received it of men 5. All Subjects that live say you Hetrodox within a Kings dominions are not his lawfull Subjects immediately by Gods holy ordinance but all christians are immediately the Popes vassals Now you know and no man better that Correllatives are simul natura in a condition of relation by their proper nature the one to the other If therfore the secular and laic Prince have any power to command his naturall Subjects to live in the state of Subjects immediately from God then Obligation of all his naturall Subjects to yeeld their due Prince all due obedience of lawful Subjects is in like manner imediately from God And as the title of a subject to this dominion or breaking of some penall Statute or committing some notorious offence within this dominion makes me subject unto my Soveraign Lord the King or the State So the character of a christian makes me a subject unto the Pope at least as we Catholics believe and teach And as this man is not my King or Prince but by his inheritance election c. So none can be saluted and stiled Pope but by Canonicall and authenticall election of the Cardinals Now then as the character of Baptisme say we markes a man for the Popes lawfull Subject in spiritualibus Even so for a man to be born or to break a penall Statute for example within the Venetian dominion and State markes a man for the Venetian Republics lawfull Subject and to be born or to break a penall Statute within the Kingdome of France marks a man for the French Kings lawfull Subject 6. Again you have put down and vouched one point for positive and certain which is by catholic Doctors held to be dubitable and questionable namely whether the Popes power and authority when he is gone the beaten way of all flesh doth rest in the Church or whether the Church remaines void of such authority and power so soon as the Pope breathes out his last gaspe Surely those who stand tooth and nayle for the Romish opinion that I may take up the Stile of Navarrus C. Novit will have all power whatsoever in the Roman Bishops to be wholly derived from the Pope so that when the Pope dyes all the Bishops are at a stand or non-plus rather not able to break nor so much as once to bend or bowe the point of this pressing consequence ergo when the Pope dyes the Prelates of the Roman Church are cut off and barred of all their former authority whereupon they wheel and go round about the Bush maintaining with might and main as if Hanibal the Carthagenian Generall were ad Portas in Leaguer before the very gates of Rome that in the Church the foresaid Power is not inherent and yet is inherent in the Church which is to utter and poure out darke riddles or Delphian oracles and to broach mysteries not intelligible Yea it is cleer that Cardinall Bellarmine holds very firm and stiffe that when the Pope dyes the said power vanisheth like smoak out of the Church for he contends that when the Prince dyes the regall authority lives and rests in the community or whole body of Peers and people at least for those Princes who are mounted to Kingdomes or other States by election but when the Pope dyes then the papall authority lives not in the Cardinals by whom the Pope is elected nor yet in the Church This opinion howsoever defended and maintained by Cajetane and those of Rome is encountered and crossed with a contrary opinion held tooth and nayl by the Parisians by the whole Sarbone in generall and in particular by Johan Maior Ja. Almanius Gerson Cap. Novit de Iudi. Notab 3. as it is testified by Navarrus yea Navarrus himselfe marshals this opinion in the rancke of doubtfull Assertions howsoever Cardinall Bellarmine there sets it down for certain whereas in other passages he leaves it as doubtfull 7. You stand much for the word pasce oves feed my sheep as expresly and personally spoken to Peter alone and not likewise to the Church or by name to the rest of the Apostles But I must now tell you Hetrodox that many Doctors do stand not onely for the said words pasce oves feed my sheep but also for the words dabo claves I will give thee the Keyes to be spoken both alike without all question unto Peter howbeit in the person of the whole Church as the Parisians doe both strongly and perspicuously prove Nor can it be a good consequence that because feed my sheepe and I will give thee the Keyes were both spoken to Peter therefore the same words were not spoken to the rest of the Apostles for it is generally confessed and granted of all that all the Apostles were of equall authority howsoever Peter for his faithfull confession made of Christ as also for bearing a most remarkable excesse of love and affection to the person of Christ might seem perhaps to deserve some title of preheminency and prerogative of dignity above the other Apostles The plain verity hereof appeares by that famous passage in the Gospell where Christ having most gracious and heavenly communication with all the Apostles together Mat. 18. and as it were in a knot vouchsafed to use the very same words unto them all that he had used unto Peter before Quaecunque ligaveritis whatsoever yee shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven Lib. 1. de Rom. pont C. 12. and whatsoever yee shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven of which passage the most illustrious Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe hath advisedly been pleased to afford this fayre exposition est igitur communis c. It is the common exposition of S. Jerome Anselmus Hilarius with diverse other writers upon this passage Tract 22. 49. in Ioh. as also of S. August that our Lord there speaks concerning the power of the Keyes whereby the Apostles and other successors of Christ do bind and loose sinners which power a little after the same Lord Cardinall affirmes to be understood both concerning the power of order Mat. 18. and also concerning the power of jurisdiction promised to the Apostles in the foresaid passage but fully and actually given to all the Apstoles by Christ when he said to them all Joh. 20. Peace be unto you As my father hath sent me so do I send you whereas the power of order was given in the last Supper Now that pasce oves feed my sheepe and tibi dabo claves I will give thee the Keyes when both were spoken to Peter Tract 50. in Joh. were in like sort addressed to the Church S. Augustine makes it manifest by his luculent authority and testimony worthy of all credit Si in Petro non esset Ecclesiae Sacramentum c. If the Church was not in Peter sacramentally for certain the Lord Iesus would never have said to Peter I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of heaven And if these
riseth out of true premises even so your concluon or his Lordshrhs which you please is false because it is inferred upon false premises that is drawn from a fufty vessel of unwholsome doctrine which the one of you two hath broached the piercing or at least running whereof I have now as you see endeavoured to stop with a handsome Faucet 1. Will you now be pleased to see your errours to make men subject unto their lawfull Prince by Gods law you hold it needfull that for the right and title of their subjection some text of holy Scripture be produced remember it hath been declared before that power and title to power are two different heads that power is from God and of necessity followes or comes after title The French King rules and governes in France not by law of inheritance but by vertue of authority received from God The Venetian Prince I meane the Republic and body of State howsoever you have learned of Cardinall Bellarmine with great artifice and skill to seale up the eyes of your own knowledge in the matter beares not command and rule over Padua by such meanes as they first attained to the dominion thereof but because being impatronised or made Lords of Padua by humane meanes they have it now in command and ever had from the time of their first occupation possession by vertue of the power and right received from God himselfe And herein what difference can you find to lye between Prince and Pope For if the Pope shall be asked wherefore he is Pope this will be his answer because I have been Canonically elected by the Cardinals to the Popedome and for that purpose he will never study or stand to produce any testimony of Scripture but aske him by what authority he gives or grants his indulgences c. surely he will answer because God hath given him power to forgive sinnes 2. To prove that Princes are subject unto priests by the law of God you cut out and frame a silly sheepish argument from sheepe and shepherds Gods law say you is the law of nature by natures law the sheep is in state of subjection to the Shepherd by Gods law therefore the Laic Prince is in the like state of Subjection to the Priest I answer the Prince is no sheep of the Shepheard priest but of the great Shepherd Christ for Christ said not to Peter Feed thy Sheep but Feed my Sheep So that your Argument if it conclude any thing at all concludes that Princes are subject unto Christ and not unto the Priest Nay the Priest as a sheep in temporall causes and matters is rather subject unto the Prince David gave the terme and nomination of sheep to all his people and Subjects Ego erravi isti qui sunt Oves quid focerunt It is I that have sinned what have these my sheepe done S. Pauls words are pungent and peremptory Let every soule be subject unto the higher Powers If then your argument hath any sinewes to evince that Subjects are bound by Gods law to yeeld obedience unto their Superiors of highest power then all priests likewise who are Subjects no lesse then others are directly bound by Gods law to the due obedience of their temporall Princes penall or Statute Lawes at least in temporall matters 3. The father you say is not subject unto the sonne if Hetrodox his own Father yet living were now elected King or Pope should not Hetrodox his Father as a man and a Christian be subject unto Hetrodox his Sonne whether King or Pope