partly Excommunicate to reduce and bring them unto the lap of the Church and now behold they departed from the Faithfull unjustly excommunicated and interdicted Fiftly that if all the Religious had followed the example of those few in abandoning their Pastorall charges the Venetian Dominion should have beene left for a Country of Paganisme without any Priests that Woolves at pleasure might have run together on heaps to woorrie and to glut their paunches with the blood of the silly sheepe and Lambs of Christ Last of all the occasion of this great scandall was augmented by some temerarious and over-confident Bravodoes in speech cast out by the said Religious that his Holinesse the Pope is the Monarch of Christendome and ought in all things whether Temporall or Spirituall to be obeyed by whomsoever These are scandals to speake truth inexcusable which in case they doe not spring from the blindnesse of those by whom they are given it may well and truly be averred their Actions are so much the more culpable and the more to be condemned 4. You grant obedience to the Naturall Prince and concurrence in his Defence is by Gods Law and the holy Fathers sentence by mans Law and neverthelesse without any reason you denie the consequence that Subjects have done well and taken the right course in obeying their Prince rather then the Sentence of the Pope The instance which you induce is of no more force or weight then your first Answer For thus you inferre If it be according to Gods Law for Subjects to defend the Liberty of their Naturall Prince on Earth much more it is according to Gods Law to defend the liberty of the Church the Spouse of the Prince in Heaven It is a true Inference I confesse but nothing pertinent or proper to the present case because the Lords of Venice never pretended to rob the Church of any Right or Libertie whatsoever For the Lords leaving all things in their entire strength doe enact most just Lawes and ordinary judgements touching Delicts and Goods which are subject unto their power This they have alwaies done time out of mind and yet never anie of this present Popes predecessors hath taken stomack against our Lords for such their Acts but rather by connivance or tacite silence hath yeelded gracious consent to their just operations So that in Venice there being none that goeth about or seeks to deprive the Church of anie Libertie how can the Ecclesiastics there have anie occasion to defend the said Libertie 5. You againe confound the word Duke and the word Prince The Duke doth not anie thing of him selfe in the Venetian State the Prince that is the Republic sets downe all Orders the Prince makes all the Lawes To what purpose then should you seek to draw the person of the Duke into any odious hatred by putting the Duke to be the Author of those Acts which are to be attributed unto the whole Republic as unto the true Father and Mother of the said Acts. 6. You affirme the Prince of Venice commits to prison such as have ho ranke amongst his owne Subjects The contrary hath been already proved that Clerics in grievous Delicts which touch not so much as the hemme of Spirituals are not exempted so that by consequence they are in the ranke of Subjects as also it hath beene shewed before that the liberty left by Christ our Lord unto the Church is the libertie of the Spirit and from the bondage or slaverie of sinne 7. The Lawes now in question made by the Lords of Venice you say are against Justice and Pietie For this Opposition I will turne you over and referre all indifferent Judges to Antonius Quirinus a most noble Senator of the State in his Aviso and to F. Paulus of Venice in his Considerationi 8. You put us in mind that Ecclesiasticall Sentences as touching power are by Gods Law This will not be denyed or gaine-said so long as they marshall themselves within their own bounds and territories but when they fall to range out of their owne Religion or Limits and to lash those who justly stand upon the practise of their owne Temporall and lawfull power then they are not onelie by Gods Law in respect of their power but directlie opposite unto the Law of God and flat against all reason 9. You grant and confesse the present Controversie stands not in point of Faith but in matter of Manners Then you subjoyne that which neither your selfe nor anie other hath not proved nor shall ever by Gods grace be able to prove that in the Bookes written by such as hold and maintaine the opinion of the Republic there are to be found sundrie Errours in Faith An Error in Faith is when one affirmes a point of Doctrine contrarie either to sacred Scripture or to the definitive judgment of the Church which cannot erre tanquam de Fide This no man living