purpose without all question the foresaid Authors had beene prohibited by Authoritie But I must now tell you plainly Hetrodox they shew verie good and great Cards for their game I mean their Demonstrations are not fectlesse but full of efficacie For besides the affirmative authority of St. Paul of St. Chrysostome and of St. Thomas besides the common use and custome of the Primitive Church they produce likewise two negative Arguments most effectuall The first If Clerics themselves and the Goods of Ecclesiastics be exempted by Gods Law where is that Law recorded and read In what Gospell in what Apostolicall Epistle in what Booke of the New Testament or of the old The Second That no Secular Prince Christian carrying a watchfull eye to the tranquillity and honourable government of the State doth stand upon this point but onely permits Ecclesiastics to enjoy such Exemption as to himselfe seemes best and such as he dislikes he will not suffer them to reape any fruit or benefit from the same And howsoever by the Law of man some understand the Canon yet by so much as may be gathered from the Doctrine of the first Proposition we are to understand the Priviledge of Princes and the Custome dissembled by the said Princes or the Canon received which Canon cannot be above Gods Law so that if Secular Princes have lawfull power over their Subjects by Gods Law I cannot see how this their Power can be diminished or taken away by the Canon which is but a Law of man it is a common rule of the Legists Quotiescuâ—que concurrunt duo jura minus debet cedere majori when two Lawes are in termes or in point of concurrence the rest ought ever to stoope and give place unto the greater Hetrodox The Affirmative Arguments have beene answered before what need you make so many repetitions of one and the same matter Now to your first negative Argument This point hath beene discussed at large by many Catholique Authors both Divines and Canonists The grounds of their opinion are to be sought in their writings and my selfe have briefly before pointed to certaine passages as well of the old Testament as of the New and this for one Ergo liberi sunt filii therefore the Children are free Gen. 47. 1 Esdr 7. Mat. 17. where by Children are meant Ecclesiastics it St. Ierome's and St. Augustines Expositions be not rejected of Divines Againe you are not ignorant Orthodox that by Gods Law is understood not onely the holy Scripture but also the light of Nature or to speake in other termes Reason and Natures Law lib 1. de libert Christ cap. 9. Thus Iohn Driedo Exemption of Ecclesiastics holds by the Law of God for so much as it is dictated and taught by Reason and by the Law of Nature because all men by the light of Reason and Nature understand that persons and goods or things consecrated to God are proper to God himselfe and therefore no Reason that Secular Princâ—â— should exercise any power over the said persons or things And that this point is a light of Nature it is easie to be knowne because in all Religion Exod. 30. Numb 1. Gen. 47. Arist l. 2. Caesar l. 6. de bello Gall. Plut. in vitá Camilli whether true or false this Law of Exemption is observed Among the Hebrewes the Levites were exempted and among the Egyptians the Priests were exempted and among the Grecians the Priests were exempted The same is recorded of other Gentiles in Caesar in Plutarch and in other Authors for brevitie sake here pretermitted To the second Negative Argument I returne this Answer We find it not in Sotus nor yet in Conarruuias It is doubtlesse a Fiction of your owne braine and besides it is no Argument no Reason but a meere Cavill and Calumniation invented against all Princes as if all Princes were Machiavials Disciples and granted or tooke away Exemption from Clerics as they find it profitable or unprofitable to Reason of State But wee know that in the Church of God there be many Religious and pious Princes who feare God as they ought But in case it were so in truth which must not be granted that many Princes give neither place nor way to Exemption any further then it is profitable to Reason of State what art what skill of Reasoning shall I call this Many Princes permit not Exemption Ergo Exemption is not by Gods Law As much in effect for forme of Argument great skuls whole troopes of Christians give themselves to robbing by the high-way side or to luxurious uncleannesse in darke corners or to beare false witnesse in open Courts Ergo these Precepts of the Diâ—alogue thou shalt not steale thou shalt not commit Adulterie thou shalt not beare false witnesse are not by Gods Law It should have beene proved that such Princes as permit not Exemption otherwise then to their own liking doe well or doe not ill and then the Consequent would not have come in amisse Ergo Exemption is not by Gods Law But from the simple Fact or to say better from the simple prevarication of a Law it cannot be concluded that the said Law is contrary to Gods Law Your next discourse after about mans Law as whether it be Canon Law or Priviledge of Princes or Custome is idle and altogether in vaine for besides that Exemption of Ecclesiastics is by Gods Law it is every way by mans Law because there be many Canons many Civill Lawes and a must long continued Custome which make all for this Exemption This neither will nor can be denyed of any but such as