Howsoever young Hetrodox the sonne should beare due respect and reverence to old Hetrodox as to the Father Again the Father a Laic may receive absolution of his own sonne a priest and the son a priest may receive correction by the authority and command of his Father a secular Magistrate if men would not be intrapped in the snares of error they must learn to distinguish between titles and persons a Prince in spirituals being a sonne in temporals may be a Father 4. Touching the similitude of body and soul howsoever I grant it may be true in part as in this point by name that a temporall Prince his power is Per se of it selfe over the body and the spirituall priests power is over mens soules yet your similitude wants weight of truth in some other part and halts down right For temporall power save only as it is exercised by a Christian is not subordinate to spirituall power no not in ecclesiasticall and spirituall causes on the contrary the subjection of priests in temporall causes is plainly subordinate unto the temporall Prince Arguments thus framed are not worth a rush temporall power is over mens bodies and spirituall power is over their soules as the body then is directed and ruled by the soule and the soule not by the Body so he that is armed and authorised with temporall power must be directed and ruled by such as are invested with spirituall power I say again such reasons are not worth a rush for body and soule together do make one whole compound creature which is man whereas corporall power and spirituall power make not one body but rather two bodies and two heads These two powers as both are powers are different in all things and without subordination as either of them is a power neither doth Nazianzen teach the contrary much lesse teach your affirmative as who soever will read Gregory himselfe shall readily finde For thus much Gregory writeth in effect and no more that as the soule is more noble then the body so the spirituall power is more noble then the temporall which for my part so long as I go for a Roman Catholic I dare not deny 5. You are much overseen Hetrodox to charge me with makeing use of this doctrine to the hurt of the Church when I should rather whet and scoure my weapons against hereticks And herein you resemble me to the spider that sucks poyson from the same sweet and oderiferous herbs or flowers out of which the industrious Bee sucks honey Have you not herein much forgot your selfe He that delivers the truth neither fights nor speakes against our mother the Church but against such as harbour settled and secret pretensions in their breasts to usurpe more then appertains to their persons callings or degrees Again the Church is the Kingdome of heaven and you speak in your whole discourse of none but earthly Kingdomes in which without all question the Church can have no share nor interest nisi per accidens ex donatione fidelium but such as comes upon the By as we say that is by casuall meanes or else by franke donation or free gift of the faithfull the grandeur of all which earthly Kingdomes and of all other temporall States the Church doth establish Thirdly the use of this doctrine tendeth and serveth not only for the confuting and extirping of heresies or heretics but likewise of all such as maintain and broach any
the honour of Christ as if they were the Kings eldest sonnes that is exempted by the Law of God Who sees not here the great and notable discrepance between the spirit of godly Saints the blanched pretensions of our times But most of all it grieves and afflicts my mind to see and heare how men impose one thing upon the learned Saints and ancient Fathers when they teach another and the cleane contrary Iansenius in this place affirms That Exemption is Privilegium Principum secularium non jure divino the priviledge of Secular Princes and not by Gods Law 9. You run Hetrodox into the same error in citing the words of S. Augustine whose words be these Quod dixit ergo liberi sunt filii in omni regno intelligendum est libeâ—os esse Regis filios non vestigales multò ergo magis liberi esse debent in regno terrenâ— filii illius regis sub quo sunt omnia a regna terrae whereas therefore Christ hath said the children are free it is to be understood that in every Kingdome the Kings own children are no tributaries to pay any Subsidies Rents or Pensions How much more then should the sonnes and children of that King be free in a terrene or earthly Kingdome under whose footstool all the Kingdomes of the earth are couched S. Thomas expounding this passage useth a very direct and perspicuous answer Qui facti sunt Filii Dei per gratiam liberi sunt in quolibet regno secundum mentem à servitute scilicet peccati non autem liberi à servitute corporali In every Kingdome the sonnes of God by grace are free as touching the mind namely from the bondage of sin but not free from service of the body And here three things are to be noted 1. that S. August speaks not of Ecclesiastics as Card. Bellarm. pretends but of all Christians 2. That he speaks not of any liberty or immunity from corporall charges or burthens S. August Tho. in 13. ad Rom but speaks of spirituall liberty and freedome from sinne 3. That from this place Thomas collects wee have no liberty no immunity from God whereby wee are exempted from the dominion of temporall Kings in temporall causes Jansenius brings a better and more literall exposition of S. August words for he saith S. August reasons from the plurall number as Christ himselfe argues from the plurall neverthelesse it is to be understood of the singular number that is of Christ alone As for example suppose a son of the French King should say if in every Kingdome the Kings children be free from tribute much more then in the Kingdome of France ought all the sonnes of the King be free and therefore I ought So saith S. August that Christ spake unto Peter Jn omni regno liberi sunt regis filii c. In every Kingdome the Kings children are no tributaries but free then much more ought all the sonnes and children of that King be free in a terrene Kingdome to whom all the Kingdomes of the earth are in subjection and that is I ought much more to be exempted from paying tribute or Poll-money but lest wee should scandalize these Publicans and toll-gatherers or Collectors c. And this doubtlesse is the true exposition of that place wherein who can be so blind as not to see your ninth most manifest and palpable errour Hetrod No doubt Orthodox if some of your hereticall Sect where here now in place they would bestow upon you a ringing plaudite for acting your part so well in the defence of this dayes Proposition Orthod I confesse Hetrodox that after the way which you call heresie touching this dayes Proposition so worship I the God of my Fathers believing all things concerning this Article which are written in the Law in the Prophets in the Apostles in the holy Fathers writings not blurred nor abused with erroneous expositions and false glosses Errare possum Haereticus esse nolo subject I may be and am to errors as all men are your selfe Hetrodox not excepted with all your deepe Clark-ship but you shall never find me wilfully to persist or stick in any errour as heretics do by the grace of my God as I said before It seemes by your falling to reproachfull termes that you have no more Petarres to blow up the strong gates of my second Proposition or other Engines and Peeces of great Ordnance to batter the Walls and Flankers thereof will your courage and heart serve you to play with your Artillery to morrow morning to give a brave assault upon the Fort of my third Proposition Het In the word of a Generall it shall be done assuring my selfe of honour and victory in the action Orth. The houre Het At Sun-rise Orth. Agreed Sir Het At your service Sir The third daies Conference Orthodox THe houre is jâ—stly kept of both parts Is your gâ—t Ordnaâ—ce placed Then let us heare it â—ay Time you know is precious Hetrodox It shall presently roare and thunder to the raising of the Fort vainly fancied to be impregnable if you dare first give me leavâ— to take some view of your third Proposition Orthod Dare Hetrodox I dare and I doe Here is the true modell or plat-forme to lesse then a haire Take a full view thereof at your good pleasure Hetrod O strange what do â—here set First it purports that our Lord Christ never exercised any authority of a Temporall Prince Orthod I perceive Hetrodox there is neither Beame nor Pin and Web in your eye Indeed it purports no lesse and thereupon it inferres That Christ never left any such authority to St. Peter and his successours whom we Catholiques call his Vicar For the Vicar is never advanced to a higher degree of Dignity and Power then the chiefe and principall Commander himselfe even purchased and possessed before Lib. 1 sent De auct Papae Sotus and Cardinall Bellarmine looking into this matter thorow cleer Christalline Spectacles do much wonder to see the boldnesse of our Canonists who have the face to maintain without any reason or authority of the New-Testament That Papa est Dominus totius orbis directè in temporalibus the Pope in all temporall causes is the direct Lord of the whole World a Doctrine for certain full of scandall and built upon a sandâ— foundation Some Authors besides the Canons which will never hold weight in concurrence with Scripture do avouch Thomas of Aquine De Regim Princ. c. 10. and 19. That Papa est Dominus totius orbis in Temporalibus Spiritualibus the Pope is Lord of the whole World as well in Temporals as in Spirituals But by their good leave Thomas never had neither head or hand in the inditing or penning of that work I appeale herein to Card. Bellar. himselfe De potest Papae Bâ—sides divers others of his most certain conjectures this one is of strong sinewes and thereby carries the greater force He sets downe the Emperour Adulphus