shall be able to prove hath at anie time been taught by such as have defended or now doe maintain the cause of the Republic When matters are debated of so great importance it is not lawfull to hang a Priest in generals If the Disputant seeke or think men should give him Faith and Credit without all hesitation he must come to the particulars In the meane time so long as the parties offended are reproved by others and no just cause at all shewed of the said Reproofe they have reason to believe the said Reproofe will result and turne to their favour 10. You confound the Principles and the Conclusion which is virtually contained in the Principles The Principle from which the opinion of the Republic is derived is touching Faith and in St. Paul Omnis anima c. Let every Soule be subject unto the higher Powers but the Conclusion is a certaine opinion grounded upon all that hath beene said before I have not said the Principle taught by St. Paul is an opinion but have onely said that opinion is most certain which is grounded upon a Principle of Faith taught by the Divine Apostle And so the sharpe subtiltie or subtle sharpnesse of this your opposition vanisheth like smoake in the vast Region of the Aire 11. St. Pauls text Obey them that have the over-fight of you and submit your selves for they watch for your Soules as they that must give account for your Soules you understand to enjoyne obedience unto Spirituall overseers in all things or matters whatsoever whereas the Apostle by whom this lesson had been taught before concerning Temporall Princes Let every Soule be subject unto the higher Powers to the end he might not goe crosse or speake in termes of contradiction that former Principle is understood by all writers on that place to the Hebrewes to treate of Spirituall power and over Soules This appears by the account which the said Prelates must render unto God namely an account for the Soules of the people not for their Goods or other Temporall matters 12. I never speake of the Head in
authority sought indeed to heare the causes of Ecclesiastics and thereby intruded himselfe to cut as it were their spreading Combes for that reason Menua in all submissive humility petitioned Iustinian to leave the cognisance at least of civill causes unto the Bishop to which Petition the Emperour was pleased to give both gracious care and princely grant How true it is that Iustinian usurped excessive authority it is evident by his practise for he both shufled and cut the cards he intruded himselfe to bridle the Clergy to tye and hold them short unto the stake by his Lawes as well in spirituals as temporals who so lists to read the titles De sanctit Episcop de sacro sanct Ecclesiis may clearely see the same with halfe an eye but more pregnant and positive for the purpose is the Nomocanon of Photius Howbeit you know Orthodox it is the doctrine of all Divines and Canonists yea of Couaruvias himselfe too that by Gods own word the judgement of spirituall causes belongs only to Bishops and to the highest Bishop as to the supreame Judge whereupon both before Iustinian and after the sacred Councels have debarred and restrained the clergy by expresse and peremptory inhibition from procuring any tryals before secular Judges as in the councell of Toledo besides divers other Councels it is more then manifest Perhaps Tholouse in France Can. 13. And that all the world may see the foundation which you have laid I mean that novell-constitution 83. of Iustinian to be but a rotten foundation it is much considerable that Iustinian himselfe in the very same constitution hath decreed it shall not be lawfull for the secular Judge to punish an ecclesiasticall person except first he be deprived by his own Ordinary of his Clericall dignity and thereby brought under the whip or lash of the common lawes Now if ecclesiastics be not found within the compasse and power of the common lawes before they be degraded by the Bâ—shop how shall they be judged and sentenced by any secular power so long as they are still invested with clericall dignity and holy Orders In the same constitution it is professed by the said Emperour that his lawes imperiall thinke not scorn to follow and come after the sacred Canons whereas then by the said Canons it is well and wisely decreed provided and ordered that Ecclesiasticks are to be judged by their own superiors how can the said constitution stand in force and be observed which determines the cleane contrary And now to draw the Arrow up close to the very point of the head the inconvenience of this decree made by the Emperour Iustinian seemed to the judgement of Frederick the second to be of so dangerous a straine and consequence that he repealed