I.

THe first winter following the Kings most happy Restaurati­on, 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 King­doms, 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 re­jection 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, exo­rable, 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 Ma­geoghegan 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 Superi­our 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 Fa­ther Walsh their Agent and Procurator to His Majesty, and great Ministers, to kiss His Majesties hands in their behalf and name, &c. Giving him more­over 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 Procura­tion 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 Ar­dagh, 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 Superi­ours 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 Pri­mate, and those other Bishops, and Vicars General had already done it; especially whereas it was known that the Primate himself drew that Instru­ment. Which I thought fit to insert here word by word as it is in the ori­ginal writing. To the end some persons, who are yet unsatisfied in this mat­ter, may see what warrant the said Procurator had from the Clergy them­selves to act for them, and urge them far more yet then he hath, to do themselves right.

Edmundus Archiepiscopus Ardmachanus totius Hiberniae Primas. Fra. Anto­nius Episcopus Medensis: Fra. Oliverus Episcopus Dromorensis. Patricius Epis­copus [Page 6] 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 Procura­torio, 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 inte­rests, 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 Ma­jesties 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 print­ing, and exhibiting to His Majestie, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Lord Chan­cellour 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 prevai­led 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 sa­vour, and let those his own special friends suffer with the rest, until His Ma­jesties Gracious condescension, and my Lord Lieutenants goodness looked in­differently 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, ha­ving (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 Chan­cellour, 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: [Page 7] and some few of the Catholick Gentry and Clergie consulting together at Dublin of a remedy, Sir Richard Barnewal, Richard Beling Esq Thomas Tyr­rel Esq Oliver Dese Vicar general of Meath, Father James Fitz Simons Guar­dian 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 merci­ful 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 de­sign was chiefly imposed on them, and upon their account the Layety suffered.

But forasmuch as he considered that a bare Remonstrance of their suffe­rings 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 be­ginning 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 Lon­don: 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.

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 sub­scription to it: and if they had, they saw the storm so great and furious, rai­sed 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 im­posture) 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 soo­ner 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 [Page 10] 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 Coun­tries 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 Ma­jestie 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 di­versity 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 subscrib­ing 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 ex­cept 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 prin­cipality, and as well by right reason and Christian Religion condemned, as in­deed 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 twen­ty 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.

[Page 11]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 pub­lickly debated it, and consulted also some eminent persons of the English Ca­tholick 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 spe­cial Committee sent from themselves, and by the hands of the Earl of Tirco­nel. 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 Clergie­men.

Soon after, both were published in Print, in distinct sheets, with an advertise­ment 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 functi­on 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 Procura­tour 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, Fa­thers, practise of primitive Christians, and by answers to all the grand obje­ctions 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, Ab­bots, 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 Cler­gie: 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 com­manded 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 a­gainst [Page 12] the said Remonstrance or subscribers, forasmuch as he knew most evi­dently 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, see­ing 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 De­claration, and Protestation of Allegiance to His Majestie, therein contained, though in temporal things only, was against Catholick Religion: because a di­minution of the authority of the great Pontiff. Whereupon Father Red­mond 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 Ca­tholick 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 Orati­on, 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 sa­tisfactory answers thereunto returned some fifty years since as well by Catho­licks 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 encourage­ment 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 Ire­land, although promoted by the Nuncio to his little Bishoprick, adhered ne­vertheless 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 constant­ly 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 [Page 13] 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.

V

As for the Bishop of Corke, Robert Barry, then living also at St. Malos, al­though 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 in­formations, it is very certain that, according to the Canons this Bull of Alex­ander 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 Ni­cholas 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 re­stored) 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 extra­ction [Page 14] in Ireland, and would have none such ever preferred by the Pope to any ec­clesiastical 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 alrea­dy 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 Al­legiance, 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 Remon­strance 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 Pro­curator 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 So­ciety, but what you have to this letter, which he gave in answer to the Bi­shop of Dromores to him from London.

VII.

The opposers of the Remonstrance therefore relyed wholy on their endea­vours with the two Bishops that lived at home in Ireland, Anthony Ma. Geo­ghegan Bishop of Meath, since that time dead, and Doctor Owen Swiny Bi­shop 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 Coun­trey at Lovaine, to work against that Remonstrance with the then Internuncius of Bruxels, Hieronimus de Veechiis (who had from the Pope a kind of super­intendency 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 un­effectual 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 ano­ther 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 signi­fieth, by direction (as he sayes) from his Holiness, and from the Congregati­on de propaganda, the said Remonstrance to contain propositions co-incident with those condemned by Paul the V. long since, and lately by Innocent the [Page 16] 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. Fran­cis 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 Heretica­rum 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.

The Reader may take notice here, that in such copies of this letter, as came authenticated by Claudius A­gretti, Secretary to the above Inter­nuncius, 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 Pro­testationem 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 Fran­cis Barberin: which he writes in the name of the whole Congregation de propa­ganda, 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: be­cause 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 Remon­strance 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.

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 an­swered the man in the dark, in the behalf of the Irish in general, and in relati­on 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: be­sides, 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 con­sequence 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 re­spective 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 Fer­ral, 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 Remon­strance [Page 20] & 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 Remon­strances 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 him­self, 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 instrumen­tal for such ambitious ends, to encourage (which he needed not) the said Bi­shop 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 ei­ther; but that, as he and they gave out, all was the Procurators own contri­vance 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 Aubig­ny 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 for­mer, 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 argu­ments, 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 sig­nature by them, yet had never urged any, when once he perceived their gene­ral 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 instru­cted by them: and that such their subscription must have been the only me­dium 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 pretensi­ons 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 mis­chief he could to cross that business: as truly he did by manifest untruths; [Page 21] 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 af­ter 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 con­cern'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 in­tervening 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 concur­rence, should on that pretence denye or excuse it. That finally for what con­cerns 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 Catholick­ness and lawfulness of it. And a person of so great both reason and experi­ance in the affairs of these Nations could not but conceive it was both expedi­ent 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 Mounta­gue's affection or disaffection to that matter, nay were even his positive per­swasion 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 Lord­ships even such demeanour could be no rational pretence for them; his for­raign 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 con­cerning 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 ne­vertheless 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 tempo­ral 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, Com­missaryships, &c. or at home amongst their own Brethren for votes to be cho­sen 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 be­nevolence of the laye people; and even as poor and inconsiderable as a Guar­dianship, 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 perpe­tual obstruction to all their hopes (as the case stands in Ireland, the King be­ing 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 Pea­ces, or either of them, and against the foregoing Cessation, and consequently for the Censures of the Nuncio, apprehended it (for want of Christian humi­lity 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 engage­ments: and that they cleerly saw their subscription to that Remonstrance must have been thought by rational men (wherein I confess they were not decei­ved) a tacit, and virtual or consequential acknowledgement of their said former proceedings to have been illegal and unjust; though it was not there­fore intended.

3. That some who had been earnest enough for the said Peaces and Cessati­on, 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 af­fection 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 [Page 23] 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 con­curr'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 in­fluence 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 re­garding the Holy See: and those o [...]hers extolled, and particularly recommen­ded 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 Or­dinaries, 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 prin­ted Acts of Kilkenny, or of their Provincial Chapter held in their Convent there, 18. Ian. 1643. under Albertus (otherwise Terlagh) ô Brien, Prior Pro­vincial 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 op­posed 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 le­gal 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 constituti­ons, which prescribe as necessary thereunto (besides the consent of the Su­pream [Page 24] 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 de­structive 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 respe­ctive Districts or Diocesses, and their establishment for houses in the Coun­trey. 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 con­cern'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 com­monly 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 as­persion 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 com­mon 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 pe­nalties. 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 Remon­strance. 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 Head­ship, 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 de­nomination 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

[Page 25]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 [...] [...]ug­nant 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 [...] [...] di­rectly, 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 af­firmative 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 [...] ar­ticles of the Pr [...]est [...] Church England and Ireland, and to those others of Queen Elizabeth in her Injuctions, authorized and owned even by Parlia­ment. 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 in­tending 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 gover­ned that See in these latter times.

