death refusing to retract his Sub∣scription, or alter his opinion and profession as to that matter, I can no less assu∣redly speak, That when he was on his death-bed, even after he had received the Sa∣crament of Extreme Ʋnction, and (as far as I remember) his last viaticum too of the Holy Eucharist, nay (as I am sure) when he was every moment expecting death, without any kind of hopes of recovery, and being in this condition (how∣ever still in his perfect senses) he was told by me and others, it had been bruted of him abroad in the City, even amongst Lords and Ladies, That being come to this point, he retracted his signature and defence thereof, and his whale Doctrine or Books of that matter, He presently desired me to call in to his Chamber the whole Communi∣ty of the Franciscan Fathers (who were then next room to him at Supper, for it was in their Dublin Convent, he lay sick, prepared himself to death, and there also dyed even the very next day (as far as I can remember) after I had so cal∣led the Fathers. However, what is to my purpose is certain, viz. That as soon as they were all entered, the Commissary General (who a little before came from Spain) Father Mark Brown heading them, our dying Father Redmund Caron, having first declared the cause of his sending for them at that time to be the fore∣said false report; and then his trouble that any religious men should be so unrea∣sonably desirous to advance, or cherish a Faction as to invent lyes of a dying man that was every moment expecting to appear at the Tribunal of the great Judge, to give there an account of both his life and doctrine; in the third place he de∣clared unto them, and desired them all to bear witness of his Declaration, That as he was now suddenly to answer God, he both subscribed first the Remonstrance, and engaged after in defence of that Formulary and Subscription thereof, accord∣ing to the best and clearest dictates of his inward Conscience, without having ever at any time since entertained the least thought of fear, doubt or scruple of any errour, sin, or unlawfulness, either in doing so, or in not retracting what he had so done: If not (sayes he) only in, or as to some sharp words or not so respectful expressions against my Superiour the Pope; if peradventure, and wheresoever in my Writings or Books any such words or expressions are, or by others may be apprehended to be. For such unnecessary circumstantials of words any way savouring of passion, I beg God heartily forgiveness. But for other matters whatsoever that belong necessa∣rily to the substance of the Doctrine, I never had nor can have any remorse of Con∣science: because I believe it to be the Doctrine of our Saviour Christ, by whose blessed

merits I hope to be saved, and before whose Tribunal I am now to appear. And then in the fourth and last place, converting himself to me, and desiring me to sit by him on the Bed-side, and I acordingly sitting there, he further declared his Consci∣ence to be, That I was bound in Conscience to prosecute still even after his death that matter, and continue that defence or advancement of that Doctrine which in his life∣time I had for so many years, and notwithstanding so much contradiction main∣tain'd.

So much truly of that learned, modest, pious man, and so much I mean, and such testimony given by himself at Deaths door, of his own conscientiousness all along in that quarrel for which my Lord of Ferns great Roman termed him Apo∣state, I can declare with as much assurance and confidence as any thing of my self.

And (were it to purpose) the like I could relate of another both learned per∣son and illustrious Prelate too, viz. Thomas Dese, quondam Bishop of Meath, and a Doctor of Paris, who likewise in former times, i. e. in the unhappy War-time had been no less engaged with me in the great Controversie against the Nuncio Ri∣nuccini, and all his Partizans, and Censures of Interdict and Excommunication; which great Controversie (because it all was concerning the independency of the Supreme Temporal power as such from the Church in meer Temporal ma••ters) must consequently in effect have been the same with this other about the Remon∣strance. Of that excellent Bishop, so much persecuted for several years by the rest of his contemporary Irish Bishops for not approving the Rebellion of the year 1641, as lawful in point of Conscience, I could relate, how when I had of purpose come to visit his Lordship on his death-bed in the Town of Galway, and Colledge or House of the Jesuites there (and then this was, if I remember well, when the Parliament Forces were of one side blocking up that Town; and how∣ever I am sure it was much about the year 1650, or 1651.) his Lordship taking me by the hand before all those were present, declared in like manner his Consci∣ence, as Father Caron did many years after. For although his Lordships every indivi∣dual word then, as to the bare literal sound, I cannot at this distance of time ex∣actly remember; yet I am certain he spake the sense of these words: Father Walsh, I am heartily glad to see you before I dye, that you may hear the Declaration of a dying man, as you had his approbation when he was more like to live. For I now de∣clare, That I have purely out of the internal sentiments of my Soul, approved at large under my hand your Book of Queries. That were it to be done again, I would do it; because I learned no other Doctrine from the Catholick Church on the subject of that Book, but what is therein clearly asserted. And therefore that, especially as to that matter, I now depart in peace of Conscience to appear at the great Tribunal; where nevertheless I hope for mercy, not for any justice of my own, but through the merits of our common Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