Manâ—â—cript Lectures and in his first Books the words of Sotus are both found and read If now being of another mind he be not pleased to acknowledge and grant us the same and would have us to belâ—eve that he hath not written what I now avouch and averre the matter is not of any great consequence In his Books we see infinite alterations choppings and changings every day Sotus by him cited hath left it upon Record and that serves my turne And howsoever it imports but little to the principall question whether he will have it so uttered by the tongue and penne of Sotus or no that puts me to no manner of trouble so long as I finde it extant in the writing of Sotus himselfe whose Doctrine whose phrase nay whose verie words the learned take notice to be in great request with his Lordship and not a little pleasing to his appetite 6. You practise no small subteltie of refined wit when you shew that you are so unwilling to have that opinion which is taught by many Canonists called an opinion of the Canonists where is in the same companie a Divine the same opinion and that an opinion of the same may not be called an opinion of Divines when one Canonist is of their side and holds the same Tenet But every Novice in Theologie knowes that Appellatio Donominatio fit a majori parte things have their Appellaâ—ion and Denomination from the greater part yea Bellarmine himselfe works upon this distinction and the title of the question using this Argument Probatur opinio Theologorum ergo contraria opinio est Canonistarum the opinion of the Divines is approved and therefore the contrarie opinion is the Canonists amongst whom albeit in these last impressions he cites Navarrus a Canonist and not a Divine neverthelesse for the reason before alledged it is of no import The opinion of those who affirme the Pope to be Lord in Temporals is called the opinion of Canonists because it is not founded upon any Authoâ—iâ—ie of Scripture but only upon certaine Canons or Lawes Registred in the Decrees and Decretals and the contrarie opinion is that of the Divines because it is built upon Gods Word in the holie Scriptures 7. The Supreame Power Temporall you say is by all Authors except Heretikes granted to the Pope If that be so then doubtlesse Navarrus take him for one amongst many other is a notorious Heretique in this formall conclusion In cap. Novit Quare dicendum est Papam nullam habere potestatem laicam neque supremam neque mediam neque infimam The Pope therefore stands in no degree at all of Laiorck Temporall power neither in the highest nor in the middle nor in the lowest Region of Temporall power For my part I call that opinion Heresie and so I compt it which in explicite and implicite sense fights against holy Scripture and such is the opinion of all those who affirme the Pope to have Supreame Temporall Authority Our Lord Christ saith Mat. 16. Tibi dabo claves Regni coelorum I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven and the Pope saith Regni terrarum of all Earthlie Kingdomes Christ saith Mat. 20. Mark 10. Luke 22. Ioan. 19. Ioan. 20. Reges Gentium dominantur eorum vos autem non sic the Kings of the Earth beare rule over them but so shall not yee and the Pope saith vos autem sic and so shall ye Christ saith my Kingdome is of this World and the Pope saith nay my Kingdome is of this World and over the whole World Christ saith as my Father hath sent me so doe I send you my Disciples and the Pope saith not as the Father hath sent me so doe I send you There be two Supream Powers two Heads of all Christians Professors of Christian Religion Terrena potestas caput Regem Spiritualis potestas habet Summum Pontificem Hug. de Sanct. vict l. 2. de Sacr. p. 2. c. 4. the King is the head of all Earthlie and Temporall power the Pope of all Spirituall power Pope Gelasius in an Epistle to the Emperour Anastasius Duo sunt Imperator Auguste quibus principaliter mundus hic regitur Auctoritas Sacra Pontificum Regalis Potestas This World Decr. dist 96. Caudâ—o sunt most noble Emperour is chiefly governed by two Supreame Powers the Sacred Authoritie of Popes and the Temporall Authoritie of Kings Innocentius III. held this Article for so certaine and indubitable that he made no scruple to affirme Cap. Novit Regem in Temporalibus neminem Superiorem recognoscere that in Temporall causes the Kings of the Earth doe acknowledge and take no mortall creature to have anie Superioritie of Power or any right any reason to crowe over their Crownes How then can there be anie truth in the L. Cardinals affirmative Pontificem recognoscit the King doth acknowledge the Pope for that is to say the Pope is dignified and endowed with Supreame Temporall power with which words I must confesse that I am plunged in a deepe pit of astonishment For those Authors who grant an indirect Authoritie to the Pope break not forth into this unreasonable and exorbitant excesse but use a certaine mitigation of the word indirectlie as that it is Spirituall non per se sed per accidens not in it selfe but by occasion and accessarilie to write in case of necessitie and most of all with consent of the parties interested But for any to affirme the holie Fathers power to be Supreame and Temporall fateor scandalum est mihi to me I must confesse it is a scandall or stumbling block and stone of offence so long as not onely the true doctrine but also the Doctrine of the Lord Cardinall Bellarmine can hold up the head and stand in full force l. 5. de Rom. pont c. 3. and 4. 8. I have not charged the Lord Cardinall to hold the foresaid Booke was never of St. Thomas his penning I have onely alledged that his Lordship hath made so good and so cleare demonstration of that point that never yet anie answer durst peepe abroad to contradâ—ct his Lordships demonstration As for your subterfuge that the said Historie was perhaps afterward primed or popt into the foresa d Booke that carrieâ— no shew of proâ—abilitie seeing you produce not anie one conjâ—cture not any one reason to fortifie the same For to what purpose had any man a mind to patch up the said Historie in so good so faire a Wâ—b as the foresaid Booke to what end how long time since He that dares take upon him to affirme these things shall make the credit of all Histories to shrinke and shake The Lord Cardinall Baronius flies to the same Answers as to his best refuge When he is put hard to his trumpes and shifts how to untie the knot of an Argument drawne from Historicall Authoritie straitwaies he thinkes to take up mens lips and to dazzle their eye-sight with such and such words are
any man because he is a Thiefe or an Adulterer except first he be admonished and then he wilfully denies obedience But betweene disobedience and obstinacie there is a great difference For a man may stand stubborne and obstinate in some sin whereof he hath never beene advised never admonished by the Church This man for all his obstinacie cannot be stricken with a Thunder-Bolt of Excommunication On the contrary a man may be disobedient and for his disobedience may be Excommunicated albeit afterward he persist not obstinate in Disobedience The words of Christ if he will not heare the Church do signifie disobedience and to speake properly not obstinacie Orthodox Fie Hetrodox that a man of your deepe learning should be so shallow I will not say idle in a matter so serious So clear is the light of this fourth Proposition that I much wonder how you have devised and raised any matter against it whereby to make opposition Now to frame the sounder answer it will be necessary to make some Explication of the Proposition it selfe I speake not here of all the powers which Peter had from Christ our Lord as his Vicar in Earth for they were two the one of Order the other of Jurisdiction In this place I meddle not with power of Order I onely define the power of Jurisdiction and this power I say is meerly Spirituall First because Christ our Lord never practised any Temporall Jurisdiction but this jurisdiction which Christ gave to Peter is part of the same Jurisdiction which was practised by Christ himselfe Ergo it is no manner of way Temporall but meerely Spirituall The Major as it is called hath beene proved before at large the Minor is cleere by the words of Christ himselfe As the Father hath sent me so I send you the consequence therefore or conclusion remaines indubitable Ioan. 20. that this Jurisdiction is no manner of way Temporall Secondly This Jurisdiction or Power is not all that Power which Christ himselfe had as Head of the Church For he never according to all the Doctors communicated to his Apostles the Power of his Excâ—llencie much lesse the power of his Spirituall Kingdome which by Cardinall Bellarmine is called his Power Eternall yet such as had a beginning though it shall continue and last for ever with which Power by secret meanes he governes his Church For that power he practiseth and exerciseth in Heaven by himselfe alone It is therefore a Branch of that power whereof our Saviour saith Data est mihi omnis Potestas All power is given unto me the power of Christ whether as high Priest or as King is meerely Spirituall Ioan. 20. as it is proved by the Authority of St. Augustine and of all the best Divines the Branch therefore of the same power namely that Branch which was given to St. Peter is meerly Spirituall Thirdly The power given to Peter is to Loose and to Binde that is to absolve and not absolve sinne the power to absolve or not absolve sinnes is meerely Spirituall Ergo the power of Binding and Loosing given to Peter is meerly Spirituall Fourthly Hee that defines a Habit from the end thereof drawes the best Definition Thus hath Aristotle defined vertue virtus est quae â—onum faecit habenteâ— vertue is that which betters her owner and possessour the end of the Popes power according to all is life eternall and that end is meerly Spirituall Ergo he that affirmes the Popes power is meerely Spirituall produceth a right affirmative because he defines the Popes power by the right and proper end thereof Lastly If the power of Jurisdiction which Christ gave unto