But however this be, or be not, such was the pretence of many for not con­curring 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, & restrain­ing 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 renoun­cing of the Pope by the Popish Clergy of Ireland) whether, I say, this occa­sioned 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 be­cause advanced by the Procurator: by whose means they would not even de­sire the freest exercise of their Religion: because he had been all along so earnest formerly against all their wayes in the controversies of the Confede­rates, and so eminently appeared by preaching and writing against the Cen­sures of the Nuntio, and against the faction adhering to the Nuntio in that mat­ter. 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 Re­monstrance in it self: because in his explication of it therein, he left no lati­tude, 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 na­ture 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, [Page 26] 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 [...] pri­vate 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 Magi­strates, 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 lay­men 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 im­prisonments, & even of mens lives as that which about that time in 62. accord­ding 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 Fran­ciscans Chappel, who had been all Subscribers, and wherein the Procuratour himself did officiate, and whereunto he laboured to obtain all the favour, con­nivence, 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 Pro­clamation 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 [Page 27] 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 Lieute­nant, on, which in the same thing His Majesty [...] his [...] their subscriptions.

16. And lastly the r [...]re the desired th [...] [...] like general Congrega­tion 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 grea­ter part to determine whether they should subscribe the Remonst [...]ned, do [...].

X.

Although [...] and with of those several pre [...] objections, allegati­ons, motives or and few of their declining, or delaying the in subscriptions, the Procurator, and others [...] answered the several part [...], both fully and satis­factority 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 allegi­ance to the King in all temporall [...] whatsoever; [...] then which that Remonstrance contains not; yet I will [...] detain the [...]nder being upon so ma­ny 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 busi­ness in gross as to the chief matters of fact, in the dispositions towards the ge­nerall Congregation so desired, or a [...] be defiled, but cer­tainly 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 am­bitious 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 re­gard 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 li­berty, 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 an­nexed 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 conscienti­ous 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 [...] hap­pen 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 religi­on and their conscience and principles told them, and their function or cal­ling 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 pati­ence 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 par­titions 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 there­in 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 in­deed [...] 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 publick­ly 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 com­mand of to then supream Council preach't nine Sermons five Sundays one af­ter 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 For­reigner 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 invasi­on be never so just, or continued-possession after be never so long, and the sub­mission 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 conse­quently, 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 judge­ment) 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, [Page 29] 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 in­justly, I meddle not with that. And that moreover they could not be igno­rant 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 re­ceived 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 privi­ledges 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. Where­as on the contrary the Ordinaries themselves confess'd their farre greater in­fluence, or that of Regulars on the people. Which is so true, that, for ex­ample, 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 [Page 30] 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 Provin­ces 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 o­ther 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 en­deavour 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 ve­ry 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 salva­tion; 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 pro­posed on one side and the punishments on the other by God himself did not only countervaile, but surmount infinitely all those vaine apprehensions of be­ing 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 De­clarations 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 con­fess 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 o­ther Schools of Scotists, who maintain as stiffly, and are alike by their Consti­tutions [Page 31] 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 Tra­dition) 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 opi­nons 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 Bap­tized, 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 there­fore 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 Fa­ther 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 ex­position 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 interpretati­on 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 con­cern'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 or­ders 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, what­ever 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 [Page 32] soever that Order be, is a very bad plea, at least in such a matter as ours, a­gainst 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 evi­dence 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 opinio­ne esse ut existimet ius dominii & praelationis Ethnicorum Principum justè illis auferri posse, 22. q 10. art. 10. per sententiam vel ordinationem Ecclesiae, authoritatem Dei habentis, vt ille ait. D. Thomae magna apud me au­thoritas 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, Cap. 6. & rationes multae, authoritatesque in contrarium supperunt. Ratio autem quam adfert est, quia infideles me­rito suae infidelitatis merentur potestatem amittere super fideles, qui transferuntur in filios Dei. Mala ratio, & tanto viro indigna: quasi verò si quis meretur privari officio, be­neficio, 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 pati­tur. 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 quis­quis 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, 1. Cor. 5. 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 & doctri­na 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. L. Ancilla. 60. D. de furt. l. 1. C. de ser. fugit. Rom. 13. ad Philip. 9. Coloss. 3. Non vult ergo Apostolus ijs verbis, servos possese licitè subtrabere jugo servitutis, invitis dominis, si id sine scandalo pos­sent Ecclesiae; furtum enim sui facerent jure gentium; sed vult osten­dere eos non solùm peccare, quod alibi apertè docet sed etiam publi­cum 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 vi­detur, penes Pontificem esse potestatem Subditos a Iuramento fidelitatis absol [...]endi, Respon­d [...]mus, primum canonem, Nos Sanctorum, esse decretum Gregorij Papae septimi, in quo eos, qui excommunicatis fidelitate, aut Sacramento constricti sunt, Apostolica autho­ritate absolvit, & ne eis fidelitatem observent, omnibus modis prohibet, quovsque ipsi ad satisfactionem veniant. Secundus canon, Iuratos milites, est Vrbani Papae secun­di, qui proximè post Victorem tertium, qui sex tantùm mensibus sedit, Gregorio septimo [Page 33] successit, in quo Episcopo Uapicensi scribit, ut juratos milites Hugoni Connti, ne ipsi, quamdiu excommunicatus est, serviant, prohiberet. Qui, si sacramenta praetende­rint, moneantur, oportere servire Deo magis, quàm hominibus. Fidelitatem enim, quam Christiano Principi jurarunt, Deo, ejusque Sanctis adversanti, & eorum prae­cepta 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 fi­delitate Supremis Principibus, qui nullum Superiorem praeter Deum in temporalibus recog­noscunt, ex lege Dei, & naturae debita, absolvendi. Et primò, si alicujus sunt roboris, evi­denter commonstrant, Summum Pontificem potestatem habere non solum a sacra jurante [...] fi­delitatis obligatione, verùm etiam ab ipsamet fidelitate, ejusque naturali vinculo rel [...]andi: & propterea, nihil planè conducunt, ad hanc nostratium objectionem confirmandum, qui con­tendunt, 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 Fran­cisci Suarez apertè colligitur: vel ficut Ioan:lib. 4. de. legi. cap 8. de pot [...]t. Reg. & Pa­pali cap. 10. extra de hae­reticis. Parifiensis ex Card. Hostiensi Respondet Canoni Ad abolendam, in quo Summus Pontifex sancivit, ut bo­na 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 ad­versarij supremos etiam Principes in istis Canonibus comprehendi velint, necessario fateri de­bent, 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,lib. 4. de Ro. Pont. cap. 14. lib. 1. de hae­res. cap. 4. Can: Lauda­bilem. de con­vers. conju­gat. decreto Caelestini Papae tertij respondit, cujus Canonis Alphonsus de Ca­stro 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 Tri­dentino damnata: Respondeo, ait Card. Bellarminus, Caelestinum nihil de ea re certi staruisse, sed respondisse, quod sibi probabilius videbatur.Sess. 24. can. 5.