This death-bed Declaration of this Learned man, and constantly vertuous Pre∣late, I could alledge with as great assurance as I could Father Carons, were it to purpose to alledge either in this place against the foresaid great Roman, who ter∣med Me and Caron Apostates. And yet I think it may be to some purpose if I tell him, as I do now, That the death-bed judgment of even only two such learn∣ed pious men, so delivered to my self, had more weight and strength to confirm me in my own former resolutions, than the reviling terms of Two thousand even the very greatest Romans, written or spoken by them in the dayes or time of their cor∣poral health, and worldly pomp, and on the subject in controversie betwixt us, could, shall, or ought to have for deterring me from, or at all weakning me in the profession and defence of the Christian Doctrine I have learned from my youth, and learn'd from the Catholick Church (I mean) on that same subject.

However, and because I know, or at least may rationally think, such Romans, and others too who have reviled me and Caron, in such manner by terming us A∣postates, meant certainly to charge us with that which is properly, commonly or usually imported amongst the vulgar by (the abstract) Apostacy, taken in an in∣famous sense, and some certain respect or species thereof; and that nevertheless

they only (or at least principally and fixedly) intend to charge us (not in the first or second, but third respect, before given, or third degree, or rather indeed properly third species of Apostacy, i. e. from the Regular Institute of St. Francis, &c. as likewise that so high a charge against us they ground solely upon our not appearing beyond Seas when summon'd by the Belgick Commissary General, &c. as if we had by such non-appearance (yea, notwithstanding any reason to the con∣trary) forfeited and fallen utterly from that Regular Obedience whereunto by solemn Vow we tyed our selves, and consequently turn'd Apostates ab Ordine Re∣gulari, or ab Instituto Religioso Divi Francisci; and yet not only because this is not the proper place to handle that matter; but also because the whole Third Part of my Latin Work, intituled, Hibernica, &c, and my late printed Letter also in Latin ad Haroldum, or to Father Harold, are written chiefly to clear us from any sinful disobedience or contumacy in the case, and by consequence from such Apo∣stacy (for without such disobedience or contumacy, it is clear, that such Apostacy, as grounded only on sinful disobedience) must of necessity vanish: and further yet, because I have some eight years since, in my second long Letter to the Bruxel-In∣ternuncio Hieronymus de Vecchiis, which Letter may be seen Translated into English in this very Book (Treat. 1. Part. I. pag. 538. and from thence to pag. 555.) sufficiently treated of the very subject: therefore I will not give my self any further (new, and needless) trouble on that same point again in this place; but remit the Reader to such other Books, and other places also in this same Book, where he may find as much satisfaction as can be desired, To clear in all respects whatsoever that very matter, i. e. To evince as clear as the Sun shines in his brightest meridian glory, That not even so much as that very species, or kind of Apostasie, which is or ought to be only grounded on the sin of disobedience or contumacy against some lawful Commands or Summons, can be with any justice or truth objected to Me and Caron, or to either of us. No, not even now, in the year 1673, to me alone; though I confess that I have my self alone, since the 20th of September 1669, at several times opposed (but Canonically op∣posed) three several Citations or Summons and Commands (at the instance, and by the procurement of the late Bruxel-Internuncio Airoldi, and other Roman Ministers abroad, and their Irish Emissaries both abroad in other Countries, and at home in Ireland, but of purpose to suppress utterly the doctrine of the Re∣monstrance) sent one after another from beyond Seas, yea, and from the lawful or acknowledged General Superiours of my own Order, enjoining me under pain of Excommunication ipso facto latae, to appear before them in Forreign Countries, and within the term of time peremptorily prefix'd by them.

So much here by occasion of that second friendly Advertisement given me by my Lord of Ferns, or of that great Romans having termed Me, and Caron Apo∣states, and whose Letter terming us so, my Lord of Ferns did see; although otherwise to treat here of that matter, was (I know) Forreign enough to the main scope of my third Appendage, which had been sufficiently treated before. And therefore now

There remains only the fourth and last of all the Appendages, viz. A Paper of Animadversions given to the Lord Lieutenant, and His Grace's Commands laid on the Procurator. Upon or by occasion of which Paper, I have no more to say, but

1. That when the Commissioners of the National Congregation, had presented His Grace the Lord Lieutenant their new Remonstrance, or new Recognition, and His Grace, taking time to consider and examine throughly the import thereof, had shewed it to such Lords of the Kings Privy Council in that Kingdom, whom He thought fit to consult in that affair, before He gave His Answer to the Congre∣gation (which long'd very much to know whether He would accept thereof as satisfactory) one of the said Lords (viz. the Earl of Anglesey, then Vice-Trea∣surer of Ireland, now at the writing hereof Lord Privy Seal in England) drew briefly some material Animadversions upon it, shewing its insignificancy and un∣satisfactoriness in, or as to the main points wherein the Fathers should have decla∣red themselves.