Peter had not beene meerly Spirituall but Temporall doubtlesse he would have taken up materiall Kâ—yes and would have said unto Peter and the rest of the Apostles take ye these keyes whose sinnes c. But Christ having done that Spirituall work breathed on them all and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost and saying these words receive ye the Holy Ghost or the Holy Spirit he undoubtedly declared it was no Temporall power that hee then bestowed but a power meerly Spirituall And this Hetrodox is that which before I have pronounced that as well by the Act which our Saviour did as also by the words that hee spake it is aptly gathered that for certaine the said power is meerely Spirituall Now I purpose to draw a Picture of your particular Errours 1. You argue from the Genus to the Species in this manner The Popes power as Orthodox affirmes is meerely Spirituall Orthodox therefore hardly believes the Pope to be some simple Priest or common Curate just as if I should frame this Reason Hetrodox affirmes that a Lion is a creature therefore Hetrodox affirmes that a Lion is a little Ant or Pismire or this Argument Hetrodox affirmes the power of the most Christian King is Temporall therefore Hetrodox affirmes the most Christian King is the Father of a private Familie with power oeconomicall were it not a very abusive straine a wrong intollerable if I should make Hetrodox the Father of so ridiculous Ergoes worthy to be hissed knocked and stamped out of all Theologicall and Philosophicall Schooles If Orthodox pretends and avouches that Papall power is meerly Spirituall he doth not forsooth thereby avouch that Papall power is restrained to a private Familie and without all Jurisdiction like the power of every simple and common Curate but Orthodox grants it is a power over all the Soules that are subject unto the Popes power 2. Againe Sir you are pleased to terme it Heresie for any to affirme that Papall power is meerly Spirituall and I must make bold to tell you Hetrodox the contrary Doctrine hath no great conformity or congruity with divine Scripture and by name is not conformable to that faire Text Sicut misit me c. As my Father hath sent me Ioan. 20. so I send you my Apostles the power which our Saviour himselfe being sent of his Father exercised in this world was meerly Spirituall Ergo the Popes power being a Branch of the same power which Christ himselfe exercised is likewise meerly Spirituall True it is that his power as we must hold extends and spreads it selfe Jure Divino by Gods Law over all his owne Subjects which Article being denied by the foresaid Authors whom you have remembred before they were thereupon condemned but not because they maintained the Popes power to be meerely Spirituall For it is one thing to maintaine the Pope hath no Jurisdiction and another thing to affirme that his Jurisdiction is meerely Spirituall 3. You alledge Navarrus to this purpose That Papall power is not meerly Temporall as if he had said the Popes power is Temporall but accessorily Spirituall Thus much is noted by these words is not meerly Temporall But know Hetrodox that Navarrus was never so much overseene to suffer so grosse an Errour to drop out of his learned braine or painfull quill Navarrus affirmes the full contrary take the file
Secondly he should have a holy designe to attempt and enterprise the hardest labours of all other as to tumble the great Turke downe from his Imperiall Throne to pull his Regall Crowne from his Royall Head or to convert all the Indies or to reduce the whole World to the unity of the Church and such like matters of the highest stuffe which because the Pope neither will nor can performe it is easie for all men to judge that his Holinesse for all your sayings doth not governe all Kingdomes as God himselfe doth 7. Moreover you faine would make men believe that as God governes all Kingdomes not depriving any of their Free-hold whether it be Kingdome or Power so the Pope governes Kingdomes and takes not power from Kings First because those words of the Church are spoken of Christ man and not of of Christ God as the Lord Cardinall saith of whom Herod was afraid that he would spoile him of his Kingdome Hostes Herodes impie Christum venire quid times O ungodly enemie King Herod what ayles thee to be afraid of Christs comming Then Secondly because no man is to busie himself like a Polypragmon with exercise of Temporall power within the Dominions of any other Prince as a Prince Independent neither can any man exercise the said power therein without robbing the said Prince of his lawfull power within his owne Dominions what man ever enriched himselfe without impoverishing of some other 8. Again you make it a crime no lesseheinous then Herefie for any man to teach the power of Jurisdiction given to the Apostles is the very same power which Christ himselfe gave My reading tels me not a word of any other Text where our Lord Christ hath given his Apostles the power of Jurisdiction Ioan. 20. yea all the Doctors nay Christ himselfe doth not furnish mee with any other Text but in the same he teacheth us three things the first is Data est mihi omnis potestas in Coelo in terrâ All power is given to me both in Heaven and in Earth And this he speakes to teach that his good will and pleasure was to communicate some part of his entire and absolute power unto his Apostles The second Sicut misiit me Pater ego mitto vos As my Father hath sent me so I send you that is my Father sent me to take away to cancell all bonds for sinne and to worke all that which Hetrodox and Cardinal Bellarmine hath produced and alledged conatrry to the foresaid second Proposition and in like sort I send you now O my Apostles to doe and performe the said workes In which words our Saviour Christ made not his Apostles entercommoners with himselfe in his whole Spirituall Power â— No no such matter for hee communicated not unto them the power say we to absolve without Sacraments nor power to institute Sacraments c. nor the power of his owne Spirituall and Heavenly Kingdome so that Sicut the word As must be taken in a limited sense and not without some dooles and bounders of Limitation The third that Christ breathed on the Apostles and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose sinnes ye shall remit c. There our Saviour Christ likewise limits the word Sicut As That is to say I give you Spirituall Jurisdiction over Soules and over sinnes O my deare and faithfull servants Can there be any doubt or question hereof No verily For here the promise is fulfilled What promise The same that Christ made to Peter and the rest of the Apostles under the Metaphor of Binding and Loosing of locking up in Prison with Keyes and of delivering from Prison by the same Keyes This runs currant and so shall runne so long as the houre-glasse of old Father Time hath a drop of water or a crum of sand to let fall That for certaine the servitude or bondage from which we are delivered by Christ is the slaverie of sinne so that our liberty must needs be the liberty of Grace Mat. 18. And that is the reason wherefore the promise of Christ made in Metaphoricall Speech is expounded in these plaine and proper termes whose sinnes ye shall forgive Ioan. 20. c. For to locke and to deliver with Keyes to bind and to let loose to forgive and to retaine sinnes are phrases of Speech importing and signifying one thing partly according to proper and partly according to Metaphoricall Construction 9. You maintaine that Pontificiall power is unlimited but I cannot see your Assertion backt with any Reason or Authority neither can I find with what Leggs it walkes or upon what stumps it stands For the Lord God alone is cloathed and armed with unlimited power The Principall himselfe is invested with unlimited power but so is not his Vicar or Vice-gerent And besides to speake out of the teeth be you never so loth to heare it I cannot see how it is not repugnant unto Christian Faith to affiâ—me the whole power that Christ had himsâ—lâ—e as Head of the Church and that now he retaineth in Heaven hee hath communicated to the Pope which doubtlesse whosoever affirmes if your selfe be the affirmant he affirmes who affirmes the Popes Power is without limitation Ioan. 20. 10. Againe You have heard me onely stand for the power of Jurisdiction which our Saviour gave in these words Receive ye the Holy Ghost and you now urge the word Pasce Feed which word wraps in both powers not only the power of Jurisdiction but also the power of Oâ—der 11. I have not restrained the Popes Power to this or that kind of Subjâ—cts but have onely spoken in generall and have yeelded to the Pope all that Spirituall Jurisdiction By like Hetrodox you thinke that you talke and conferre with a man of Wood with a stock that hath not so much as the least sparke of Discourse or of Religion upon the Subject now in conference But you shall find your selfe deceived and that you have to deale with an Antagonist neither stock-like nor block-like 12. Without any occasion you passe over the River to the Pastures I meane to the word Pasce Feed and here you say that in the originall Greeke it signifies Peter governe and rule my Lambes Now Sir I doe not deny that Christ is the Spirituall King and Pastor of the Church or that as Temporall Kings in Scripture are called Pastors Feeders and Shepheards in Temporals even so Christ himselfe the Pastor is likewise King in Spirituals Nor doe I deny the Pope to be Christs Vicar and vice-roy with a limited Power in Spirituals a power every way most eminent as extending over Christian soules But from this can you Hetrodox well collect and gather that our Holy Father the Pope is a Temporall King much lesse a Spirituall King as Christ is himselfe and least of all that hee hath any Temporall Power by right of hiâ— Pontificiall Dignity and Authority St. John takes up the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice and the