Quod vero Alphonsus ait, epistolam Caelestini fuisse aliquando inter epistolas decretales, verum quidem est, sed non potest inde colligi fa­ctum esse a Caelestino decretum planè Apostolicum, & ex Cathedra, cum constet, mul­ta esse alia in epistolis Decretalibus, quae non faciunt rem aliquam esse de fide, sed so­lùm 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 pa­storis [Page 34] 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 Ponti­ficum Imperatorem deposuit, ut Godefridus, Otho Frisingensis, Trithemi­us & Onufrius scribunt, In Chronico parte 17. ad a [...]rum 1047. Lib. 6. cap. 35 In Chronico M [...]nst. Hi [...]s­g [...]g. ad an­rum 1106. Lib. 4. de varia creat. Rom. Pant. etiam existimaverit, eum Subditos a fidelitatis vin­culo 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 sal­tem supposuisse, talem absol vendi authoritatem sibi a Christo communicatam esse, Sicut etiam, tamelsi aliqui hujus Seculi Pontifices suorum predecesso­rum, immo & ipsius Sancti Gregorij magni, vestigijs inhaerentes, suis de­cretis, Brevibus, seu literis Apostolicis in corpore etiam Iuris Canonici con­signatis 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 habe­re, Lib. 3. epist. 26. & habetur in can. perve­nit. dist. 95. cum plures Theologi eruditi, non obstantibus hujusmodi Pontificum sancti­onibus, 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 po­test, 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 Theolo­gi, qui rationibus probabilibus permoti contrarium sentiunt, has Pontificum opiniones licitè reijcere possint, & tutâ conscientiâ jurare, si of us fuerit, se profiteri, testificari, credere, decla­care, atque in conscientijs suis resolvi, quòd talis authoritas non sit Summo Pontifici a Chri­sto 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 Ex­calceat Carmelits) neither of which two last make twenty in all, nor both to­gether 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, Regu­lar or Secular, they would lye under hardest censures, if they shewed any re­luctance. 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 champi­on 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 [Page 35] 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 christi­anity 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 ven­tur'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 King­doms, 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 in­deed against their practises, and against their principles or doctrine, not of deposition only, but of equivocation, mental reservation, and of the lawful­ness of changing opinions, resolutions, and practices too at pleasure, accord­ing to their other maximes of extrinsick probability, and in all matters what­soever; 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 Capu­chins 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 them­selves 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 as­sure 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 mat­ter, 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 autho­ritative 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; [Page 36] by some freely and heartily, who were otherwise themselves our of judgment, and affection too so principled and so affected, and only expected their au­thority 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, rebel­lious 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 there­with, as it was raised without any ground. That no Church-man, even the most malicious, would before any understanding man, own the raising or for­warding of it; however, it was known that some few of them in private cor­ners did whisper it to the illiterate, as I could name a certain Prior of the Do­minicans Order, Father Michael Fullam to have done most unconscientiously, that I may say no more; though chiefly of purpose to excuse by such diabo­lical forgeries their own opposition, when upbraided therewith by good ho­nest 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 er­roneously 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 sal­vation in the next, without any further addition. That as this heretical do­ctrine 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 Chap­pels 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 ra­ther 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 com­mon good out of private animosities; much less to obstruct it to the pre­judice of the Religion and Worship of God, and obstruct all too by sinister wayes, by calumnies and forgeries, and a false pretence of Religion, where there was nothing less then Religion intended, but rather the quite contrary. That in relation to his former actings in the controversies with the Nuntio, if they had considered things rightly, they would rather acknowledge, admire, & with thankfulness adore the Providence of God, which had inspired him then to do as he did, and as became a good Patriot, Subject, religious Man, Chri­stian Priest, and Catholick Divine, to the end he might be, after so many revo­lutions, some way instrumental to save them again. That they have found his endeavours, even in forwarding that Remonstrance, and in many other Instances, very useful, and very advantagious, and profitable too for all both Catholick People and Clergy of Ireland. And therefore he might in some measure, and sense, though with infinit disproportion, answer such of them as [Page 37] traduce or maligne him, as Christ did the Jews, when at the instigation of some, both of the envious Priests, and wicked Scribes (and Pharisees too, that religious, but hypocritical Sect of those ancient people of God) the multi­tude taking stones to throw at their Saviour of purpose to kill him, he told, and demanded of them, as the Gospel relates, multa opera bona ostendi vobis, Ioh. [...] 32. &c. propter quod eorum opus lapidatis me? That for his exposition of the said Remonstrance, in his More Ample Account, if it did not convince them, as he be­lieved it did, or whether it did or no, yet were not they desired to subscribe it, nor was it ever intended by him or any other, they or any else should either subscribe or approve otherwise of it, but, as they pleased, to read, or lay it by. That he alone was to answer for that Book if there was any thing amiss in it. And from them no more was expected but to sign the Remonstrance in it self barely considered, according to the true, obvious, and sincere meaning of all the several passages. And if they, taking it so, could otherwise rationally expound it than the Procurator did in his said little book, themselves were to satisfie their own consciences in that behalf, and leave his book to stand or fall to the Authors cost or profit. That, however, he found it a tye of duty on himself, for many respects, and particularly for that of acting by special Commission for the Catholicks both Clergy and Lay-people of Ireland, and to obtain for them some liberty, ease, or connivence in the exercise of Catho­lick Religion, To let them know they could not by other expositions answer or arrive at the ends of that exposition, nor shew themselves to be truly & sin­cerely loyal or faithful to the King in those contingencies wherein their allegiance might be for their former actions prudently suspected.

12. And for the general objection of all, their allegation of the laws still in force, &c. they were desired to consider, 1. How happy they would have thought themselves immediatly before the Kings Restauration, and for so ma­ny other foregoing sad years under usurping Tyrants, if they had found a suspension only of those laws, and that connivence at the exercise of their Re­ligion they now enjoyed under His most Sacred Majesty, and ever since, or im­mediatly after the Remonstrance presented in their names, or behalf, to Him. That they had far more assurance than they yet deserved, being they demurr'd so long on professing under their hands a dutiful subjection, and no other cer­tainly than without any such profession they were bound to by all the laws of God, under pain of Hell or Damnation, and by all the laws of the Land, un­der the severest punishments of Treason. That they were not to expect capi­tulations from the King for their being Subjects; but neverthess had cause enough to see, if they were not wilfully blind, He was, and would be to them all, a good, merciful, gracious, compassionat and indulgent King, blotting all their former iniquities (or those of so many of them as had been unjust to Him, and his Father, and Lieutenant, and other protestant People) quite out of His remembrance evermore, if they did shew themselves true penitents and converts, and sincere performers of their duty hereafter. That they were no indifferent, no competent Judges of those Articles they pleaded, whether they were broken or no by the King or his Ministers? or, if broke in any part, or to any person, whether such breach was lawful and necessary or no, in the pre­sent conjuncture of affairs, after so great a change or alteration of the case? That reason might tell them, considering the condition of their Country, and Inhabitants thereof, which requires other laws, and other proceedings, and another kind of use of laws, at least in matter of Religion, than England does at present, they could have no ground to fear any forcing of them to other Countreys for want of protection at home, if, and whiles they demeaned themselves peaceably; provided they gave generally and cheerfully that assu­rance expected from them of such peaceable demeanour hereafter. That in case of the very worst imaginable of evils, the comfort of a good conscience were to be preferred by them to any earthly emolument; and the conscience of having done their duty, by washing the scandal of unholy tenets from [Page 38] their Religion, would be a portable theatre to them, whethersoever they should be forced, and the assurance of suffering only in such case for a pure, holy, and undefiled Religion and Communion, for justice and the Catho­lick faith only, not for suspicion or conviction of treasonable maximes and pra­ctices, condemn'd in all other Kingdoms and States in their own cases, as im­pious, uncatholick, unchristian, and even, I say, condemn'd by the professors of their own Church, every where out of the small temporal Principality of the Pope. And therefore they needed not apprehend any such attempt, scorn, prejudice, or persecution abroad for having performed such a christian duty at home; but on the contrary, to be praised and cherished, if not perhaps, such as through vanity and folly, would esteem no other refuge, but where they might withal expect titles and miters, which they very little deserved, if not by such deserts as would untitle and unmitre them wholy, if they were sifted narrowly according to the Gospel of Christ or Canons of the Catho­lick Church; though perhaps they would hold them fast enough according to those other late ones, made by Papal authority alone. But that if the very saddest they could by Chymeraes frame to themselves, did happen in such case as well abroad, as at home, it became them, who by special function are Preachers of the Gospel of Christ, and of all the promises and rewards of it to others, to apply those also to themselves, make use of them, and re­member that saying of our Saviour, the eight and last, and most comfortable of all the Beatitudes, taught by this heavenly Master on the Mount to his Apo­stles, Disciples and others, and to all Christians by them, Beati qui persecutio­nem patiuntur propter justitiam: Math. 5.10. quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum, whether they suffer by Prince or Pope. For from both many holy men have often suffered persecution for justice; and some that are at this present glorified and invoked in the Roman Calendar as Saints possessing actually that King­dom of heaven so promised them for suffering for justice, have been persecu­ted on that account in their life, and to their death by Popes alone; as for example, St. Ignatius sometime Patriarch of Constantinople, excommunica­ted by Iohn the eight of Rome.