2. That soon after they (i. e. that Congregation) had dissolved, His Grace was pleased to tell me of that Paper of Animadversions, and together give me the very Original: of which Original, as I have it by me still, so I give here a true exact Copy, viz.

Animadversions on the Remonstrance or Protestation of the Romish Clergy of Ireland, subscribed the 15th day of June 1666.

WE Your Majesties Subjects] His Majesties satisfaction is the pretence of both these Remonstrances, of this, and of the former presented by Peter Walsh the Procurator of the Romish Clergy of Ireland 1661. If the former had not been in some degree satisfactory in England, it had not been offered to their Subscriptions here. Therefore in differing from that, they must design either to offer more, which is not pretended; or less, which will not be enough; or only to alter the expression.

But as to that, it is not probable that they would put themselves to any stress to find out better words to signifie their meaning, than those which have already obtained some acceptance. It may therefore be more than suspected, that they decline that first Remonstrance, because it is not lyable to so many reserves and uncertainties as they would have it; and they will have another of their own, which is more subject to what interpretations they shall please to put upon it. The truth of which Conjecture, is too evident by these following particulars differing from the former Remonstrance.

Undoubted Sovereign] Seems to signifie only him who exercises Supreme Autho∣rity; but the rightful Sovereign (as it is expressed in the former) is he who ought to exercise that Authority.

As any Subject ought to be to his Prince] The Pope often pretending Authority directly or indirectly over Princes in Temporal affairs, this expression secures not our King of their obedience against the pretensions of the Pope.

And as the Laws of God and Nature require] I living in Ireland, will obey the great Turk as far as the Laws of God and Nature require; but the former Pro∣testers will obey King Charles, as far as the Laws and Government of this Kingdom require. The Laws of God and Nature are general to all Mankind, and every Rebel pretends to an observation of them. They design not obedience to a particular King, who will not regulate it by the particular constitution of his Kingdom.

We will inviolably bear true Allegiance] That is in their own sense, as far as the Laws of God and Nature require. Some make the Pope Judge of the former; but every man makes himself Judge of the latter. The King must please both to be sure of these men.

No Power on Earth shall be able to withdraw us from our duty herein] This is little significant, seeing their duty is tryable only by the Laws of God and Nature, of which the Pope and themselves are Judges. But if they intend really to oppose any design of the Pope against the King, why do they not say, they will do it, in that Paper which pretends to secure His Majesty in that particular? Their obedience to the Pope, is that which makes the jealousie of their disobedience to the King. Therefore to clear themselves, they should have renounc'd the Popes Authority as it may be opposite to the Kings. If they dare not name opposition to him, how can it be expected that they will oppose him? And how careful they are not to give offence to the Pope, we see, by their clear leaving out almost the whole Paragraph in the former Remonstrance, which se∣cures particularly against his Ʋsurpations. If they say, they decline naming him in bare respect to him, it seems they prefer their Complement beyond their duty? but if that be it, why then do they name him in their Subscriptions to the first Proposition of the faculty of Sorbon?

We will to the loss of our blood assert Your Majesties Rights] But they are still no more than the Laws of God and Nature allows you. The Laws of the King∣dom are insignificant.

It is not our Doctrine that Subjects may be discharged, &c.] But doth their Doctrine condemn and anathematize such practises? Or do they condemn and ana∣thematize that Doctrine? Do they condemn the Doctrine of Suarez, Bellarmine, Mariana, Salmeron, Becanus, &c. in this particular? They do not say they do.

From performing their duty of true Obedience and Allegiance to their Prince] But what Obedience and Allegiance they adjudge to be a duty, and true, they do not declare, but leave that under the uncertainty of their own interpretation.

That any private Subject] The King is not secured by this against either Pope, or against any private Subject that may be employed to that horrid work by any pretended Authority; for then he ceaseth to be a private Person.

The Anointed of God] If the Pope Excommunicates him, and deposes him, will they accompt him still the Anointed of God, or his Prince? They have not yet told us so in this Remonstrance.

So that this specious Protestation of Duty falls very much shorter of the former Re∣monstrance, and is so doubtfully exprest, that it lookt rather like a fallacy to deceive the Prince, than any clear asserted Loyalty to found thereon any confidence of their Obe∣dience.