Achivi when Kings doe aâ—â—isse the people smart I trust in this case to be pardoned Well then one of these two points come here to be granted Either that Pope Iohn deposed himselfe and that hath no truth or else that hee was deposed by the Councell and that is denyed by Cardinall Bellarmine or your selfe or both or else to make the reason goe upon three leggs that he was deposed by the most Religious Emperour Otho after the Example of Solomon by whom the seditious high Priest Abiathar was deposed and condemned and that is the point which I maintaine And in case this was lawfully practised by Otho as by the lawfull succession of Leo after Iohn it appeares it was done then it must needs follow that what was done by Otho he did the same Authoritate propriâ by his owne Authoritie Pope Iohn by his owne enorme Delicts having driven and forced the good Emperour to doe that Act which none would ordinarily have the boldnesse to doe in respect of the Reverence due to that holy See And howsoever Oâ—ho wrought herein by counsell and advice of the whole Councell whereupon he said Sancta Synodus edicat the holy Synod shall set downe the Edict yet as the Historians of those times beaâ—e w tnesse Otho gave the Definitive sentence with his Placet it is our pleasure But no more of that or of your Errours What say you to this Example If Exemption stands by Gods Law what meant Pope Adrian I. to take such care and order that Charles the Great should have the whole Authoritie to make Election of the Romane high Priest Cap. Hadrian l. 63. Can. in Synodo or Bishop The same was likewise done by Leo VIII in favour of Otho I. as men may read in the same Distinction Hetrodox You make mee to mervaile much at your strange acutenesse in this Argument I beseech you Sir what hath Exemption of Ecclesiastics to doe with nomination of persons to the Pontificiall See Are not Ecclesiastics in France exempted in these daies because the King now nominates men to Churches to Benefices to Ecclesiasticall promotions when they become void And wheresoever Ius Patronatus is in force is Exemption there lost because there the Patrones have the right of Nomination when they are for the most part Laics For a time then the Emperour Charles by the Popes Priviledge had power to nominate some to the Papall See when it became void The Emperour for all that did not give the Pope any Authority and lesse could he take it from the Pope For as hath been said God himselfe giveth Papall Power to the Person once nominated or Canonically elected by which Power the Person so nominated by Gods owne Law and Ordinance becomes the Superiour the Hâ—ad and the Pastor of all Christians whether Princes or private persons Of the Priviledge granted by Pope Leo to the Emperor Otho I might pronounce the very same sentence if the said Priviledge had not beene altogether void vain and without effect which is by me so affirmed under supposition In Cap. Hadr. in Synodo that Gratianus in the Canons before cited hath written the truth and no more then truth But our most Illustrious and no lesse learned Cardinall Baronius gives forth cleere and manifest evidences Tom. 9. Annal. pag. 323. that Gratianus was deceived and that such Priviledge to chuse the highest Bishop was never granted unto any Emperour And so this your whole Argument falls in pieces to the ground because the Consequent is rotten and the Antecedent false Orthodox Of the Lord Cardinall Baronius it hath been spoken plaine enough before that in the case of Immunities his Authoritie lacks weight I have likewise heard it avouched that as untill this time he hath given himselfe an ample priviledge and liberty to correct Fathers Canons and Historiâ—ns in like manner he pretends to correct and amend the Councels to his owne humour and to his owne end But in case hee shall assume and usurpe any such licence which God forbid for certaine he shall never mend the Text of St. Paul St. Chrysostome St. Thomas and others Why then should we give any credit liking or eare to the Novelties of the Lord Cardinall Baronius but rather give some answer to your Errours 1. Nomination to the Popedome you say is even as Nomination to Benefices That Sir with your good lâ—ave is false to use your owne termes For the Popedome is not a Benefice but a Supreame Spirituall Dignitie instituted and ordained as Catholiques belie e by our blessed Saviour and in case it be a Benefice then the Right of Nomination thereunto belongs to the Emperour and none other 2. If Exemption of Ecclesiasticall persons be de jure divino surely no Ecclesiasticall person can come under submission to Secular Princes and least of all he that is of so high Dignitie For none can draw them into that state of Subjection without great sinne Ergo Exemption is not by Gods Law Of this Argument Cardinall Baronius hath taken some sight and knowledge which puts him on with all his force might and maine to denie the foresaid Canons Thus the Argument holds firme and true both for Antecedent and for Consequent neither ought so ancient Canons to be denyed You likewise denie that Leo was true and lawfull Pope when the lawfull Election of that Leo hath beene approved by another Leo namely IX and by the rest of the Popes to these present daies and times And shall I now goe further with you Hetrodox The Doctrine for which I now stand is not onely the Doctrine of St. Paul Sotus lib. 4. Sent. dist 25. Conar cap. 31. pract Quaest but likewise maintained by St. John Chrysostome by Thomas Aquinas by Sotus that most excellent and famous Divine by Conarruuias who citeth for his purpose Innocentius III. Alciatus Ferrarese Medina with some others And these two Doctors by name Sotus and Conarruuias are in this particular point so much the more to be regarded and esteemed because they both have written since the time of the Tridentine Councell Hetrodox Hold a while Orthodox St. Paul and St. Chrysostome doe not meddle with Exemption of Ecclesiastics but onely teach that all men are bound to obey their lawfull Superiors as before I have proved St. Thomas denies not Exemption to be grounded upon Gods Law howsoever he affirmes it stands upon the strong Pillars of mans Law For it may be fixed nay it is fixed upon the Bases both of Divine and Humane Law as the Sacred Canons have not onelie testified but also justified As for Sotus Albeit he denies Exemption to be warrantable strictly by Gods Law yet he affirmes it is agreeable to naturall Reason yea he subjoines that no Prince nor all Princes together can derogate from the said Exemption So that directly and cleerly the Doctrine of Sotus is contrarie to the present and moderne practise of the Venetian State which dareth so manie waies violate the said immunitie as
it is to be clearly seen in Constantines own practise against Caecilianus the Bishop of Carthage whose cause being accused promoted by the Donatists Constantine himselfe durst neither sift nor touch but only ordered that Caecilianus and his cause should be transmitted to Rome and there should undergo the censure of the holy Father who then was Meltiades this was the practise of Constantine to confound the Donatists with an intention or mind to crave pardon of the Bishops for thrusting his crooked Sickle into other mens harvest and intruding himselfe into a businesse of that spirituall nature Optat. lib. contra parmen Aug. Ep. 48. 162. as forced or drawn thereunto by the violent necessity of the said cause witnesse Optatus Milenitanus and S. Augustine in diverse of his Epistles Orthod I never knew nor heard before this day that excesse of love and superlative praise in any sort or fashion whatsoever to a good end should merit the distastefull name of a lye Hath not Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe expounded the Canon Quicunque of Theodosius in the very same phrase and stile By name that certes Theodosius framed that Canon in the excesse of his piety But let us passe that circumstance and come to the maine of your last passage it will not be denyed that as in secular Causes temporall Princes may be called Gods even so Priests in spirituall causes may have the honour of the same name howbeit with your leave that text Deus stetit God standeth in the Assembly of Gods by Hetrodox late alleadged is understood of secular Princes and not of Priests as you Hetrodox would insinuate But seeing that Ruffinus you say hath recorded that Constantine tooke it in your sence Valeat quantum valere potest be it of what force or credit it may or can most certain it is that neither Ruffinus nor Constantine himselfe with all his greatnesse can hold water or weight with expositors of sacred Scripture howbeit from hence there can be made no firme and solid inference that Constantines words ad Dei judicium yea are doubtlesse reserved to Gods judgement are thus to be understood id est Prelati to the Prelates judgment because he exerciseth Gods judgement For Constantine there speaks without any termes of ambiguity waite you for the judgment of God alone reserve your causes and quarrels to tryall at his lâ—st and great Assizes for you are given unto us of God as Gods very unmeet it is that men should presume to judge Gods but he alone of whom it is written God standeth in the Assembly of Gods In which words first I observe that here Constantine hath an eye only to spirituall causes for so much as here he speaketh of Ecclesiastics not as men but as Gods by vertue of their spirituall power to bind and loose Secondly that he meddles not here with any humane judgement but expressely with the last judgement of God Thirdly that he speakes not of any God which makes the whole number of the Assembly but of the God who stands in the Assembly of Gods even of that God who is the supream and Soveraign Judge This of Constantine therefore is a kind of speech in excesse as before hath been said And as for your anticipation that when the Prelate judgeth God himselfe then judgeth by the Prelate and therefore not man but God himselfe is the Judge I must be bold to