13. That other no less general objection, viz. That the Subscribers, Lay or Ecclesiastick, reaped no advantage by their subscription, more then others who had not subscribed, & the Lay Proprietors not their temporal Estates, nor Ecclesiasticks a liberty or freedom to exercise their spiritual function without fear or danger, albeit the most powerful to render the Remonstrance unsignificant amongst such as either look only on the present, and see no further, or such also as value no­thing but by temporal advantages; yet was more then sufficiently, more then abundantly solved by those other considerations offered to the Objectors. 1. That the design of that Remonstrance and subscription of it, was not thereby to be restored to their temporal estates: because if such, it had in­fallibly designed an unsettlement of the whole Kingdom: since it was clear enough there is no Roman Catholick but, on condition, or certainty of being restored to his Lands or other temporal pretences, would sign it: and no less evident on the other side, they could not be all restored without infallible disturbance of the publick peace, and hazzard of all sides in a second bloody war, there being so numerous and stubborn a party which must have been in such case dispossess'd of all their livelyhood for ever, how justly or unjustly soever acquired at first. 2. That nevertheless very many, or most of those Remonstrants or Subscribers had been already, or were to be one way or other provided for, some upon title of Innocency, others by special provision. As indeed we have seen effected, and not Remonstrants only, &c. That if the opposers both of Clergy and Laity had not delayed so long their own concur­rence, and thereby rendered themselves and their Catholick Nation suspected a new, but taken time by the sore-lock, and throughout the Kingdom general­ly, cheerfully, and heartily manifested their firm unalterable resolution, what­ever the former carriage of any was, to stand inviolably firm to the King here­after [Page 39] in all contingencies whatsoever, according to that Remonstrance, and as the first Subscribers had in their own behalf, and for their sake also done: they might with some colour have made this objection. But being the Sub­scribers were so few, and they almost so innumerable that opposed still with headiness and rashness: it was too soon to expect those favours, which are commonly given by a State upon good grounds of considerable advantage to it self: such as would be in the present case the assuring of all the Catholicks in Ireland to stand firm and loyal in all kind of dangerous contingencies what­soever. 3. That all generally of that Religion, ever since that Remonstrance was exhibited, and graciously accepted by His Majesty, had much ease, con­nivence, and liberty for publick meetings, and publick exercise of their Reli­gion, throughout all the Kingdom, without any considerable molestation therefore, in any place, if some very few walled Towns only, and within the walls only, or close by them, be not excepted; and that favour done at first, & continued ever since, by reason only of that Remonstrance, and for the sake of those who had given and subscribed it, and in expectation of the concur­rence of the rest to the same or like dutiful manifestation of their Allegiance. That although some numbers of poor Catholicks in some few parts, Town or Counties, had been three or four several times, taking one place with another, molested by presentments in some Bishops Courts, Inditements and Capiases by the civil Officers of Judges of the Assize and of Sheriffs; yet upon applicati­on made they found themselves presently at ease and rest from any further prosecution. 4. That albeit the indiscretion of too great a multitude of Ca­tholicks, and too publickly and boldly convening, and thronging in the streets from about twelve a clock at night on Christmass day till at noon, even at the very door of the Parish Church, or St. Owens in Dublin, where those of the contrary Religion, warranted by the laws, and where also the very guards did meet, to serve God in their way, occasion'd that disturbance and hurry ob­jected: yet they might visibly see the favour done the Remonstrant Clergy, whose Chappel that was. For notwithstanding their indiscreet carriage in that matter, they were all set at liberty within three or four dayes, and only because they were known to be true and faithful Remonstrants, as, besides their subscription to that paper, they had all along in the former quarrel of the Nun­cio, and other differences of the Consederats, in the late wars, approved themselves to be men so loyally, religiously, and conscientiously principled. 5. That for the Proclamation, whatever the cause of it was, they had no cause to complain of its execution. Lastly, that they were blind if they did not see, ungrateful if they did not acknowledge, the vast difference 'twixt the condition then of both the Lay Proprietors, as to matter of estate, and of Ec­clesiasticks as to that of liberty, and of both in all respects, and that, they could not but remember, they were in, all of them generally a little before, and for so many years together, without scarce any humane hope to see any end of their miseries.

14. Their objection of some words, and these were no more but two or three only, Pope, renounce, Papal, was answered by desiring them to shew by reason or argument how the naming of the Pope, or of his Papal power or pre­tence, or renouncing of that power in him, which they confessed was not in him, could argue any irreverence or disrespect, especially where, and when it was so necessary to use that expression, or an equivalent, and no other would or could do the work, or compass the end they so vehemently and rationally desired. That surely the Catholicks of England, then which there are none in the world more observant of all respect and reverence to the Pope, who were the authors and framers of the Protestation, who worded it throughly, knew very well these words were not irreverential in any wise. That they should find hereafter, and had already, the Roman Courtiers would not, did not ex­cept 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 [Page 40] 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; pro­vided 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 autho­rity, 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 Procu­rator was not deceived, as shall hereafter in its proper place appear.

15. To that of the Kings, or Lord Lieutenants desire of their subscripti­on 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 ac­cepted of their subscriptions, who had given the first example, both of Cler­gy, 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 Declarati­ons 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 with­out 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 no­thing 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 Na­tion, 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 pro­ceedings at Dublin) but singularly, & above all of the Congregation at Water­ford 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 un­reasonable reasons, pretences and excuses, and so much unwillingness, re­luctancy 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 Dioce­san Synods and Provincial Chapters, to determine those things which them­selves [Page 41] 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 there­of, 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, with­out 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 expe­cted. For what could be more dangerous in any Kingdom or State, or hu­man 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 com­manders of Allegiance of a people in a Kingdom as there are amongst the Se­cular 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 de­pend 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 depen­dencies one from another, but from their own conscience and knowledge of both the expediency and necessity of answering, and concurring to such a du­ty 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 spiritu­al direction, much right, and many good offices,, not only as to their spiritu­als, but temporals also.

XI.

And these were the answers of the Procurator: as those were the grand ob­jections, 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, pre­sently on his arrival, and because the opposition after came to be so great, and [Page 42] 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 Read­er; 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, where­by 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, un­conscionableness or uncatholickness, in point of Faith, Religion or morality, in the subscription of that Remonstrance, or of that Declaration of Allegi­ance, 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 o­ther (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 num­ber was one Father Bonaventure Brodin, a Franciscan, bred in the Colledge of the Irish Franciscans and University of Prague in Bohemia, where he taught Di­vinity 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 par­ticular to the Crowns of England and Ireland upon what pretext soever; and having no less often from them, as himself confessed then, received ample sa­tisfaction in every particular: and therefore, as he made them beleive, resol­ved 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 conse­quently the Procuratours coming for Ireland; yet after all this, had secret con­venticles at London to disswade the Nobility and Gentry (who agitated at that time in several publick meetings for eight weeks together the same Remon­strance to be subscribed also, with due applications, by themselves) from con­curring, 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 scand­al 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 affe­ctions, 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 con­sent 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 [Page 43] 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 be­trayes 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 under­taking 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 a­gainst 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 unbecom­ming (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 Gentle­man, 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 de­pendance 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 Cardi­nals de propaganda, nothing therein was esteemed censurable, at least other­wise 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 con­curring with the rest of his Countrymen against the Remonstrance and Sub­scribers) 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 med­dle with, or concern himself in that Remonstrance pro nec con, otherwise then by his displeasure only against those Churchmen that were the first Au­thors or chief promoters of it. And indeed we have no reason yet to com­plain 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 [Page 44] 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 pro­ceed rather by authority then reason, against that Instrument and those Sub­scribers, and by discountenancing and keeping them from all hopes of pre­ferment 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 a­broad 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 par­ties and factions of the Clergy against subscription, in the perclose of his par­ticular answers appropriated to their several objections, inculcated seriously, and vehemently insisted on this general argument against them. That where­as they all generally confessed the catholickness, and lawfulness of that form, or of the acknowledgments, declarations, protestations, promises, engage­ments and petition of that Remonstrance, and consequently the lawfulness of a subscription to it, and withal saw clearly, not only the expediency, but ne­cessity 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 functi­on, 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 consider­ed) both expedient and necessary, as well to hinder the propagation, and la­bour 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 mis­carriage 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 re­duction to the Church, and means of salvation, they were specially commissi­on'd by their calling, and enjoyn'd to preach and teach Evangelical truths, without addition, or substraction of, or countenance to any other novel, doubt­ful or controverted opinions, much less of those are certainly false and scanda­dalous, 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 fol­low 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 de­layed 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 up­on 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 Ca­tholick Faith and Church, so abominable to all apostatized from, or other­wise [Page 45] 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 Religi­on 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 appre­hension 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 ac­count, 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, ei­ther 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, where­ever 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 sup­posed all the very worst could happen beyond all fear; and yet found them­selves bound to do what they did. That they conceived their special functi­on, 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 impor­tunity, 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 hor­rour 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, not­withstandieg the Procurator most frequently, and earnestly, and pathetical­ly perclosed all his several answers to the several parties of the Clergy; and to those too of greatest authority and power amongst them, even Provinci­als, 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 con­ferring at Dublin with several of the chief heads there, peevishly adverss to [Page 46] 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 pur­pose 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 Remon­strance, and himself also upon account thereof, if he persisted in his resoluti­on to draw them to it, or not to work for them a liberty (as they vainly con­ceived he could) to frame another unsignificant one for themselves, and pre­vail for the acceptance of such by His Grace and by His Majesty: the Procu­rator 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 im­mediatly, & 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 Dub­lin. 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 pub­lick 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 sub­scribe that Instrument, and thereby quiet their own conscience, by declaring in that manner as they should, and was expected from them, their true allegi­ance to the Prince.