are of no reading at all Finally that conclusion which you make of Secular Princes power over Ecclesiastics that it can be neither taken away nor diminished by any Canon because the Canon is by Mans Law and the power of Princes by Gods Law is a false Conclusion drawne from a false Principle and repugnant unto all Catholique Doctors as well Divines as Canonists False because it is contrary to many Decrees of Councels Popes the Lawes Imperiall and the light of Nature Drawne from a false Principle because the power of Princes over Laics is not grounded upon Gods Word Against all Catholique Doctors as well Divines as Canonists because both Sotus and Conarruuias compted the chiefe Pillars of those who maintaine that Exemption is not warrantable to Ecclesiastics by Gods Law have not stucke to testifie by their learned pens that Popes have plenary power to exempt Ecclesiastics that all Princes are bound to uphold and maintaine the Popes Exemption as also that no Prince no not all Princes together hath one dram of power to annihilate or disanull or in the least measure to diminish the said Papall Exemption Thus much is affirmed and witnessed by Sotus and Conarruuias in the very same passeges by your selfe Orthodox produced and alleadged It hereupon followes that you have now broached a new an erroneous a scandalous a schismaticall and a seditious Doctrine If this notwithstanding
and Regiments but rather to ground and establish them upon a more perfect and rectified forme these words do plainly testifie that he speaks of secular Princes in particular unto whom all Subjects owe their obedience according to the politick lawes of the State Lastly Chrysostoms conclusion so stops up all passages that you are not able to take your heeles and make any faire escape Ostendem quod ista imperentur omnibus c. S. Paul doth teach that all sorts or degrees of Subjects not only seculars but also Priests and Monks are lyable to this Apostolicall charge yea so much is punctually set by the Apostle at his first entrance into the matter when he saith Let every soule be subject Supereminentibus potestatibus unto the higher powers And who those higher powers be over and besides all that hath been delivered by him before the same Father declares in tearming them sometimes Princes and sometimes Magistrates At last he doubles his files re-inforces the argument and payes it home with etiamsi Apostolus c. Be thou Apostle Evangelist Prophet or what may be else for such condition degree or state of subjection is no engine to worke the subversion of piety or christian religion Thus Chrysostome to stop the mouth of all such as conceived in mind or gave out in speech that obedience to secular powers Princes was out of the square the rule the levell of christian professors where the holy Father doth not affirm that Princes are in any state of subjection to the Apostles In temporalibus and yet makes no bones of the matter he is nothing squeamish to determine that the Apostles who were all in one and the same height and altitude of power were in state of subjection to secular Princes And let me Hetrodox tell you more to prove that subjection to lawfull Princes is exceeding profitable unto all sorts of Subjects the same Father after his usuall manner and method of teaching makes demonstration to this purpose that generally subjection of inferiors to their superiors is never without speciall benefit and singular fruit As for instance and by name The subjection of the wife to her husband of the sonne to the Father of the scholer to the instructer of the younger People to their elders of which remarkeable profit and benefit not only the Foules of the ayre which fly after one guide as he comes in his vicissitude and turne to make the flight but also the Fishes in their streames are partakers after their severall kinds And it is not unworthy of observation that whereas the holy Father in the said enumeration might have taken into his tale the Subjects unto ecclesiastical Prelates yet he advised himselfe to leave them out of his list perhaps thereunto induced upon the same ground of S. Bernard inspired by the holy Ghost Apostolis interdicitur dominatio indicitur ministratio the Apostles are forbidden to exercise rule and enjoyned to serve Howbeit Chrysostome takes not up the said enumeration to shew that S. Paul there treats of power in generall as you Hetrodox are pleased to give it for indubitable but only to signifie that subjection of inferiours to their superiors being so profitable as appeares by all the former particulars forasmuch as the Prince is the superior and the Subjects are his inferiors the Prince is faithfully to be served and obeyed of his own Subjects in all things You aleadge that Clerics are not bound Vi legis by force of law but only Vi rationis by force of reason to yeeld subjection and obedience unto secular Princes or unto their wholsome lawes But how great untruth lyes in this your distinction which as it seemes you have borrowed of Cardinall Bellarmine let S. Paul be judge in these words Whosoever he be that resists the power he resists the ordinance of God then do well thou shalt have the praise of well doing but if thou do evill feare For he is the Minister of God to take vengeance on him that doth evill Here S. Paul speaks of all Subjects without exception of any one