tell you Hetrodox it lacks just weight and therefore may not be allowed to go currant For by the same reason it shall hold good and strong that when the secular Magistrate sits in the seate of justice it is not man that gives judgement but God himselfe because the Magistrate is Dei Minister Gods Minister to take vengeance on such as do evill Moreover for so much as all Prelats yea the highest Bishop himselfe may erre saith Cardinall Bellarmine in many places which likewise is the common opinion yea and many times hath actually erred In judiciis facti in judgement of the Fact it is therefore not absolutely to be held that when they judge then God himselfe judgeth because it is impossible for to erre as it is to lye upon this exposition of Constantines words whether his own or the words of Ruffinus uttered by a straine of excesse in things not intelligible you runne into diverse errours 1. First be it in some sort granted that Priests are not lawfully to be tryed by the temporall Magistrate or secular Prince in such causes wherein Priests by Constantine are called Judges yet can it not be inferred without errour that in temporall and secular causes wherein Priests will they nill they are and must be Subjects they ought not to be judged by the same Prince 2. Secondly To affirme that God made Moses King Pharaohs Judge because he said to Moses I have made thee Pharaohs God what can it be but an erroneous misprision and a violent wrâ—sting of the holy text For God gave Moses no authority to be Pharaohs Judge in any sort whatsoever least of all was he armed with such authority as in the quality of a Priest But say that Moses was a Priest as wee Catholics believe and teach yet he was but Priest unto the Hebrewes Gods own people he had no authority over King Pharaoh an Egyptian and Idolater But because Moses with a Rod in his hand wrought so great miracles and wonders in the sight of King Pharaoh not possible by any Saint or devil to be done but onely by the finger and power of the true Almighty eternall God therefore it was that God said to Moses I have made thee Pharaohs God 3. Lastly you affirme Hetrodox wherein I wish you to take some sight and knowledge of your errour that Pope Meltiades had lawfull power to judge the cause of Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage because Constantine turned him over to the Consistory and Chaire of Meltiades at Rome I will not deny that civill and criminall causes may come to judgement before Consistorian Judges but when Forsooth when Christian Princes are graciously pleased by their Charters Commissions Grants and speciall Graces or priviledges to lay open such Gaps and to give such waies Much lesse will I deny that in causes meerly ecclesiasticall the Pope is to inflict and fasten correction upon Bishops and Bishops to take round courses against such as do stand within the reach of their Episcopall Verges but I must confidently affirme and stand to it like a man when all is done or said that in civill and criminall causes meerly temporall the Prince hath lawfull power from God to judge ecclesiastics when he hath not disarmed himselfe of his lawfull authority by some former gracious grant And this I confirme even by the very same act of Constantine which your selfe have produced and alledged For Constantine you say transmitted an act of power and authority the cause of Caecilianus unto the Pope and afterward himselfe sate upon Caecilianus in place of judgement All Ecclesiastics
Pilate was extended and stretched over Christ it grew out of Pilates ignorance who never knew the super-excellent dignity of Christ and gave sentence against Christ as against a private person of the same Country or Territory whereof then under Cesar he was L. President or chief Governour As if a Priest in these dayes under the name of a Laic and in a Laic habit should be brought by warrant before a Secular Magistrate or Judge he might be judged by the same power whereby he judgeth all other Laics yet doth it not follow that Priests are to come under the judgement of Laics or that Christ was to submit his neck under the yoke of Pilates judgement Orthod You deny that in the present garboyles at which you wrongfully charge me to aime there is any reference to the temperoll Kingdome and yet because you needs will draw me to the scanning of that point I say it is most notorious that in a manner the best Freehold of all temporall Kingdoms is thereby drawn into debatement I let passe your Thesis and will stand upon the Hypothesis Say the Pope now sends forth prohibition to any Christian King or temporall State that he or they shall not meddle with judging Ecclesiasticall persons running into delicts of nature meerly temporall and no way reflecting upon spirituall matters Againe that he or they shall not frame particular Provisoes or Lawes concerning Lands not hitherto acquired or accrued to Ecclesiasticall dominion In quae bonae nondum ipsis est jus quaesitum I now demand By what authority the Pope sends forth any such prohibition I hope not by any authority of Temporall Princes or States for he is not Lord Paramount in Temporalls of their Dominions and Territories By like then he doth it by his authority of universall Pastor Now because that authority of Universall Pastor as we hold he holds as the Vicar of Christ it was not impertinent or superfluous for me to shew but necessary to demonstrate what authority Christ himselfe exercised in temporall causes For Christs authority must be the onely rule of the Popes authority witnesse the words of Christs owne mouth As my Father hath even so doe I send you forth Joan. 20. In which words Christ communicated the authority of jurisdiction to Peter and the rest of his Apostles as by Card. Bellarmine himselfe it is confessed And moreover for so much as the Disciple is not above his Master nor the servant above his Lord Luc. 6. it serveth to draw from those words Paseâ— oves Feed my sheep That as Christ himselfe was no Pastor in Temporals but in Spirituals in like manner the Pope Iure Pontificatus in his right of Popedome hath do authority or dominion in temporall matters and in particular when the lawes temporall Non impedunt cursum ad vitam aeternam are no hinderance in the way to life eternall but establish a civill peace are directed and leveld to the maintaining and preserving of that State of that Liberty of that Dominion wherin particular profession is made of Christian Religion and of Piety as also to the conserving and upholding of publ que justice Now then if I to bring proofe of all this have laboured in the first place to shew what power our Lord Christ himselfe exercised in temporall matters then sure I have spoken home to the point and nothing from the purpose as you cavill Now I will have a bout or a course at your errours not as in a May-game or light skirmish but with Champion-like devoyre 1. You confesse that Christ never exercised any temporall power in this world and it is all that I either have affirmed or can desire to be confessed Neverthelesse you take upon you to teach that I looked not before I leaped because I should have subjoyned that Christ if it had been his good pleasure might by his power have exercised the said temporall power Now as I freely canfesse and acknowledge that in this point you are not our of the right way that if Christ had been so pleased he lawfully might have exercised the said power because he was not only man but also God natures being united in one person and actions according to that rule in philosophy Sunt suppositorum idiomata communicantur according to that rule in divinity neverthelesse whereas you pretend that all I have delivered of this point before is to litle purpose and from the purpose you are to take this for a short but yet for a sufficient and full answer that our present question is de facto a question of the fact non de possibili not a question of what might be or what was possible to be done Forasmuch as the Popes authority being founded upon Christs example the supream Pastor it sufficed to shew what actions Christ himselfe used for the feeding of his little flock and not medle with another new question what actions he was able to do if he had been willing For doubts any man that Christ was able by extraordinary power to worke the conversion of the whole world To sanctify the whole stock and race of mankind in the twinckling of an eye without shedding one drop of his precious blood Is there any thing impossible with God Luc. 1.37 But well assured that arguments drawn from possible to fact are of no force therefore I would not be so idle before to talke of what Christ was able to do in temporall matters but what he hath done in very truth 2. This again you have supponed that our Lord Christ as mortall man had lawfull dominion in temporall matters But Moldonate a learned Jesuite of your own Order in his exposition of these words My Kingdome is not of this world In cap. 27. mat hath learnedly and effectually proved the contrary it may by some perhaps be collected that Christ had the temporall dominion of the world three wayes as he was man 1. By right of inheritance 2. By right of creation 3. By authenticall testimony of Scripture where in many places he is called a King and that as he was man which in effect is thus much That Christ was King of this world either jure naturali by the law of nature that is by the right of inheritance or jure humano by mans law that is by right of election or jure divino by Gods law that is by authority of Scripture But first by right of inheritance I say Christ was no such King for albeit he was descended from the royall stock of Judah yet wee know that Kingdome according to the fore-threatning of Almighty God ended and came to the last period in Jeconiah and was a kind of particular reigning neither was Christ lawfull heire apparant unto any other King Next he was no King by election for it is not known that ever he was chosen King by the People but rather that he gave them the slip and went aside when he knew they intended to make him King It