XV.

But for as much as I doubt not there are very many both desirous and curi­ous 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 Bi­shop 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 sub­scribed themselves, with their own hands, under the very original Remon­strance, 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 Re­monstrance 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 put­ting [Page 47] 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.

• 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 No­tary 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. Guar­dian 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 Missio­nary 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 [Page 48] 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 appro­bation 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 like­wise, for some of the same or like reasons, do I name, amongst them, the Bi­shop 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 suc­cess, 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 Mun­ster, 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 As­semblies (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 speci­al Letters to each by members of those Assemblies, but late and known Sub­scribers: to the Franciscans, by Father James Fitz Simons, above named, Guardian of that Order at Dublin, and Custos of their Province; & to the Do­minicans, 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 de­layes, 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 neces­sary 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 Apo­stolick 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 pre­tended 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.

[Page 49]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 Let­ter 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 A­quin, the Angelical Doctor, and Director of al their Schools, and whose do­ctrine 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 Fran­ciscans 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 Domi­nicans (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 disso­lution, and when the Dukes answer were known) four Priors of the next ad­jacent Convents, Father Felix Connor, Prior of Sligo, Father Richard Ma­dan, 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 effectu­ally conform to such their determination, whatever it should be. Hereupon they framed, signed, and sent their Letter, and Remonstrance inclosed there­in, 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 [Page 50] out the more easily; their own conscience or knowledge of their own reso­lution 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 sub­scribed 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 through­ly see the intrigue, and satisfie himself by knowing so many particulars of it.

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 Procura­tour, 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 particu­lars▪ 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 Lo­cal 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 di­vision 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 be­cause [Page 52] 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, discountenanc­ing 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 to­gether 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 dispensa­tion, or indulgence to Reynolds in case of sickness to eat flesh, but even an ab­solution 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 Provin­cial 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 Cle­ment 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 re­cantation; 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, accord­ing to his weak ability, for the Nuncio; but now in my judgment not so blame­able for this as for that of his either dissimulation in signing first, or recanta­tion 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 argu­ment 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 Provin­cial deserve credit, and their unhappy endeavours abroad, even to force themselves to continue such a conspiracy, and so make themselves and all o­thers 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.

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 in­differently, not speaking at least in publick one word to disswade any from subscription, nor condemning either in publick or private Father Iohn Rey­nolds, 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 in­genuity 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 under­stood what my Lord Lieutenant answered the bearer of his letter and Remon­strance, 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?

[Page 54]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 soo­ner take the Oath of Supremacy. To such a degree of folly and frenzy, their malice to the Subscribers drove them.

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

XX.

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

XXI.

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

XXII.

Much about this time also, William Burgat Vicar General of Imly, and Custos (as they call him) of the Diocess of Limerick, came from the Province of Mun­ster to Dublin, of purpose to speak to the Procuratour, about his own and the common affairs of all the Clergie both of that and the Province of Connaght. For this Gentleman hearing in August before, that the Procuratour was arri­ved from London, writt him presently a very civil letter, expressing much loy­alty to the King, and affection to the Lord Lieutenant. And his letter was seconded with a good character given of him then to the Procuratour by persons of Interest and knowledg in that Province of Munster, the Earl of Clancarty, and Iohn Walsh Esq. By that letter the said Father Burgat let the Procuratour know, himself had been deputed some three or four years past, in the Protectors tyranny, and by the Clergie of that Province, as entire A­gent for themselves to Rome, about their Ecclesiastical affairs: and by those of the Province of Connaght also, joyned in commission with an other, one Doctor Cegan for themselves. That money to bear his charges could not be had un­til about that time of His Majesties most fortunat Restauration. That seeing the great and happy change, he demurr'd on the matter, until the Earl of Clan­carty's first comming to Ireland. That having communicated unto his Lord­ship what he intended, he was advised by the said Earl, not to stirr till he had [Page 57] seen and been advised by Father Walsh the Procuratour. And that therefore he vehemently now desired to meet him about Kilkenny, or where else he would appoint. But the Procuratour having answer'd with desires of his comming to Dublin and meeting there, Father Burgat came at last along to Dublin. Where, notwithstanding the Procuratour spent much time informing him for 6. dayes consequently, of the causes and ends of the Remonstrance, and that the said Father Burgat averred constantly, that he neither found any thing in it could not be justly owned, nor heard any in his own Province hi­therto speaking otherwise, or one word against it; yet, whether perverted by such obstinate persons of the Dublin Clergie, as he conversed with daily then, or whether byass'd by his own former intrigues and principles received at first, and retayned still after, from his Bishop when alive, Terlagh O Brien (a Prelate of too much violent zeal for the Nuncius's quarrel) and further yet by his pretensions at Rome and his entended journey thither, he would not sign at all, then or there at Dublin: pretending for excuse that, being he came from the whole Province of Munster to be informed, he would have the greater power to perswade them all generally, if he returned back without preingagement; and the less, if otherwise. Desiring nevertheless, the Procuratour to write by him to the chief Vicar General or Apostolical, as they call him, Iohn Burk of Cashil, to be communicated to the rest, concerning that matter of the Re­monstrance, and their subscription. Which the Procuratour did; but never had answer from either. For it seems Mr. Burgat, who by all means decli­ned, nay expresly refused to be presented to my Lord Lieutenant (though invited often to it by the Procuratour, because my Lord so lately had seen his letter, and heard that good character of him, given by my Lord Clancarty and Mr. Iohn Walsh, and was commission'd as above by two Provinces) judg'd it bet­ter for his own private ends to have nothing to do in that business, at least not to appear for it. Which was the reason also he did not acquiesce to so many pregnant reasons given him by the Procuratour against his undertaking such a journey to Rome, at least as an Agent, or publick person representing both or either of those Provinces. Albeit he was so farre convinced by such reasons, as to promise the Procuratour he would only go as farre as Paris, to leave there some youths at School; and thence return immediately, with pur­pose to alleadg new and probable difficulties met with, and so excuse himself to the Clergie that had employed and given him money; which otherwise he must have restored back: and yet not so neither or by only restoring their mo­ney, without going over Seas, excused himself with any colour, being they so long depended of him. But in this promise also he failed. For he went a­long to Rome, and there sollicited ever since, and lost both his money and time, without compassing as yet any of his designs.