3. That withall, at the same time, and by occasion of shewing me these Ani∣madversions, His Grace told me, That being the Lords of the Council, who saw that new Remonstrance, and other Papers presented from the Congregation, upon first sight so clearly discerned their Juggle, it became me to give throughly and clearly all Exceptions at large, which might or ought in reason be made against the same Remonstrance, and Act of Recognition: and moreover to give candidly the true import of the three first Sorbon Declarations, as applied and sign'd by the Congregation, or as proceeding from them; as likewise to give a full and clear and satisfactory Answer to the said Congregation's third Paper, or that containing their Reasons why they sign'd not the three last of those late six Sorbon Decla∣rations.

4. That in obedience to such His Graces Commands (for I took such intimati∣ons for sufficient Commands from Him) I put my self presently to write the three next following Treatises of this Book, or the Second, Third, and Fourth thereof, viz. answering so exactly the number of material Papers given by, or presented as from the Congregation to His Grace. Which Papers were only three; for I look not on their Petitions as any way material.

5. That besides the bare motive of obeying His Grace, I had these other strong inducements to write on that Subject.

First, I consider'd, That by my being backward, or if I did shew my self back∣ward in such a matter, occasion might be thence taken, and peradventure justly too, by the foresaid Lords of the Council, and consequently by all others of their communion, to suspect me also, and together with me even all other Subscribers of the former Remonstrance, how otherwise Loyal soever.

Next, I remembred what my Lord Lieutenant was pleased some few dayes be∣fore to tell me of the Earl of Anglesey's new Sentiments, i. e. better opinion of, and more favourable inclinations to the Subscribers of the First Remonstrance, than his Lordship had formerly had, viz. How the said Earl, having seen the ori∣ginals of the late Letters come from the Court of Rome, i. e. from Cardinal Fran∣cis Barberin, and the then Internuncio of Burgundy and Low-countries James

Rospigliosi (now Cardinal Rospigliosi) against the said former Remonstrance, and Subscribers thereof, had thereupon declared to His Grace the Lord Lieutenant, (1.) That himself was now at last by the said Letters fully convinced, That that former Remonstrance, and Controversie about it, was no Juggle; that Peter Walsh (the chief promoter of it) was no Cheat; but rather on the contrary, that in∣deed the Controversie was real; and the Subscribers of that first Formulary, as many of them as bore up constantly and unalterably against the Court of Rome in that point, were in truth honest for so much. And (2.) therefore that he, for his own part, would be thenceforth for repealing the sanguinary and mulcta∣tive Laws, in order to such constant Professors, and unalterable performers of their due Allegiance to the King in all Temporal things whatsoever, according to the Laws of the Land.

Now when I remembred this of my Lord Anglesey, I then also consider'd fur∣ther, nay, persuaded my self, That the more clearly and ingenuously I declared my self on that Subject of the Remonstrance, according to my own inward Consci∣ence (but regulated still by the unerring Rule of Holy Scripture, and Universal Tradition, besides natural Reason in the case) the more also I should, at least of my part, really and effectually serve the Roman-Catholicks, both Clergy and People of Ireland (whose true common good, next unto the discharge of a good Conscience, and the glory of God by the defence of Truth, I alwayes proposed to my self as at least one of the chiefest ends (in this World) of all my labours.) For I doubted not, but (with the blessing of God) what I was then to write (and now have) on that Subject, would in time reduce many, even of as well the most ignorant, as most obstinate of them, i. e. some to a right understanding of the principles of Christianity and Reason, others to a better compliance with what in truth they understand already but through depravation of will, and byas of pri∣vate interest, will not seem or confess they understand. Nor doubted, but I would confirm many more in that which they themselves already both understand and will, according to their own coolest thoughts, and more natural inclinations; and yet after all were like to be (as indeed they have lately been) under strong tem∣ptations to renounce for ever both. And however, these matters (depending on these or those Irish Clergymen themselves) do, or prove, I must confess, I never once question'd then (nor do at present) but that I should by my writings on that Subject, not only continue, but encrease those good inclinations which I had already then ••nderstood to be in the foresaid Earl of Anglesey, and not in him only, but in many other Moderate, Noble, and Illustrious persons of the Prote∣stant Church for repealing the sanguinary and mulctative Laws, in order to such persons of the Roman-Catholick Church as have already, or shall hereafter capa∣citate themselves for so great a favour; and I know they all every one may do so, without quitting one article, word or syllable of the Roman-Catholick Religion, as professed in any other Countrey of that same Religion abroad in the world.