whereas you quit and free from subjection whom you list as if you had a better patent or warrant from Almighty God then the divine Apostle Paul himselfe but for my part I give more credit heare me with patience to S. Paul to the tongues and Pennes of the holy Ghost then to all other Pen-men and Writers in the world Produce but one cleane authority out of the holy Evangeli or out of the canonicall Epistles or out of any other like Bookes and writings for the disobliging of Clerics in temporalls from due obedience to the Lawes of civill Magistrates where the said Clerics have not first obtained some priviledge of exemption from the civill Magistrates as I have in a manner stricken you stone blind with a cleer and punctuall text of S. Paul to the same sence expounded by S. Chrysostome by S. Augustine by S. Thomas and others that is to say Clerics are bound to such obedience as they all affirm and teach dabo manus and I will yeeld up my weapons with open confession that you have driven me not like a right bred Cock of the game but like a ranck bastard or dunghill Bird out of the Pit That Clerics are to be freed and exempted in spirituall and ecclesiasticall causes we Catholics do maintain it stands with reason but in secular and civill causes I see not with what force of reason it can be born out Is it because Clerics have received the Clericall and Priestly character Surely no such matter no more then a man that receives the Sacrament of Baptisme the caracter thereof is thereby freed quitted from the subjection of his Prince a pure Pagan or a man who standing in the state and condition of a slave is freed from subjection and vassallage due to his absolute Lord so that a fortiori all such as are naturally born or otherwise Ratione delicti for some notorious crime or grievous offence committed become as it were accidentally the Subjects of some Forraign Prince are not loosed and set at large from their subjection by any reason or in any regard of their clericall character For this old axiom stands without all controule Si non de quo magis ergo neque de quo minus where the More is not consequent and firme the Lesse is never good and valuable The reason whereof is grounded upon these words of Chrysostome Neque enim pietatem subvertit ista subjectio This degree and state of subjection is no Ramme or other Engine to batter and beate down the Walles or Bulwarks of Religion It stands moreover without check upon the former doctrine of Thomas That Christian liberty is altogether spirituall and against Sin it is not carnall or of the flesh it is no freedome or exemption from secular jurisdiction But be it said though not granted that Cleries owe subjection obedience not by force of Law but by force of
c. 37. Henrie IV. by Gregorie VII So that in this your opinion you erre and wander without any guide or companion but certaine ancient and moderne Heretiques and in particular Marsilius of Padua for one as it is testified by the Cardinall de Turre Cremata Nâ—y more the Pope cannot be judged by the Councell except in case of Heresie upon which point and Article all Catholiques are agreed And herein lies your second falsitie For Pope Iohn XII was not found culpable of Heresie but onelie of scandalous and inordinate life in which case he could not be judged Besides that Councell by which Pope Iohn was deposed was no lawfull Councell but a Conventicle Schismaticall and without a Head whereupon it was abrogated and cassed not long after who so desires to know the truth of this Historie may read the X. Tome of Cardinall Baronius or else to make a shorter cut the Addition of Onuphrius Orthodox This argument hath beene propounded by manie Catholiques and howsoever it is likewise taken up by Hereticks they make use thereof to another end then Catholiques use the same But without all question or doubt de Turre Cremata nor Bellarmine himselfe doth untie the knot and therefore in briefe I must uncase your particular Errours herein 1. It is the Doctrine of St. Paul that Christians must submit and leave themselves to be judged by Secular Painces and most of all in Causes of Appeale wherein the partie Appealing complaines of the inferiour Judge ad redimendam vexationem for a redresse of his grievances or wrongs yet behold you contend I cannot chuse but marvaile at your boldnesse that St. Pauls Appeale was not de Iure Tell me now good Sir did St. Paul appeale contra Jus against Right If so then you must needs thinke and believe that St. Paul sinned in the act of his Appeale But howsoever concerning other men it may be spoken de Facto of the Fact and not de Iure of the Right yet so to reprove the holie Apostle St. Paul of sinne of nothing as you seeme to doe I see not how you can avoid a great blot at least of blame 2. The word Coactus Constrained you take in other sense then it was taken by St. Paul For the Apostle uses the word Constrained to this purpose and sense That for so much as Festus an inferiour Judge had not done him right and justice therefore ad redimendam vexationem for the repairing of his wrong and losse thereby received he was constrained to make his Appeale unto the Superiour Judge as Appellants use commonly to speake whereas you tell us that St. Paul said I was constrained to appeale that he might not make men burst out into great laughter if he had appealed unto