XXIII

Likewise about the same time, the R. R. Father in God Iohn Burk, the Ca­tholick 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, de­sired to know his cause of venturing so confidently without acqainting first, and having by some way addressed himself to my Lord Lieutenant, and un­derstood 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 fair­ly 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 [Page 58] & 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 af­ter unfortunate sitting, and concurring at Iames-stown with other Bishops, to those disloyal Declarations made there. That he had not since, by any pub­lick or private application to His Majesty, or Lord Lieutenant, or by submissi­on and repentance declared to either, washed of the stain of that scandalous & horrid transgression: nor given any assurance of his more loyal carriage here­after. 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 par­don 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 mind­ed him of, even sometime in the presence of the above Father William Bur­gat, 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 de­sired 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 ex­cuse 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 reve­rence 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 fore­see; 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 with­all 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 po­werful 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 Au­gustinians, Carmelits, Cappuccins, or Jesuits; no more then he had none of the Parish-priests, who were four or five, and together with the said Regu­lars made fifty Priests, or there abouts, in that City) albeit, I say, the Pro­curator 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 concur­rence 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 Holi­nesse'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 there­of, 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, how­ever compelled subscription, sufficing the King of one side, and excusing them on the other with the Pope and others beyond Seas: and albeit the Procura­tor 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 Ge­neral, or upon other less accounts then other Regulars) would any longer de­lay [Page 60] 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 pub­lickly 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. Ber­nard, 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 Ec­clesiâ exerendus est. Ille Sacerdotis, is militis manu, sed sane ad nutum Sa­cerdotis.

XXVI.

That the Procurator answered this paper of Quaeries by another of Re­solves. And to the first Quaerie, That not only the Pope, but inferiour Bi­shops, nay Ghostly Fathers, have a perswasive and directive power of tem­poral Princes, even in temporal matters, and not only pro bono Ecclesiae, but for the particular spiritual advantage of such Princes: even such a perswa­sive 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 mat­ters, 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 spiri­tual 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 coer­cive 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 transla­tion 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 se­cundum 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 [Page 61] (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 que­stion, the Resolve was negative, specially in all those excepted cases of a con­tradiction 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 omit­ted. That period being thus concluded by the Saint, Séd sanè ad nutum sa­cerdotis, & jussum imperatoris. Where he manifestly shews the difference be­twixt the direction of the Priest, and command in the Emperour over the temporal, or material sword. 2. That St. Bernard never mean'd to impose any any necessity of conscience on the Prince to draw his sword whensoever, and as often soever, as the Priest, or Bishop, would becken or nod, or, which is the same thing, would advise, counsel, or endeavour to perswade him. But mean'd only, that the material sword should indeed be drawn by the Empe­rours command in such controversies or quarrels, as the Priest might, and ought in conscience to justifie; according to the laws of God. And that tem­poral Princes in undertaking war, or in matter of publick or private justice, where they must use the sword or force, should, if their be any doubt whe­ther the undertaking, or execution, be according to the law of God, or no, and if themselves cannot resolve themselves, should, I say, in such cases advise with, or consult, the Priest, in that which belongs to conscience. The Saint, without any question, supposing what the Prophet Malachy speaks, That the lips of the Priest shall preserve knowledge, and others shall demand of him the law of truth. 3. That were St. Bernard speaking to the Bishops of Milan, Constan­tinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Ierusalem, or to him of Paris, London, Toledo, or Triers, or to any other particular Bishop in the world, that had a temporal Prince, or General of War within his Diocess: he might, and would have said so much to him; nay, to the Priests that are no Bishops at all, I mean the Ghostly Fathers, or Spiritual Directors of Princes. 4. That this very Saint himself doth abundantly clear all scruples in this matter. For not to take notice of those words, tuo forsitan nutu, & to quit the advantage of these other, & jussum Imperatoris, both in this very passage quoted against me: that other in his first book of Considerations to the same Pope Eugenius, c. 5. is abundantly suffici­ent. Non monstrabunt puto (sayes he) ubi aliquando quispiam Apostolorum Iu­dex sederit hominum, aut divisor terminorum, aut distributor tèrràrum: stetisse deni­que ego Apostolos judicandos, sedisse judicantes non lego, &c. Ergo in criminibus, non in possessionibus potestas vestra: quoniam propter illa, & non propter has accepistis claves regni caelorum: praevaricatores 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 & Prin­cipes terrae. Quid fines alienos invaditis?

After all which, he gave in the same paper of his answers, that is, in the skirt of it, this Advertisement. The Reader may be pleased to take notice, That however this be, or whatever may be thought of this doctrine; yet the Subscribers to the Protestation are not any way engaged either in the affirmative or Negative: it be­ing [Page 62] manifest, that the protestation in it self abstracts from either part, and consequent­ly both from these Answers and the Queries too.

XXVII

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

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 Socie­ty, 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, with­out 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 ob­liging 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 Maccha­bees rebelling against Antiochus, and the answer of the Procuratour to it (in [Page 64] his little book entitled The More Ample Account;) this imperfectly related, & as ill considered; and that worst of all applyed to maintain their affirmative re­solve, 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 ne­gative 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 them­selves 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 mea­ning 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 Clas­sick 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 nega­tive can scarce produce one Classick Author &c. and such as hold the affirma­tive 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 Pari­siensis &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 au­thorize 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 under­stand 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 on­ly to oppose common against that which is not common, or not in the vogue, al­though otherwise held by many in the very Schools, and even by Classick Au­thors, 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 judge­ment 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 pur­pose, 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 pre­judice 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 Platina himself, and what also they may further see clearly demonstrated in Wi­dringtons learned Works, especially in his Discussio Discussionis Decreti Concilij Magni Lateranensis, and in his last English Rejoynder to Fitz Herbert &c. con­cerning 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. Ca­pitula, 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 Coun­cil 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 Coun­cil.

How consequently being there preceeded, but three years before, an editi­on 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 [Page 66] 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 contro­versie 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 Chap­ters 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 (per­haps 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 be­fore 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 Decre­tals.

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 Coun­cil 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 Coun­cil, 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 inhi­bentes, &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 Catho­licks, 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 con­demnation of the said errours, and received or approved that condemnation [Page 67] 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 an­nual confession.

How further, when that most Illustrious Cardinal urgeth that both Scho­lastical 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 re­hearsed 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 Coun­cil of Constance, in the 39th. Session, where ordaining what profession the fu­ture 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 Constanti­nople, 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 al­so of Lateran, Lyons, and Vienna, also general Councils: how I say to this ar­gument it is answered by very learned Catholick Divines, that by the Coun­cil 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. Bi­shops 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. controver­ted, especially the 3^d. of them,Ext. de Haereticis Et at. tributtur Concilio Latera­nensi. 4. Ponitur­ (que) inter ejusdem Concilii Canones, Can. 3. where­of our grand controversie now is,Excommunicamus et anathematizamus om­nem haeresim &c. Damnativero, Saecularibus potestatibus praesentibus, aut eorum Ballivis relinquantur &c. Qui autem inventi fuerint sola suspitione notabiles &c. Moneantur autem et inducantur, et si necesse fuerit, per censuram Ecclesiasticam compellan­tur &c. Si vero Dominus temporalis requisitus et monitus an Ecclesia, terram suam purgare neg­lexerit ab hac haeretica faeditate, per Metropolitanum et Comprovinciales Episcopos Excom­municationis 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 pos­sideant, 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. to have been conciliarly assented to by those Fathers of Lateran; yet nothing [Page 68] to purpose can be concluded hence, or out of any of those Canons admit­ted 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 graun­ted) no more can follow hence but that this Canon, and for as much as it con­tains any temporal punishment or penalty of confiscation, deprivation, for­feiture, &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 them­selves 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 con­cerning either the nullity or insignificancy of this Canon, or of the rest allead­ged 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, Ca­nons, 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 sa­ving 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 Di­vinity 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 emi­nent Cardinal was no less shamefully the second time foiled in all his allegati­ons 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 [Page 69] 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 Papa in jam dicto Co [...]cilio, scilicet in die S Ja­cobi, con­tra Im­perato­rem ex­commu­nicatio­nis sen­tentiam renova­vit, & eum ab Imperia­li Cul­mine, au­thoritate propria deposuit, & hanc depositio­nem per totam Ecclesiam promul­gavit, praecipi­ens sub intermi­natione excom­munica­tionis, ut nullus eum Im­perato­rem de cetero nomina­ret. Alber­tus Sta­densis in Chroni­co. in his Chronicle, ad annum, 1245. most particularly, and expresly tells this Sen­tence 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 Depo­sition) That the said Frederick, I say, had bound himself by an Oath of Allegi­ance 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 con­cerned 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 Fre­derick himself had. For (sayes the foresaid Albertius Stadensis) Quidam Prin­cipum 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 infallib­le 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; what­ever 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 [Page 70] proposed to him (by Father Bonaventure Brudin a little before, one of those Franciscan Professors of Divinity at Prague in Bohemia) and insisted on mighti­ly, 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, tru­ly 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 Coun­cils, That according to, at least some, very learned Catholick Divines, he ra­ther 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 Coun­cil, truly such, should define the contrary. And why so, but because he sup­posed 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, tru­ly 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 infal­lible 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 dis­junctive 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 abso­lutely 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 im­possibility, 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 re­course 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 Antece­dent, 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 im­possible, upon this ground only, that he also holds the doctrine of the Remon­strance 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 deliberat­ly, it were impossible that a General Council should define against any con­troverted doctrine, unless he held as well, and as firmly, that a General Coun­cil [Page 71] might not erre, as he holds well and firmly either part of that controvert­ed 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 im­possibility of a General Councils defining so.