for the next successour to Rodulphus in the year Mccxcii and the Emperour Albertus for the next successour to Adulphus in the year Mccxcix whereas St. Thomas walked the way of all flesh in the yeare Mcclxxiv Moreover they cite another text of St. lib. 2. Senten Dist 44. Thomas Esse in summo Pontifice apicem utriusque potestâ—tis Temporalis Spiritualis That our holy Father the Pope is top and top-gallant both of Temporall power and Spirituall power But let St. Thomas his text be viewed with a cleare eye and it will soone be perceived that he was of a contrary opinion For after he had taught that in Temporall matters we are bound to obey the Temporall Prince rather then the Spirituall and in causes meerly Spirituall the Spirituall rather then the Temporall at last he concludes That were he not Pope who in the P ovinces of his command is armed with the double Sword of both Jurisdictions he Subjects are bound to honour him with due obedience equally both in the one and in the other kind Hetrod Is this your strong Fort Orthodox Is it no better man'd Hath it no stronger Barricadoes Then heare n t yet my Basilisco or double Canons but my Demi-Canons and Culvering play Your third Proposition is like the second neither barâ—ell better herring It neither sorts nor suits with your principall scope it sâ—rves only to bewray the spitefull humour and little sincerity in alledging of the Authors by your selfe alledgâ—d Fiâ—st It jarres with your Scope and purpose For your whole intention tends to set up a Flag or Banner of Defiance against our Holy Fathers sentences of Excommunications and Interdicts thundered against Christian Princes and States in cases of contumacie as one that charges the said sentences and censures with Invaliditie and meer Nullâ—tie To which purpose you might as well affirme that our Holy Father the Pope is not L. Temporall of the World as if you should affirme the Frâ—nch King cannot condemne and send any man to the Gallies because the French King is no Bishop For to the thundering of a sentence Excommunicatorie or of an Interdict no Regall or Temporall Authority but only Papall and Spirituall Power is required as the Spirituall Power is not required for the sending of a man to Chaynes and Oares in the Gallies because the Temporall hath sufficient Autho ity for that Judgement As for your little Sinceritie in citing of Authors let Sotus let Bellarmine be perused with indifferencie of Judgement and and it will soone be found That neither the one nor the other doth use any such termes of immodesty as you have layed to their charge namely to affirme they wonder at our Canonists who had such brasen faces to affirme without any reason or without any Authoritie of the New Testament that Popes are direct Lords of all the World in Temporals a Doctrine in truth full of scandall and built on the Sands of the Sea-shore That wonder which is come out of your owne Forge will never be found in the writings of Sotus and Bellarmine much lesse that either they or we have termed the Doctâ—ine of Canonists a scandalous doctrine and not grounded upon any reason We have rather affirmed it is not absolutely the Doctrine of Canonists because we are not ignorant how farre the Canonists dissent one from another in their opinions Sotus alleadgeth for himselfe Iohannes Andreas and Bellarmine produceth for his opinion the Card. de Turrecremata and Navarras Cap. Novit de Judicii He might likewise have alledged Pope Innocentius the IV. and the Glosse in the same place where the distinction of Directè indirectè is apertly couched The difference between these Authors stands in giving or taking Supream Power from the Pope in Temporall causes For so much is granted of all Writers except Heretikes but rather it consists in the Mannor For by some Authors it is resolved that Popes are armed with Supreame power in Temporals in like manner as all secular Princes are Other Authors contend that Papall power properly and in it selfe is meerly Spirituall but in ordine ad Spiritualia in a certaine order and reflâ—x to Spirituall matters it may distraine and seize with all full and absolute authority upon things Temporall lib. 3. c. 11. 13. So St. Thomas in that small treatise de Regim Principum divinelie makes demonstration at least if that little worke was of his penning For Bellarmine denies not in any absolute straine the said little worke to be the Artifice of St. Thomas but only reports that some not without cause have drawne the matter into doubt because in that petit volume there is record of an Historie that succeeded after St. Thomas death And Bellarmine himsâ—lfe affirmes it is no false Latine to conjecture the said Hâ—storie was nimbly conveyed after the death of Thomas into the Libret by some other And yet not building upon so weake an Answer that the said Booke was none of those works which were framed in St. Thomas his shop he subjoynes another more solid and much better soldered answer namely to cleare and explaine one sentence of the said Booke by other sentences thereof But how can your great and gâ—osse â—emeâ—itiâ— be suffeerd in speaking to harshly of the holy Canons I know these are your own wordâ— that some allâ—dge the Canons which as humane Lawes in concurrence or paragon of Gods Word come short in makiâ—g the weight of â—quaâ—l Authoritie They cite as you also affiâ—me St. Thomas c. O how great disparagement nay how great despight is herein uttered against our sacred Canon was ever the like heard from the mouth of any Catholique You seem to take no care at all whether your Doctrine be confirmable or contrary to the sacred Canons and not so much as vouchsafe to answer the opponent by whom they are alledged and propounded as if they were of no weight authoritie at all when they come to be tryed by the common standard and beame of Gods Word For you terme them absolutely humane Lawes as if they had not beene fâ—amed and indited by the assistance of the Holy Spirit wherein you faâ—l and fall from the accustomed phrases of the Hâ—l Fathers by whom the Canons are continually stiled Sacred Holy and inspiâ—ed of God Will you be pleased to heaâ—e what Lâ—o saith writing to Anatâ—lius Nimis haec imorohâ— â—imis prava suat quae Sacratâ—ssimis Canonibus inveniun uâ— esse contraria O in how high a degree of p avity and wickedn sse is that Doctrine rankt which teacheth positions adverse and contrary to the most Sacred Canons Lastly whereas you contend that sacâ—ed Canons in concuâ—rence with Gods Lawes come so short of matching them in equall ballance of Authoritie you plainly shew that Canons in this Argument are contrarie to Gods Word and so to be reputed of no reckoning or accompt Aâ—d in so doing what doe you else but reprove not onely the first Authors of the Sacred Canons for
See translated the Roman Empire from the Greekes to the Germans in the person of the Magnificall Charles the Great In clement Rom pontif Pope Clement V. and joyntlie the Generall Councell of Vienna repeats the same Is not hee then temerarious that dares give two Popes and one Councell the lie Neither can it be true that Platina hath anie record to the contrarie For Platina doth no more but affirme that by decree and request of the Roman people the Pope created Charles Emperour of the Germanes So that all that Platina hath avouched in effect is thus much and no more that the people of Rome decreed the Pope should be sued unto and petitioned that he would be pleased to install Charles in the Westerne Empire that Charles in like manner did win the Garland of the Romane Empire it cannot be true because he never made War against the Romanes lesse true that ever he purchased anie Title of Irene and Nicephorus These are only the fictions of Matthias Illyricus without any one yard or foot of good foundation Much lesse true that Charles tooke the Imperiall Dignitie by any power in the Romane people to conferre the same For all the ancient Romane Emperours were chosen by the Armie or else by the next precedent Emperour And therefore Maximus and Balbinus both elected Emperours by the Senate were very soone after slaine by the Souldiers who disdained and scorned to accept or acknowledge anie Emperours set up by the Senate Herodiact 8. or by them advanced to the Imperiall Dignitie St. Hierome also is an authenticall witnesse that Romane Emperors were elected by the Souldiers Ep. 85. ad Eva. Lastly whereas you say that when Charles the Great was invested then Pope Leo had no possession of the Empire that 's but a poore shift and no barre at all to the Popes guift For the Pope gave not Charles the possession but the Title onely and the reason by meanes whereof hee became the lawfull Prince of those Countries which the Westerne Emperours were accustomed to govern and to have the same Dignitie and Prerogative which the said ancient Emperours had possessed and enjoyed Which that he might doe it was not needfull for the Pope himselfe to be possessor of the Empire sufficient it was that he was Pope and consequentlie had Apostolicall power by which power in case it be profitable or necessarie for the state of Christendome he may lawfullie dispose of Christian Kingdomes and Empires as appeares by the manifold practise of our former Popes to have beene done in former ages Orthod I have said once before and I doubt not but you beare it in remembrance that jure Pontificatus by Right of Popedome the Pope hath no power to exercise Temporall Dominion because the Vicar can have no greater power then the Principall and againe because the actions of Christ our Lord must be a Rule to his Vicar of all their actions Vpon the firme ground of those Reasons I have lately brought in and built greatlie to the purpose if I be not greatlie deceived two Arguments of the Adversaries drawn à Facto from the Fact to impugne the true Doctrine in Iure in case and point of Right the one