In fine, I at least hoped very much to see in my own dayes even the very unex∣pected fruits of such good inclinations in those illustrious, moderate persons, that really commiserate the case not only of all such Roman-Catholick Priests of those Dominions, as only for their declared Loyal principles and affections to the King, are persecuted continually in their own Church, and yet not protected by his Laws, but likewise of so many Thousands of poor, innocent, well-principled, and well-affected Laicks, men and women, who sometimes smart by, and alwayes lie under the severity of the same Laws.

And yet after all, I will not deny but I had some consideration also of defend∣ing my self, and other friends, against all both Forreign Censures, and Home Im∣postures. I had in truth some regard of vindicating my self, and all those per∣suaded by, or associated with me either in signing, or adhering to the foresaid Re∣monstrance (and consequently too of vindicating even that Formulary it self) from the no less malicious, than both scandalous and false aspersion of unlawful, detestable, sacrilegious, yea, schismatical and heretical, with which our Adversaries branded us. And if I had not had that consideration in some degree of my self

and Friends, I had been as unsatisfied with my own heart, as ever any of my Ad∣versaries were with any of my Books. For I think, every honest man is bound in Conscience to defend himself and Friends, especially his own, and their good name, wherein, and as far as he justly may, cum moderamine inculpatae tutelae. And I am persuaded, no man will be so rash or impudent as to reprove me for thinking so. But withall I do protest in the presence of God, it was not any such, or other whatsoever private consideration or regard of my self, or said Friends, that was the chiefest or strongest motive I had to put Pen to Paper in any of the foresaid (now hereafter following) Treatises, or in any other Treatise or Part (or even addition of other Appendages to all the Treatises) of this present Book; but that more publick regard of the more common and universal good of the Irish Nation, and Catholick Religion, which I have signified before.

And so I perclose here, at last, this Second Part, and consequently as to both Parts, the whole First Treatise. Which Treatise, the necessary Theological Dis∣putes, against the four grounds of the Censure of Louain, for an Hundred sheets together in the First Part, have made so long; albeit I confess, the pure Histori∣cal Sections are even of themselves long enough. But the next following Three Treatises will in some measure by their shortness compensate the former length. For they are proportionably as short as may be; and yet as long as their several Subjects require them to be; having nothing Historical in them, and but a strict and pure (partly Theological, and partly Rational) Examination of the import and weight of those foremention'd three several Papers of the National Congre∣gation: and yet even that such an Examination too, as in many, or rather most material places doth suppose the reading of this First Treatise, or of some things diffusely treated therein. Which is the reason they needed not be longer than they are. What I think will seem most wanting in them to the Readers ease, must be, That they have no Marginal, nor any other sort of Remissions, directing to the Sections or Pages of this First Treatise, where some of the Publick Instruments, or other matters related unto, are given or handled at large. But I could not help that, being I was necessitated to write and print them, before I had written a word of this. And a diligent or curious Reader may quickly help himself, at least by turning to the Table.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Concilium Agathense Episcoporum Ca∣tholicorum 35. cui praesuit S. Caesarius A∣relatensis an. Christi 506. celebratum ex li∣centia Alarici Visigothorum Regis Arriani.

  Sy••odus Toletana secunda ex licentia A∣malerici Regis Arriani.

  Synodus Romana prima sub Symmacho Papa Episcoporum 72. ex licentia Theodo∣rici Regis Arriani, ann. 499.

  Romana secunda sub eodem & ex licen∣tia ejusdem Principis, Episcoporum 115. an. 500.

  Item Romana tertia sub iisdem, ann. 501.

  Item Romana quarta, Palmaris dicia, sub iisdem, ann. 502.

  Item Romana quinta sub iisdem 211 Episcoporum, ann. 503.

  Item Romana sexta sub iisdem, & eodem ann. 503.
• * 10.1

  22. q 10. art. 10.
• * 10.2

  Cap. 6.
• * 10.3

  1. Cor. 5.
• * 10.4

  L. Ancilla. 60. D. de furt. l. 1. C. de ser. fugit. Rom. 13. ad Philip. 9. Coloss. 3.
• * 10.5

  lib. 4. de. legi. cap 8. de pot••••t. Reg. & Pa∣pali cap. 10. extra de hae∣reticis.
• * 10.6

  lib. 4. de Ro. Pont. cap. 14. lib. 1. de hae∣res. cap. 4. Can: Lauda∣bilem. de con∣vers. conju∣gat.
• * 10.7

  Sess. 24. can. 5.
• * 10.8

  In Chronico parte 17. ad a••rum 1047. Lib. 6. cap. 35 In Chronico M••nst. Hi••s∣g••••g. ad an∣rum 1106. Lib. 4. de varia creat. Rom. Pant.
• * 10.9

  Lib. 3. epist. 26. & habetur in can. perve∣nit. dist. 95.
• * 10.10

  Ioh. •• 32.
• * 10.11

  Math. 5.10.
• * 15.1

  Ext. de Haereticis Et at. tributtur Concilio Latera∣nensi. 4. Ponitur∣{que} inter ejusdem Concilii Canones, Can. 3.
• * 15.2

  Excommunicamus et anathematizamus om∣nem haeresim &c.