the foresaid law of Justinian with all other the like lawes repugnant unto the liberty of the Church for it is found in Fredericks first constitution thus recorded Sanâ— infideliam quorundam c. the pravity of certain miscreant and unjust Princes hath so disborded and over-flown the Banks that now contrary to the discipline of the holy Apostles and to the name of sacred Canons they make no bones to contrive new Statutes and to frame new lawes against Church-men and Church-liberty A little after Statuimus ut nullus c. Wee decree that none shall presume to sue any ecclesiasticall person before a secular Judge in any criminall or civill cause contrary to the imperiall constitutions and canonicall decrees and in case any suite shall be otherwise commenced or entered wee decree the plaintiffe to lose his cause and to take no benefit of the Judges order or sentence as also the Judge himselfe to be put out of the commission for Judicature Likewise the Emperour Basilius long before Frederick repealed a law made by the Emperour Nicephorus against ecclesiastics liberty with asseveration that infinite calamities like epidemicall diseases or publique ulcers and botches had runne over and infected the whole body of State and common wealth with poyson of the said pestiferous and unwholsome lawes let Balsamon upon the Nomocanon of Photius be consulted and viewed where he expounds the first Canon of the first and second Councels celebrated at Constantinople and thus much touching the authority of your great Iustinian Orthod I am not ignorant Hetrodox in whose goodly Vivaries or fresh Ponds you have taken so great paines to fish for this dish of dainty Mullets as you suppose but saving his savour with whose heifers you have thus plowed up the goodly field of the Emperour Iustinians 38. Novel the said Novell comprehends three distinct parts the first is that upon petition of Menua this noble Emperour sealed a patent and passed a most gratious priviledge for the Cleargy of this faire tenure and tenour that in matter of pecuniary causes called after the common stile civill causes Church-men might be tryed and judged by their Prelates Non ex scripto without some formall drawing of Bils Bookes or pleas except both parties agreed to have some necessary essentiall and materiall points of the case formally drawn couched and put down in writing and in case the knot or difficulty of the matter would not beare and suffer such summary decision then it should be free and lawfull for the complainants to take the benefit of civill Courts and to commence their suites before the ordinary secular Judges The Emperours own words lye penned thus Petiâ—i sumus c. Menua beloved of God Arch-bishop of this most flourishing City and universall patriarch by humble Petition hath moved our imperiall highnesse to grant unto the most reverend Cleargy this gracious priviledge that if any shall have just and lawfull occasion to sue Churchmen in a pecuniary cause he shall first repaire unto the Archbishop beloved of God as unto his Diocesan within whose jurisdiction he then liveth and inhabiteth and shall require the Archbishop to take information of the cause whereby he may merit his judgement Ex non scripto by summary proceeding without drawing of Bookes or breviats And in case the Archbishop shall undertake to proceed in such forme the Cleric shall not be molested nor drawn into any Court of civill Audience nor driven to intermit the exercises of his holy Function but rather without damages the cause it selfe shall be throughly canvased and sifted Ex non scripto Howbeit withall the said cause may be couâ—hed in written forme if the parties be willing and condescend both alike to require that course and to relinquish the other but in case for the quality of the cause or for some other emergent difficulty the Bishop beloved of God shall not be able by any meanes possible to make a full and finall end of the matter then shall it be lawfull to bring the said cause before civill Judges and Magistrates and all priviledges granted to the right reverend Churchmen preserved it shall be lawfull to implead to take examinations to make a finall end of the suite and contention in the
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