St. Peter 3. You say St. Paul appealed not unto St. Peter least hee should make both Jewes and Gentilâ—s to laugh Well fare you Sir for this merrie conceipt and pleasant device in the edge of an Evening I demand in that St. Paul appealed not unto St. Peter whether was it well done or ill If well then Exemption is not founded upon Gods Law If ill wherefore did he so What was it perhaps that people might not laugh Why then Sir to the end that people may not be put into a fit of laughter is it lawfull for one to doe ill or to forbeare speakiâ—g the truth and in particular for that chosen vessell that holie Apostle who saith we preach Christ crucified unto the Jewes even a stumbling block and unto the Grecians foolishnesse And what 1. Cor. 1.23 I beseech you Hetrodox makes men laugh more then foolishnesse But St. Paul abstained from preaching never the more because his preaching was by the Gentiles accounted foolishnesse No he tooke and reputed that imputation for a speciall Reputation ascribing the same to the greatnesse to the wonderfull vertue and power of his preaching Ministerie To tell you the plain truth I can by no meanes and at no hand brooke or endure to heare that for the firming or founding of an opinion which is delivered without all probabilitie and without any shew and shadow of Precept in holie Scripture anie man should talke his pleasure of holie Paul and sacred Scripture in so free a straine or veine of libertie 4. To know the Historie of Pope Iohn and Otho you referre us forsooth to Card. Baronius and Onuphrius in his Addition to Platina of the Lord Cardinall Baronius what shall I say Hee is an Historian and living still to this day His workes are suspected in the matter of immunities yea as one that hath not a tongue to speake or a pen to write otherwise he denies all the ancient Historians and in case by good hap he admit some one or other still he takes the words which make for his turne and as for those words which make against his owne purpose hee still seekes to blind the world and to make the Reader believe they are supposititious and thrust into the webb of that Historie by foule and forcible intrusion And even thus hee deales in this Historie denying the Authoritie of Intiprandus approved in the Church by the space of Dcc. yeares and other Writers of the same times So that now his Annals not finding such account or consideration in the World as no doubt he dreame of and believed as also for as much as a Booke entituled Errores Card. Baronii The Errours of Cardinall Baronius is in good forwardnesse to be speedily printed in which Booke are particularly laid open more then 20. Errours by him committed in denying this most ancient Historie of Pope John it is not worth while or whistling to speake of his Authoritie As for the Addition of Onuphrius first I say hee is very moderne and in a manner new then I answer that in the said Addition there is nothing that makes against my Position but rather on my side and is written in favour of our Tenent at least if the Election of Leo be admitted to passe for a lawfull Elâ—ction 5. You pretend the Emperour Otho could not de Iure depose Pope John for his Criminall Delicts and that Popes have de Iure deposed Emperours Hitherto the contrarie hath beene proved and ever de Iure Namely that in Temporall matters the Pope hath not Ius auferendi Regna jure Pontificatus that his Holinesse hath neither dram nor drop of right to take away Kingdomes in right of his Pontificalitie and that by Gods Law none is exempt from the Secular Power in Criminall Delicts But you draw a reason from contrarie sense and I know not upon what ground oâ— Foundation the said Reason is built 6. You grant and indeed you are forced so to doe the lawfull Deposing of Pope Iohn I say lawfull because by vertue of Iohns deposition Leo was elected and taken for lawfull Pope say Ciacconius what he list or can to the contrarie of whom if I shall pronounce that in the ancient Poet Quicquid delirant Reges plectuntur
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
chopt and stollen in since The foâ—esaid Booke hath beene extant and read above 300. yeares and yet never any man hath taken upon him such temerarious boldnesse a sober advice to affirme the same words have beene strained or inserted into that Book by anie other fingers Howbeit now you Hetrodox from Cardinall Bellarmine to aggrandise the Popes authoritie and to make it Supreame in Temporals without anie reason or conjecture at all have borrowed a spirit of boldnesse to pronounce they are inserted and as it were post-nated after their true parents decease 9. Howsoever you bring to the words of St. Thomas an Exposition which ore proprio you call the soundest neverthelesse that answer doth not make the Book to be a Bird of St. Thomas his brood nay it is altogether needlesse For it sufficed to say that the Booke was not of his writing or none of his workes to make good proofe that St. Thomas was not adverse or contrary to himselfe 10. You call that an irremissible temeritie not worthy of any pardon which in case it be temeritie Can. quicunque litem Can. quaecunque contentionem 11. quaest l. 5. de Rom. pont cap. 5. certaine it is one of his most illustrious Lordships temerities For the Canons brought upon this Argument are two These two are alledged by the Lord Cardinall and yet