of Alexander VI. and the other of Leo III. which two Popes it may at least so seem have exercised Temporall Dominion For the one divided the Indies betweene the Kings of Spaine and Portugall the other translated the Empire into the West or to utter my mind better declared Charles the Great Emperour of the West These two Arguments I have answered before with one Reason thus That Iure Pontificatus by right of their Popedome these acts were not done Then I rendered a Reason of the said Acts Non ex propriâ Sententiâ not as out of mine owne Judgement but according to the writings of Historians whether this be to the purpose or no I leave the consideration hereof to your selfe when you shall be in a better temper In the meane time take notice of your particular Errours 1. You fall into a Digression of just Warre and the way to be taken or course to be followed in converting the Indians to the Faith and knowledge of Christ Surelie this Digression might verie well have beene spared or else upon as good ground and with no lesse reason you might have made another Digression of Navigation For I have only affirmed that Pope Alexander VI. made the former Division that neither of the two Kings might be anie impediment or hinderance to the others Navigations and acquists Whether the Kings of Spaine and Portugall have made lawfull Acquists of those barbarous people and Countries or no that nothing at all concernes our present discourse especiallie because it should be far from us once to harbour a thought of those Catholique and most Christian Kings undertakings but upon great reason and good conscience wee now treate only of Pope Alexanders Division I have presupposed that as well the Navigations as the Acquists were lawfull as purchased Iure belli by Right of Warre as in verie deed they were and to cast any doubts in certaine cases it is meere folly which I trust is lawfull and free for me to utter in defence of the Catholique King of Spaine Philip III. my Naturall and Liege Lord who now holds the possession of the said States Iustâ— titulo by jâ—st and lawfull title 2. You stand and stick stoutly to this Division of Alexander VI. but you tell us not whether he made such Division de Jure or de Facto with good warrant of Right or onely by way of bare Fact you onely affirme that hee made the Division as the Head of all Christendome But every Christian we hold and say hath two Heads the one in Spiritualls let him be the Pope the other in Temporals and he will be whosoever saies nay the Naturall the lawfull Prince Temporall of this or that State Now that Division was not made by Alexander VI. as a Temporall Prince Ergo as a Spirituall but as a Spirituall Prince as hath beene already shewed and proved he could not be invested with anie such power and had he then beene so invested the Indies were no Countries of Christians but of Infidels His Fact was therefore to be excused as I have excused the same according to divers Historians that he made the Division as Compromissarie and Judge chosen by the parties I confesse this judgement was to be put and referred to Alexander VI. rather then to any other because he was Christs Vicar and Superiour Head to the said Kings in Spirituals and herein his Indirectlie granted by some Divines is not denyed For that Indirectlie doth not import anie Authoritie or absolute Jurisdiction in Temporals except it be accidentallie by chance by councell by admonition by reproofe in all patience and instruction Therefore when the great Canonist Navarrus and all other Doctors well grounded Cap. Novit de judiciis take upon them to handle these and the
remaines then that by authority of Scripture he was a temporall King albeit he never exercised his temporall power But in holy Scripture not a word of any such temporall Kingdome but only of his spirituall Kingdome Thus the great Father S. Augustine and thus Maldonate Tract 115 in Joan. agreeable to the opinion of al Divines of the best rank whereupon he concludes in this notable manner Quâ verô parte Christus homo erat non erat universi orbis terrarum temporalis Rex ut Augustinus eo loco quem modò nominavimus omnes boni Theologi sentiunt Aut enim naturali aut divino aut humana jure rex esset naturali non erat quia regis filius non erat quod est naturalem esse regem Divino non erat quia omnia sacrarum literarum testimonia quae de ejus loquuntur regno ut August aâ—t et omnes boni theologi affirmant de spirituali intelliguntur humano non erat quia non fuit orbis terrarum consensu res electus et cum Iudaei vellent eum rapere ut regem facerent aufugit So that Christ as mortall man then having no temporall dominion he could never exercise the same For Non est actus ubi non est ulla potentia ad illum actum no exercise where no power to bring forth such exercise This must be understood of Christ as he was man and mortall man For as God no doubt as before hath been said he was King of Kings Lord of Lords As for the eternall power of Christ our Lord for so you call it which was given him after his resurrection there was no need to make any speech or motion thereof because the present question is of temporall Power and not of eternall which eternall power for certain Christ our Lord hath not given and left unto his Vicar 3. Your third errour lyes in a mis-interpretation of two severall texts this for the one knowing that his Father hath given al things into his hands and this for the other whom he hath made heire of all things For you understand them both of his temporall power whereas Maldonate by the authority of S. Augustine and of all the best Divines affirmes they are to be understood as they ought in very truth of Christs spirituall Kingdom which in the Gospell is called the Kingdome of heaven Joan. 19. For if the said words might be understood of Christs temporall Kingdome then Christ himselfe had not forborn which God forbid to rap or breathe out a lye when he said My Kingdom is not of this world againe My Kingdome is not from hence For he had by that means denied what holy Scripture had affirmed he was indeed that is a temporall King But say still that Christ as man had temporall dominion yet still it remaines good that he did never put such temporall dominion in practise or execution which as you have already confessed so it is sufficient for my purpose Joan. 19.11 4. That place in S. Iohn Thou couldest have no power over me except it had been given thee from above you say is not understood of the Judge or Lord Governours ordinary power but of a permissive power In good time Sir but were it so as you interpret surely then Christ had proved himselfe but a bad Logician to answer the governour clean from the purpose for Pilate spake of his judiciary power Joan. 16. when he said to Christ Knowest thou not that I have power to loose thee c. Secondly not Pilate alone but likewise all the Iewes had the same permissive power of which permissive power your text before cited is to be understood this is your houre and the power af darkenesse which for this reason is called the power of darknes because It is not given from above 20. Jac. 1.17 even from the Father of lights Thirdly permissive power cannot be called a power given but rather a power not denyed or not letted hindered from above Non data sed non negata vel non impedita desuper Fourthly that is called permissive power whereby God permits and suffers a sinner to fall into sinne but God gives no such power from above for if he give it from above then he himselfe concurres with sinne and is the author of sinne which doctrine is even as false as God is true and as truth is no lye S. Thomas therefore saith and you Hetrodox confesse the words are understood of the Judge Pilats ordinary power as the Minister of Cesar yea S. Augustine upon the same words thus Discamus ergo quod Christus dixit quod Apostolum docuit quia non est potestas nisi à Deo quidquid sit de actu malè utentis eâ quia plus peccat qui innocentem occidendum potestati livore tradit quam ipsa potestas si eum timore alterius potestatis majoris occidit talem quippe Deus dederat illi potestatem ut esset etiam sub Caesaris potestate Learne wee then saith S Augustine as first Christ himselfe said in person and after taught his Apostle Paul there is no power but of God be the act of the person by whom the said power is abused what it will And learn wee withall that he commits the greater sinne who for envy delivers up the innocent unto the higher power to be executed then the Magistrate himselfe commits who for feare of some other Power higher then himselfe puts the innocent unto death For God gave Pilate such power as might be many degrees under Cesars absolute and supream power And here I will touch another of your errors a twig of the same branch in attributing that unto Pilats ignorance which Augustine with all the rest have ascribed to his feare of purchasing to himselfe Cesars heavy displeasure and indignation To my purpose I have this also from Saint Bernard Romani presidiis potestatem Christus super se quoque fatâ—tur fuisse ordinatam In Ep. ad Archiep. Senoven Our Saviour Christ was not ashamed to confesse that over himselfe the Roman President had lawfull and ordinate power And in the same Epistle to the same Archbishop Quid secularitatem contemnitis Secularior nâ—mo Pilato cui Dominus astitit judicandus Non haberes in me potestatem nisi tibi datuâ— esset desuper Iam tunc pro se loquâ—batur quod post per Apostoloâ— clamavit in Ecclesiis Non est potestas nisi à Deo Wherefore set you so light by Secularity who ever was more secular then Pilate before whose Tribunall and at whose Barre the Lord Christ himselfe stood indicted to receive judgement and sentence of death from his mouth Thou couldst not have any power against me saith Christ except it were given thee from above Even then there Christ was his own Advocate even then and there he pleaded his owne cause even then and there he had sensible experience of the same thing in his owne