word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but once Hee thereby expounds that one word with two words which without all doubt signifie Pasce Feed Nay the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies to feed and by a Metaphor to rule and governe as in the aforesaid Text as in this Text of St. Johns Revelation All this makes much against you Hetrodox and nothing at all to favour your cause Will you now give mee leave to make good my Exposition of the word Pasce Feed with Authority of the holy Fathers Hetrodox Proceed at your pleasure Orthodox Ter dictum est Pasce c. Three times over the Lord Christ repeated the word Feed to St. Peter And wherefore thrice Forsooth to intimate that all such as are charged with cure of soules are bound to feed their People triplici Pastu with a three-fold Dyet namelie with the Food of Gods heavenly word with Food of good Example in life and with Temporall Aid so far as their meanes are not wanting But alasse this three-fold Feeding is now adaies changed by unconscionable shepheards into a three-fold polling and pelting of their Flocks by pilling and pinching their Subjects with intollerable burthens of exactions without anie due regard at all to the said three-fold Feediâ—g Thus Chrysostome Hom. 87. Perpende verba Pasce agnos meos c. weigh these words of Christ well Feed my Lambes that is Feed my faithfull Flock not thine use them not as thy proper Possession but as mine I therefore asked if thou lovest mee O Peter because I have a purpose to recommend my little Flocke to thy Feeding and to bee kept of thee as mine owne Goods and Cattells that love which thou bearest my selfe in profession I would have thee shew and practise towards my tender Lambes Fat not pamper not up thy selfe like those unfaithfull Shepheards of whom the holy Prophet cryed Ezech. 34. Vae Paestoaibus woe to the Shepheards of Israel that have fed their owne bellies That man that feeds himselfe who gapes after his owne gaine who hunts after his owne glorie who removes every stone for his owne commodity never sâ—eking for the benefit of the Faithfull over whom hee beares rule never aiming at Gods glorie in exercising the state and office of a Ruler Tract 132. in Ioannâ—m Thus far St. Augustine Qui hoc animo pascunt ones c. Such as feed the Flock with a mind to make the sheep their owne and none of Christs doubtlesse beare no love at all to Christ himselfe St. Augustine againe Ibid. Sicut oves meas Pasce non sicut tuas Feed the Flock as my sheepe and not as thine owne Cattle in them seeke my Glory my gaine and neither thine owne gaine or thine owne glorie This Peter himselfe hath also taught Feed the Flock of God which dependeth upon you 1 Petr. 5. caring for it not by constraint but willingly not for filthy lucre but of a ready mind not as if ye were Lords over Gods heritage but that ye may be examples to the Flock These be the exercises of the true Shepheard and thus the words Feed my Lambes are to be understood and not that the Popes Feeding should be a Temporall reigning over all Temporall Kings The holy Fathers you see Hetrodox teach the contray namely that hee ought carefelly to shun and avoid all filthy Lucre Acquists Glory Dominion c. 13. Againe by Quodcunque solveris whatsoever thou Peter shalt loose you understand every thing And by this means the Pope shall have power to untie all knoâ—s to set open all prisons to transferre all Kingdomes to deliver all the slaves in Turkie at his pleasure nay to solve all difficulties in all matters whatsoever What man doth not perceive the fâ—lsity of this Doctrine Our Lord Christ câ—me to deliver Soules from sinne and as the onely Redeemer So teach all Divines The Pope by like shall worke the same effects hee shall cooperate in this great worke of Redemption he shall bind and loose the sinnes of 〈◊〉 you have no reason Hetrodox to cast such colours on your false opinions whereby to make the Pope Lord and Patrone of every thing with a Quodcunque whatsoever For â—â—ere is no such matter as you conceive in your dreames 14. Againe the word Soule is understood and taken sometimes for the whole man and sometimes for the Spirit of man above according to the matter handled Now your Argument is drawne from one place to another For St. Paul speaks of Temporall Dominion The word Omnis anima every Soule in understood of power over mens bodies and in Temporality But because our Lord Christ gave Spirituall Power to Peter the word Animas Soules which is used in the Prayer of the Church doth signifie the Spirit or Soule of Man and not his Body in Spirituality forsooth and not in Temporality 15. Those who wiped the word Animas out of the Breviâ—rie were inspired as you believe by the Holy Spirit of God I never yet read or heard that Gods owne Spirit is the Author of Dissention strife or Discord But well I wot Peace is one of the Gifts or Fruits of the Holy Spirit The makers of the foresaid Prayer aymed at the Exposition of these words Quodcunque ligvaeris whatsoever thou shalt bind by the word Animas and by that other Text Quorum remiseritis peccata whose sinnes ye remit as a just exposition of the word Animas because all