first he stiles them not Sacred and then he thus takes them down with termes of diminution and abatement Respondeo ex illis Canonibus priorem esse Theodosii Imperatoris qui ex pietate non ex debito id honoris Eccelesiae I answer the first of these two Canons proceeded from the grace of Theodosius by whom out of his most Christian pietie and not out of any debt or duty the Church was then so highly honoured The verie same for cloth and colour which I speake before of Constantine and was then by Hetrodox handsomely basted for my labour A little after Quem jam esse abrâ—gâ—tum per alios Cannones Glossa ibidem asserit which first Canon the Glosse in the same place confirmes to have beene abrogated by other Canons And yet I must now tell you Hetrodox the said Canon is not well cited out of Gratianus because that which the Canon containes was not granted by Theodosius Posteriorem Canonem perspicuum est non esse alicujus Principis qui posset leges condere and touching the latter Canon it is cleere the same was not established by any Prince that had power to make Lawes Now because I having spoken in my owne phrase and style doe not give these Canons the high adjunct of Sacred you therefore Hetrodox fare like one bestraught of his wits and will have my manner of Speech to be a fault irremissible as if it were the sin against the Holy Ghost Such exaggerations tend and serve only to rob men of their Credit and Authoritie 11. Againe your selfe refutes the Canons as the Lord Cardinall doth and you are not affraid to affirme they are framed by the assistance of the Holy Ghost 12. You pretend the Canons ought never to be named but with title of Sacred and yet your selfe affirming the Canon Quicunque was abrogated per alios Canones by other Canons do send them forth like a Bird bared of all her Feathers and leaving the Epithet Sacred speake no more but Approved 13. The Epithet Sacred is no lesse attributed to the civill then to the Canon Lawes and therefore as it is oftentimes left out when we name the Civill so it is oft not remembred when we make mention of the Canons yea the Canon Quicunque is not cited with you adjunct Sacred but nakedly called the Canon Quicunque 14. The Decrees of Councels and of the Church which as we teach cannot erre de fide in point of Faith are verily Sacred and made with assistance of the Holy Spirit yet can we not affirme without error in fide that infinite other Canons concerning particular matters and cases are compiled without any assistance of the Holy Spirit Ioan. 16. de potest Rom. Pontif For the Spirit of God teacheth us all truth whereas Popes in particular Canons have many times erred and may erre whereof we need to make no doubt and the Lord Cardinall often grants it in his learned workes 15. I have pâ—oduced such Canons as are usually brought by the Defendants of the contrarie opinion as the foresaid Canons and the like but you affirme and would make me believe that I speake of all the Canons and every matter 16. You call Concurrence Contrarietie and thereby make a confusion of both for Duo Iura possunt concurrere two Lawes may well concurre and yet may not be contrary the one to the other I give you this for example The Precept for hearing Masse concurres with the Precept of keeping and tending a sick bodie I observe not the fiâ—st for hearing the Masse that I may the better observe the second in attending upon the sick Patient according to that commandement of Christ I will have mercy and not Sacrifice Is the one of these Precepts contrarie to the other Will a very sot say so In like manner there be manie Canons which it will be well done to keep when they may be kept without any detriment unto some greater obligation I mean without infringing the Law of God and the Law of Nature but when that cannot be done then the Canons must make roome and give place to Natures Law and that may not be called Contrarietie but Subordination 17 Lastly You call the Canons without any difference at all Rules given by the Holy Spirit by godlie Popes and holie Councels and this you stick not Hetrodox to affirme without anie distinction of the Canons as I said Herein good Sir make you not all the Canons indifferently of equall Authoritie to the holy Scripture which is inspired of God as also to the Determinations of the Church which cannot erre de fide Nay do you not give the Canons this honourable Epithet Have there not been found Errors in manie of the Canons Have they not been revoked and repealed He that makes the Canons hath not he power to unmake the Canons Whereas in the holie Scripture and in the Definitions of the Church de fide can you find any such defects or impotencies there Can they be bettered Can they be repealed Is there any other passable reason thereof besides that which I have alledgâ—d That holie Scripture is inspired of God primo loco and the foresaid Definitions de Fide secundo loco whereas the Canons which either do or may contain divers errours are but humane Lawes He that dares broach a doctrine contrarie to this I dare pronounce is no friend or Well-willer to the Catholique truth Thus have I painted forth your Errors shall I with your Patience and favour proceed to some further matter touching this third Proposition Hetrodox Take what liberty you please you shall have indiffâ—rent hearing Orthod To weaken the sinewes