No other ground therefore is given here by the Procurator for being tax­ed with undervaluing the authority of General Councils, but only this conditio­nal proposition (which he confesses implied virtually in his discourse) If a Ge­neral 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 An­gel 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? Se­condly, 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 impos­sible 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 ge­neral 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 other­wise 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 Ac­count. 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 [Page 72] 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 conse­quents.

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 ge­neral 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 Le­gals only) I say that before this first of Nice, assembled by the Emperour Con­stantine, 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 sub­stances, 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 de­mand of our objectors, what should one of these true believers of one sub­stance 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 re­nounce and disclaim in, and protest against all contrary doctrine, and all au­thority 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 resolu­tion, 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 Catho­lick 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? [Page 73] [...]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 autho­rity of general Councils? or, which is the same thing, with holding absolutely; or with averring or confessing absolutely, and by such answer, that the Coun­cil to be convened so generally at Nice could erre in that Faith of one sub­stance? 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 al­low 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 ab­solutely 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 uni­versal 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 groa­ned 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 fu­ture 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 insi­sted 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 ge­neral 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 ob­ject 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 disclai­ming 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 con­ditional 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 speci­al 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 pati­ence 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 Am­ple Account, or which I made therein to both those Metaphysical contingencies or Queries which the foresaid Father Brodin insisted on. The first being, What [Page 74] 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 gene­ral 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 pos­sible 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 Pro­testation, 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 de­cline, 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 Ca­tholick 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 hun­dreds 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 thous­and 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 interroga­tories? We have this advantage of them that in our judgments, and in the judg­ments of at least the incomparably far greater part, even of the Catholick Church, there is not only both extrinsecal and intrinsecal probability in that we promise and protest, but even an absolute certainty as grounded on most clear Scriptures and traditions: and that the contrary positions or tenets are so farr from having any in­trinsick probability at all, that they are manifest errors against the word of God: whereas, they on the other side practice daily in matters of greatest concern, relying on­ly on the bare saying or quotation of one or two Casuists, and these too, not seldom, extravagant and superficial men for matter of knowledg in the most profound que­stions of Religion. And it is further manifest by reason, that were such Metaphy­sical contingencies or apprehensions of them, of power to render any unlawfulness in our signing the said Protestation, the very same contingencie must vitiat their op­posing us, even I say as to the question of expediency or necessity. And all the expo­sitions made by the Fathers on hard passages of Scriptures, and all the Sentences or controverted conclusions of Catholick writers in the succession of all ages, since the days of Peter Lombard, have been and are still unlawful, even as to the expediency of delivering or teaching them. Which to assert would be in effect to bereave our selves of all charity, and all modestie, and all reason. Nay, all the Canons, Defini­tions, Anathematismes of so many ancient, holy, Christian Councels, either Provin­cial or National, as we find in the Tomes of Councels (and which have been held, some a thousand, others 11. 12. 13. 1400. years agoe, and some latter; all reverenced, and many of them canonized by the very Popes themselves) must have been unlaw­ful, and not onely temerarious, but even sinful, scandalous and schismatical; yea, the profession of the Trinity of persons, or Divinity of Jesus Christ, or an Oath or Protestation made to that purpose, disclaiming in, and renouncing all Doctrine and au­thority to the contrary (that is, in so much) would be not onely unexpedient, but e­ven unlawful, sinful, scandalous, schismatical, before the first general Councel of [Page 75] Nice, against Arrius, or that other, which was held at Constantinople against Ma­cedonius; yea, that admonition of Paul, Though we or an Angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you then that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed, would be so too; nay, and that asseve­ration of our Saviour Christ himself in the Gospel was rash and false, Si dixero quia non scio eum, similis ero vobis mendax, if this argument or interrogatory of our opposers be to any purpose; or if their foolish impertinent discourses, or private whispers, ever since the 15. of Feb. last, amongst our lay Gentry here signifie any thing, to prove that we renounced or disclaimed in the Doctrine or Authority of a General Councel, because we disclaim and renounce any at all (as yet known to us) which teaches or maintains any power Papal or Princely, Spiritual or Temporal, which may absolve us from our natural Allegiance to His Majestie, or which may license us to rebell against him; or to kill or murther the Anointed of God, our Prince, though of a different belief from ours. (Though, which is observable, our Protestation, ri­gorusly taken, as to this particular, be onely against all such authority, as is forreign; and that that of a general Council, truly such, be known not to be properly forreign to any Christian Country. And although the true meaning and purpose of it be onely against the Spiritual or Temporal pretended power of Popes alone)

But however this be or any thing heretofore said to these wild imaginations, I would [...]ain know whither it be not an undubitable Maxime in moral Philosophy and Divi­nity, that our action is then lawful when it is against no law that is yet known, or doubted to be either of God or man? And expedient, when in the judgment of wise men, or in our own weighing all circumstances, it is expected to conduce towards a good or just end, we propose to our selves? And whether the possibility of a future law, or declaration against, or inhibition of the like any more, can vitiat actions qualified so, which precede such laws? Certainly as this last querie must be answered in the negative, so the two former in the affirmative.

Now let any man that reads this passage, and what! I have given before it, and for its illustration, here in this present Book and Section, let I say any such man (of what affection soever, so he be a man of reason) be judge himself whether in this passage I do undervalue the authority of general Councils? And I am sure there is no other passage in any other of all my writings where I say any thing to undervalue them.

And yet I must tell my adversaries, that such Catholick Divines as hold the absolute fallibility of General Councils, even I mean in point of Faith, think they can say enough for themselves to prove that themselves do not therefore or indeed at all undervalue General Councils. And enough also to prove that they justly charge their opposers with overvalueing General Councils. As al­so to prove that themselves do still acknowledg a General Council, truly such, to be the onely Supream Tribunal in the Church. And still acknowledg the Supream power of making Canons, which concern either Faith or Discipline, to be in this Council. And still too acknowledg both external and internal ac­quiescence and obedience due from all persons, even from the Pope himself, to all their decrees in all Spiritual matters purely such whatsoever, wherein an intollerable error against the Faith received is not evidently demonstrated. And enough moreover to prove that to attribute more then this to General Councils, howsoever truly such, were indeed to overvalue them against truth and Tradition. And finally enough also to prove, it may be as daungerous an errour in religion or Faith to overvalue either Pope or Council, as to underva­lue them. But whether such Catholick Divines as think so, or think themselves can say enough for all and each of these particulars do think aright, I am not concern'd at present, no further then to tell my Adversaries they should rather dispute against them who give some kind of ground, then charge me, and false­ly too, being I give them no such ground at all, nor any other of being charg­ed with undervalueing General Councils.

XXXII.

Fourthly, they would find their allegations false, where they say, that in the opinion of the Diffusive Church, corporal punishments may be inflicted by a spiritual power. I say that this is false, if they mean (as they do certainly, and must, speaking to the purpose) by the word 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 & con­versation 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 ex­communicated 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 ge­neral 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 conver­sation 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 Evan­gelical, 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 es­sence 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 & publica­nus, 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) Gover­nours 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 sub­mission, 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.