  Damnativero, Saecularibus potestatibus prae¦sentibus, aut eorum Ballivis relinquantur &c. Qui autem inventi fuerint sola suspitione notabiles &c.

  Moneantur autem et inducantur, et si necesse fuerit, per censuram Ecclesiasticam compellan∣tur &c.

  Si vero Dominus temporalis requisitus et monitus an Ecclesia, terram suam purgare neg∣lexerit ab hac haeretica faeditate, per Metropolitanum et Comprovinciales Episcopos Excom∣municationis vinculo innodetur, et si satisfacere contempserit infra annum, significetur hoc summo Pontifici, ut ex tunc ipse Vasallos ab ejus fidelitate denunciet absolutos, et terram exponat Catholicis occupandum, qui cam exterminatis haereticis fine ulla contradictione pos∣sideant, er in fidei puritate conservent, salno jure Domini principalis: dummodo super hoc ipse nullum praestet obstaculum, nec aliquod impedimentum opponat: eadem nihilominus lege servata circa cos, qui non habent Dominos principales.
• (a) 15.3

  Papa in jam dicto Co••cilio, scilicet in die S Ja∣cobi, con∣tra Im∣perato∣rem ex∣commu∣nicatio∣nis sen∣tentiam renova∣vit, & eum ab Imperia∣li Cul∣mine, au∣thoritate propria deposuit, & hanc depositio∣nem per totam Ecclesiam promul∣gavit, praecipi∣ens sub intermi∣natione excom∣munica∣tionis, ut nullus eum Im∣perato∣rem de cetero nomina∣ret.

  Alber∣tus Sta∣densis in Chroni∣co.
• * 31.1

  See Wal∣singame ad an. 1245. and Harps∣field ad Sec. 14. c. 5.
• * 31.2

  (As it is known that c. Constan∣tinus. d. 96. in Gratian. is not onely a meer Pa∣lea, but speaks as well of the whole continent of Eu∣rope as of the I∣lands.)
• * 31.3

  Suarez. l 6. De∣fens. Fi∣dei Ca∣thol. con∣tra Reg. Ang. de forma Iuram. Fidel. cap. 3.
• * 31.4

  Gregor. l. 2. Regist. op. 36. ad Vniver∣sos Epis∣copos Hi∣bernia.
• * 31.5

  Iohn de Serres in Henry the Fourth Pag. 865. Translat. Grim∣stone.
• (a) 31.6

  Ba∣ron. ad an. Chri∣sti•••••• ••01. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 1703
• (b) 31.7

  ad an. 702.
• (a) 31.8

  Ad hoc re∣spondeo, Clericos non solo Privile∣gio Prin∣cipum, sed etiam decretis summo∣rum Pon∣tificum, &, quod majusest, divino jure ex∣emptos fuisse, an∣tequam Princi∣pum pri∣vilegio exime∣rentur Bellae minu•• cont•• Barel. um. cap. 34.1
• * 31.9

  Joan. 3.35. & 27.21.
• * 31.10

  Sed ta∣men dum evehit Laicos ad ordi∣nem alti∣orem, id est Cleri∣corum, non est mirum si conse∣quenter privet Principes jure, quod in eos ha∣bebant, dum es∣sent in gradu in∣feriore. Bellarm. Cont. Barcl. cap. 34.
• * 34.1

  Scot. 4. d. 20: q: 1. a. 4. Mi∣rand. in Ma∣nual. q. 3. a. 2. D. Alvin. c. 3. &c.
• * 34.2

  Laiman. l. 1. tract. 5. p. 1. c. 3. n. 3. & 4.
• * 34.3

  Joan. de Pa∣ris. c. 21. de potest. Papae.
• * 34.4

  Joan. 22. con∣tra Mars. de Padua. Tur∣recr. l. 4. sum∣mae.
• * 34.5

  Innoc. in c. novit. &c. Salgado p. 1. c. Prael. 3. nu. 120.
• * 34.6

  Nav. c. 27. in Enchir. n 70. Salz sch. Ber. Diaz cap. 55. Sect. Apud Gall. Duvall. de disc. Eccl. p. 3 fol. 405.
• * 34.7