sinnes to speake properly are bred and hatcht up in the Soule not in the Bodie And this they did to a speciall end and purpose namely to drive certaine Opinastres from their Tenent or hold That Popes are Domini in Temporalibus Spiritualibus the absolute Lords over mens goods their Bodies and Soules with a power to bind and loose all things as it seemes your selfe Hetrodox is of the same opinion This Exposition they made by the word Animas and by the same exposition they produced an excellent remedy against all Discords which might grow betweene the Pope and other Princes about Meuâ—â— Tuum about Mine Thine whereas on the other side those who last spung'd the Breviarie by taking away the word Animas have ministred new Tinder and Match to kindle the Coales of great contention discord and litigious quarrels Besides it is not unknowne to the World that in the Bookes of the Councels of the Canons and of other Doctors yea downe so low as to the very Breviaries and Missals many matters recorded and registred in favour of Layick Princes have beene blotted and still are scraped out of the ancient Rolls and all to make experiment if after long travaile and sore labour that huge mountaine of opinion de illimitatâ Potestate Pontificis in Temporalibus touching the unboundable power of the Pope in Temporals might be brought forth reared up and established in the Church of God Conferre the Bookes printed in 30. and 50. with Bookes printed in these daies as well the Bookes of
can be no seemlie thing to make the Church of God lesse free in the Reigne and Government of Christian Princes then shee was in Pharohs time Let us now see and examine the reasons which you bring for proofe of your first Proposition For you pretend and alledge That Exemption of Ecclesiasticall Persons and their Possessions is onelie established and granted by mans Law and that your opinion in that point is more conformable to sacred Scripture to the holy Doctors and to the Histories of the Church then the contrarie opinion Orthodox You demand the reasons of my Doctrine in verie good time Hâ—trodox For in truth we are now come to the golden Key that opens the Closet and Cabinet of my Catholique Doctrine Howbeit Sir before I shall alleadge proofes of his Doctrine First it will be needfull to declare by certaine Propositions in what points your opinion dâ—ffâ—â—s from theirs who are commonly cited under the name of Heretiques which to be plaine iâ— likewise my opinion 1. There is a great difference betweene these two termes not Subject and exempt For the man is not subject unto any Prince Propositions foreâ—aid for grounds of the defence following over whom the power of the said Prince doth not extend and stretch Take this for Example An English man usually and commonly dwelling in England is not subject unto the French King For the French Kings power extends not over the English who have their common habitation in the Realme of England But in case an English-man dwelling in England shall not obey the King of England and his Lawes and shall not be conformable to the Statutes of England it must not be said that he is a Refractory because he is not subject unto the King of England but because he is exempted either by Almighty God the Lord of all or else by the King of Englands most Royall and gracious Priviledge So that whereas I affirme that Ecclesiastick Exemption and Immunitie is not in force de Jure divino by Gods Law my meaning is not in Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall causes cases or delicts For in cases of that nature and kind we cannot say that Clerics are excempt from the power of their lawfull and naturall Priâ—ce but we onely pronounce they are not subject unto the said Prince Then it remains that my meaning is in such Goods in such Causes in such Delicts as properly fall within the termes of Princely power not only to take due cognisance thereof but also to set and appoint due order in the same and what can such things but meerely Temporall and Politicall matters This hath begot and bred the Errour in some writers and your Error Hetrodox in particular In that whereas I contend that Clerics are not exempt from the power of their Naturall Prince by Gods Law you in all hast inferre thereupon Ergo Princes have power to make Lawes for saying Masse and for the marriage of Priests Certes Hetrodox this consequence hath no weight like a scive that holds no water they are not exempt from Temporall Power Ergo in Spirituall Delicts and causes they are subject Such equivocating Arguments of double sense and construction which are and ever have beene the precipitating of many simple spirits into erroneous conceipts ought by all meanes in so grave and