[Page 77]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 pec­catum, 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, ci­bum (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 ejus­modi, 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 nomi­nantur, 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 Eth­nicis 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 ava­rus, 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 no­tum est post Extravagantem Martini Quinti (in Concilio Constantiensi) etiamsi constet ejusmodi vel pessimos quos (que) fratres in Excommunicationem expressam incidisse, licere nihilo­minus iisdem communicare, etiam in divinis, antequam denuntientur nominatim a Judice Ecclesiastico, nisi forte sint notorii Clericorum percussores. Quod tamen non liceret per Con­cilium, 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 pe­riculum 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 qui­dem 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 excom­municatos, 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 su­mere cum quovis tali, patet, Quia (ut alia plurima omittum) nonnullis talibus, scilicet ex­communicatis, tenemur multi ex naturae ipsius ac divinarum legum praescripto in i [...]s quae adi­aphora sunt obedire: ut uxores maritis, filii minorennes parentibus, subditi superioribus quibuscum (que) tam spiritualibus quam temporalibus, et multo magis iis qui Principes ac Do­mini sunt supremi, Soli Deo minores. Ex adiaphoris autem simul comestio ciborum omni [Page 78] aeculo reputabatur. Consilia verò Apostolorum nequeunt intellig [...] in praejudicium obligatio­nis 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 ip­sos 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 sal­tim aequè hic militant) non statuere praeceptum ad peccatum obligans, ubi lex alioquin natu­rae 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 lo­cum, vol alium divinarum scripturarum, vitare universim, seu ex praecepto, seu consilic, ejusmodi cum haereticis commercium. Quare ubi Canonistae (satis ineptè permiscentes excommuni­cationem non censuram cum aliis duabus quae censurae sum, id est, cum majori et minori) volunt exclusionem a publicis precibus, negationem (que) cujuslibet communionis externae, effe­ctum esse necessarium, seu per se (ut loquuntur) Anathematis vel excommunicationis Ma­joris, 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 anathe­matizato (scilicet, modò post Constantiense Concilium, si nominatim sit denuntiatus; uno excepto Clerici notorio percussore:) corrigendi sunt si velint ita statutum esse aut à Christo ip­so aut ab Apostolis immediatè; intelligendi (que) potiùs ita censere ex puris Canonibus Ecclesi­asticis posteriorum Saeculorum, vel censuetudine Ecclesiarum, ubi nempe tales recepti sunt Canones, viget (que) consuetudo; sive jure inquam sive injuria. Fateor enim bisce vetitis quin­que etiam plures alias inhabilitates incapacitates (que) additas pluribus variorum quorundam Pontificum Romanorum Decretalibus. Quae quam vim habeant nolo impraesentiarum disputa­re. Satis esto, Regulam generalem proponere, ut quae sunt juris naturae juri positivo Ec­clesiastico 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 administratio­ne 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 excommunica­tionis 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 con­silio seclera non perpetrantur: peregrinos item ac viatores: ac universaliter quoslibet com­municantes cum illis excommunicatis qui propter solam communionem cum praecipuis excommunicatis censuram incurrerunt. Quas omnes exceptiones postea revocarant Sum­mistae ad quinque Capita alio versu comprehensa, Utile, Lex, Humile, Res ignorata, Ne­cesse. 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 punish­ments) 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 com­pulsory 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 o­ther 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 pro­prietors in possession thereof. And yet the power in every such Confessour to enjoyn such temporal restitutions, dispositions, or even depositions and de­privations respectively, to be undergone and executed by the penitents them­selves, 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. There­fore 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 compul­sory means, coaction, or force, belongs to the same power. And yet it is granted still that the spiritual power considered as directive hath a proportio­nable coercive power, to witt meerly spiritual, annexed inseparably; and there­fore no other execution but by meer spiritual wayes, or means, that is, by de­nying of communion in meer spiritual matters. For it is a most certain Chri­stian 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 [Page 80] 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 religi­ous 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 hea­then 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 priest­hood of Christ, no more a God of Hosts, but suffering Saviour, and now un­der 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 earth­ly rewards, but celestial alone: therefore I say to conclude from that ex­ample 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 affir­mative 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 hor­rible not only dissimulation, but opposition of such known truths in matter of conscience and Christian Faith: and consequently of that sin against the Ho­ly 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 ob­jection 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 Macchabaean 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 Sa­cerdotal 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 take­ing, 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 oppre­ssion 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, vi­ctories, 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 en­lighten 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.

[Page 81]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 sin­ful 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 imper­fect 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 in­herent, supream, natural power; being they can pretend no such visible ap­pearance, 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 su­pernatural, and purely spiritual power of Christian Priests? just a meer no­thing. 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 inhe­rent right of the people, as a civil, or temporal Society, though not as a spiritu­al, or not as a Christian Church, but still as a people purely, or naturally consi­dered. 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 ha­ving 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 con­quest, 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 An­tiochus, 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 [Page 82] Christ 334. and since the death soon after of the said Alexander, the year be­fore 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 Anti­ochus 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 Philo­metor, without any just cause or provocation, or any other but his own ambi­tious 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 Mem­phis, 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 imme­diatly 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 ha­ving, out of desire to be revenged of others, even by the loss of their Coun­trey, 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 law­ful 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 ma­nifest 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 [Page 83] 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 conse­quently, 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, here­ditary 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 ex­trinsecally and intrinsecally most probable: and consequently, the signing of it lawful in point of conscience. But abstracting [...] these rules, and authori­ty 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 ab­stracted 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, posi­tions, 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 con­sulted 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 them­selves, 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, [Page 84] 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 conscienti­ousness in the matter, but meer temporal considerations) let them deter­mine 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 lat­ter by word of mouth, as you find here upon several occasions; the Procu­rator 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 Shel­ton, 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 positive­ly 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 So­ciety, Father Iohn Talbot, who had often before treated of the same matter, and promised his own concurrence with several others of his Order, what­ever the Superiour did, told the Procurator in his ear, as they were part­ing, that Father Shelton had not rightly delivered the result of the rest. But nevertheless, being soon after demanded the performance of his own for­mer, 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 Superi­our Father Shelton, and with him two more of the Society, Father Thomas Quin, and Father Iohn Talbot, being called upon, waited on his Grace: ha­ving first sent to the Procurator their own Form, or that which they would subscribe even this you have here.

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 Confe­derats rejected the peace of 46. and were drawn to besiege Dublin. The tenor of their second form was this.

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 Ma­jesties 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 be­siege Dublin. That he covld not understand why they declined a subscrip­tien to the Remonstrance, signed, presented to, and received already at Lon­don 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 [Page 86] 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 under­stood 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 de­pose the King, and absolve his Subjects from their Allegiance; being obsti­nately resolved to declare, and engage only against matters of fact, and this too with as many exceptions, equivocations, abstractions, distinctions, re­servations, as the words of this third Form would bear, and the Divinity of their Casuists would allow.

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 them­selves: 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 ne­ver 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 de­pose 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 depositi­on, deprivation, suspension, or excommunication against the King or his Liege-people, and notwithstanding any other declaration whatsoever, or dis­pensation with, or absolution of the said people from their allegiance, upon what pretext soever, civil or religions, temporal or spiritual, to continue al­waies 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 war­rant 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 mandan­di 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 excommuni­cation, 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 continu­ing 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, excom­munication, 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 start­ing 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 ex­trinsecal probability, was so blind as not to see their purpose in declining a [Page 88] 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 con­sequently, 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 earnest­ness in that business, but seen moreover within a while after His Graces Let­ter 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 communi­cation, 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, de­livered 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 re­solution, it would in time reflect heavily upon them all in Ireland, and con­firm 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 So­ciety in particular. For his own too he was so much concern'd: because when the Remonstrance was first at London graciously received by His Ma­jesty, 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 subscrip­tions: and because that notwithstanding so great prejudices against them yet the Procuratour singled out the carriadge and represented it of those in Ire­land (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 [Page 90] 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, Guar­dian 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 prin­cipal 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 meet­ing, 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 conscienti­ous 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 ho­ped 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 igno­rant, they were averse to it only on these accounts. But he found them other­wise 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 provo­cations enough in publick to speak against it if any thing they had to say, al­leadging 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 objecti­on 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 Eng­land 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 [Page 90] 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 in­dividual 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 o­ther 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 Procura­tour, and none opposed it, but Father Makiernan somewhat doubtfully. How­ever 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.