  Harphf.
• * 34.8

  Dec. Rota.
• * 34.9

  Suar. l. 4. de immun. Eccl. c. 34. num. ••2.
• * 34.10

  Fulv. Pacian. Cons. fi num. 124. Cam. Bor. de Praest. Cath. c. 503. n. 26. & 27.
• * 34.11

  Suar. l. 3. de Prim. Sum. Pont. c. 1. n 4. Morl. in E••∣p••r. jur. 1. p. tit. 2. &c.
• * 34.12

  C••jet. Vict. de potest Eccl.
• * 34.13

  Ca jet. de po∣test. Pap. c. 27.
• * 34.14

  D. Rayn. D. Mont. &c.
• * 34.15

  Matth. Paris. Matth. West. Walsing.
• * 34.16

  Harps.
• * 34.17

  Thomas Mo∣rus.
• * 34.18

  Mat. 22.
• * 34.19

  Nilus.
• * 34.20

  Gers. &c.
• * 34.21

  Concil. Con∣stant.
• * 34.22

  Lect. parae∣net. 5. ad cap. 7. Regulae nostrae.
• * 34.23

  Franciscus a Sancta Clara in Expositio∣ne Paraphra∣stica Articuli 37 Confessio∣nis Anglica∣nae, sive 39 Articulorum, &c.
• * 34.24

  Bru••o Chais∣saing. de Pri∣vil. Reg. Tract. 1. cap. 1. prop 9. & 10.
• * 34.25

  Joannes Ba∣ptista Verius S. Theologiae Doctor, in Pastorali Mis∣sionar. Tract. 4. ar. xi.
• * 58.1

  Baron. ad an. Christi. 403. num. x.
• * 58.2

  ••••••o••. ad 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Christi. 230.
• * 61.1

  See the late Book inti∣tuled, The Jesuits Mo∣rals.
• * 61.2

  Gulielmus Tyrius.
• (a) 61.3

  See Lu∣dovic. Mon∣talt. in his Provincial Letters, Ep. 15. and Willielmus Vendrocki∣us, in his Notes upon the same let∣ter, Notat. 1. §. 1, 2, 3. 4. but especial∣ly, 4. Edit. Latina Co∣lon. An. 1658.
• (b) 61.4

  See the same Mon∣talt. Ep. 13. and the same Vendrocki∣us ibid. No∣tat. Unic. §. 2, 3, 4, 5.
• * 65.1

  Eccli. 10.14.
• * 65.2

  1 Joan. 1.8.
• * 65.3

  Epist. 54. ad Macedonium.
• * 65.4

  1 Cor. 1.27.
• * 65.5

  Isaiae 40 6.
• * 65.6

  2 Cor. xii. 11.
• * 65.7

  See Bellar∣mine himself, de Conc. l. 4. c. 4. where he teaches, Errorem esse intollerabilem proponere ali∣quid creden∣dum tamquam articulum fi∣dei, de quo non constet, an sit verum, vel falsum.
• * 72.1

  Father John Talbot the Jesuite pleaded this Paradox for his own ex∣cuse, and even to my own self pleaded it.
• * 72.2

  See the Decretals of Gregory IX. l. v. tit. 7. de Haereticis. And those of Boniface the VIII. l v. de Hae∣ret. tit 2. in sexto. And join these and those with Bulla coenae, and with the title de Jure-jurando of Gregory the Ninth's Decretals. l. ii. tit. 24. taking together the doctrine of cap. Si vero and cap. Verum. and cap. Quanto. and cap Venientos. and cap. Ad nostram. and cap. Sicut nostris. and lastly, of cap. Nimis. all in the san••c title de Jure-jurando. extra.
• * 74.1

  Richard Synot, Paul Synot, Francis Stafford, Ha∣mond Stafford, John Esmond, Peter Stafford, &c. all of them esteem∣ed the most religious, ex∣emplar, and indeed holy men of their Order in Ireland, or at least equal to any whatsoever. The first of them was often Guardian of several Convents, amongs which was that of St. Isidore at Rome, and Custos of the Province. The second was even Legat from the Pope in Ba••bary for many years. Third, Guardian of Wexford sometime, and Secretary of the Province. Fourth also Guardian of the same place, and after an Hermit in an Island, till he was commanded out of it by Father Caron. Fifth likewise Guardian of the same Convent in his turn, and of special gift in exercising. Sixth, like St. Bartholomew, had by continual kneeling in Prayer, the skin of his knees as hard as a Camels.
• * 80.1

  Having been also presently, or at least soon after the re∣jection of the said Peace of 1666. made a Su∣preme Coun∣sellor.
• * 81.1

  Cal. lib. 4. inst. cap. 10.
• * 84.1

  This I writ to comfort the good Bishop in his afflicti∣on. And think I writ but what in effect I supposed the Duke had on some oc∣casion, and by some words signified to me; although peradventure not in those, nor in so ma∣ny other for∣mal and ex∣press words, especially at any one time.
• * 87.1

  Vid. Theodo∣ret. l. 1. cap. xi.
• * 93.1

  Heb. 13.17.
• * 98.1

  Isa 9.2.
• * 98.2

  Bellarm. de Scriptor. Ec∣cles. in Sige∣berto.
• * 105.1

  Vid. Second Pa••••••f the First Treat. pag. 612 Where you have this Let∣ter of Primat Reilly to the Congregation.
• * 107.1

  Jerem. 15.9.
• * 113.1

  The Propositions not inserted.

  (4) That the same Faculty doth not approve, nor ever did any pro∣positions contrary unto the French Kings Authority, or true Liberties of the Gallican Church or Canons re∣ceived in the same Kingdom; For example, That the Pope can depose Bishops against the same Canons.

  (5) That it is not the Doctrine of the Faculty, That the Pope is above the general Councel.

  (6) That it is not the Doctrine or Dogme of the Faculty, That the Pope without the consent of the Church is Infallible.
• (a) 115.1

  1 Parlip. cap. 23 & cap. 28. & 2 Para∣lip. 8
• (b) 115.2

  2 Paralip. 29.
• (c) 115.3

  Ibid. 35.
• (d) 115.4

  Ibid 24.
• (e) 115.5

  3. Reg. 2. Vide etiam 4. Reg. 18 & 23. cap. & 2 Para∣lip. 19, 34, & 35. cap. Et Mac. 4.59. & Ester 9.26 & Dan. 3 19. & ••on. 3.7.
• (f) 115.6

  Aug con∣tra Crosse Gram l. 3. cap. 51. & Ep. 50. & super Psal. 2.
• * 116.1

  Now since the year 1671, the same Father Teig is made Bishop of Clonfert by a Bull from Rome. But for what either merits or de∣merits? him∣self knows.
• * 116.2

  Multi dicent mihi in illa die: Domine, Domi∣ne, nonne in no∣mine tuo, & in nomine ••••o damonia ejecimus & in nomine tuo dae∣monia ejecimus & in nomine tuo virtutes multas feci∣mus? Et tunc confiteborillis: Quia nunquam novi ves.
• * 116.3

  He is now Sir Robert Southwel Knight, and one of the Clerks of the Council at White-Hall, & hath been moreover lately Envoy Extraordinary both to Portu∣gal & Castile, as last of all to Flanders.
• * 116.4

  Et non pole∣rat ibi virtu∣tem ullam fa∣cere, nisi pau∣cos infirmos impositis mani∣bus curavit: & mirabatur propter incre∣dulitatem eo∣rum, Marc. 6. vers. 5. & 6.
• * 116.5

  I know two more, the one an Augustini∣an, in the County of Catherlogh; the other a Franciscan, in the County of Wexford, who were about 1664, &c. by some weak people, cryed up for some such wonder-working gra∣ces. But I knew withall the Augustini∣an to have been a meer Knave, and a Nonsensical Ass to boot. The Francis∣can was Fa∣ther Anthony Stafford, a Gentleman born, and ve∣ry devout man in his profession, and therefore easily adored and cryed up even by some Gentlemen; though I think himself never gave way to such reports.
• * 116.6

  John Serjeant an English Priest of the Secular Clergy, told me of late in England, That studying in Portugal, he was well acquainted with this Father Mahony of the Society of Jesus there, and knew him by the name of Cornelius a St. Patricio, and living at S. Roch in Lisbon, and that he professed himself openly the Authour of that (wicked) Apologetical Disputation, and Exhortation added thereunto.
• * 116.7

  Pag. 65.
• * 116.8

  Ibid.
• * 117.1

  It seems hereby, that some malici∣ous persons had instead of the true Remonstrance (subscribed by the Irish Divines, No∣bility and Gentry at London in 1661. S.V.) forged ano∣ther, and shewed it to many, of pur∣pose to per∣suade them that this false one was the Remonstrance which Peter Walsh present∣ed to the King, and would per∣suade all o∣thers to sign.
• * 117.2

  He is Bro∣ther to Fa∣ther Patrick Maginn, the QUEENS Chaplain.
• * 117.3

  Gregor. Na∣zianz. ep. 55.
• * 117.4

  Here is a fault certain∣ly in this Latin Tran∣slation, or Print. See whether it should not be either impro∣bitatis, or arcessat.
• * 117.5

  Though I think them very unjustly and falsely and malici∣ously too as∣cribed to Justinian by Procopius.