weighty a subject both carefully and curiouslie to be avoided When I therefore speake of Exception Exemption and Immunitie from Secular power I must of necessity be conceived and taken to meane in such Causes in such Goods and in such Delicts wherein without all priviledge both Divine and Humane of God or man a man should of necessitie be subject unto the Secular Prince 2. There be foure opinions laid to the charge of Heretiques and rejected in this Argument as condemned and cursed with Bell Booke and Candle The Fathers of the first opinion are Marsilius of Padua and Jandunus These are charged and challenged by some to teach that Christ paid Tribute Necessitate coactus as one enforced by necessitie The next is Calvins opinion He dreames that Clerics are subject unto the Temporall Prince Ex debito in all Causes except onely such as are meerely Ecclesiasticall The third opinion calls Peter Martyr father He makes no bones to pâ—ofesse that it rests not in the hands it lyes not in the power of Princes to grant any such Priviledge of Exemption unto Clerics and in case they shall grant any such Priviledge they shall run into the snares of sinne because every such Grant is repugnant and contrary to Gods Law The fourth is the opinion of Brentius and Philip Melancthon they contend that Clerics are subject unto the Secular Prince even in causes meerly Ecclesiasticall All this verbatim is taken out of Card. Bellarmine Lib. 1. cap. 28. de Clericis It was therefore either out of affected Ignorance or else out of Supine Malignitie that one hath charged my Doctrine to be sprinkled or dipt in Brentianated Calviniated and Marsilianated holy water For I neither affirme with Marsilius of Padua if neverthelesse Marsilius was culpable of any such condemned opinion that our Lord Christ paid tribute as enforced by necessity but onely to shun the rocke of giving scandall Neither doe I teach with Calvin that in all Causes and Criminall Delicts Clerics are subject and ought so to be but in such onely wherein they have not beene exempted which Exemption stands not in force by Gods Law but by Princes Priviledge Neither doe I contend with Peter Martyr that Princes can grant no such Exemption but rather the contrarie that such Exemption may be granted Neither doe I lastly maintaine with Brentius that Clerics are subject in Spirituall Causes For I distinguish the two Powers the Temporall and the Spirituall And when I speake of Subjection or Exemption of Clerics I speake onely in Temporall matters over which the said power extends and stretches out her mighty arme and not in meere Ecclesiasticall matters and Spirituall save onely by Accident 3. My opinion is this that Clerics are not exempted from the power of Secular Princes by Gods Law but onely by Princely Priviledge either expressed or at least in tacite grant I mean after Canons lawfully published received as also after many laudable and approved Customes for such purpose Now that my Doctrine herein is Catholique it is confest by Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe in the place last cited For in his last Edition he holds that Exemption is by Gods Law forgetting by like what he had taught like a Doctor out of his Chaire in his other Bookes to the contrary of the same subject As where he writes of Medina and Conarruuias two Catholique Authors and both of them resolute in my true opinion for this point For he takes them downe in a round Censure terming them bold and hardy speakers in these words Sed operae pretium erit C de Restit q 15. ad eas objectiones breviter respondere quas Didacus Conarruuias Joannes Medina
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
if it rested in their power to make such Derogation when they please Besides that Sotus did write since the Councell of Trent it is nothing so For howsoever he was present in the first Sessions then celebrated under Paulus III. yet he died before the Councell ended and so he could not see that last Decree wherein is declared that immunity of Churches and Ecclesiasticall persons was brought in by Gods Ordinance For if hee had seene the said Decree doubtlesse hâ— durst never have opened his mouth nor set his pen on worke by way of contradiction to the said Decree Conarruuias hath ever shewed himselfe as hath beene touched before more then partiall in defence of Regall Jurisdiction And neverthelesse even he himselfe hath â—aught a Power to be in the Pope whereby he justly and lawfully can free Ecclesiastics from the Secular power and that no Prince be never so absolute and Supreame can pull the least hâ—ire from the Crown of this immunity By this iâ— appeares that Conarruuias himselfe condemnes the Actions or doings of the Venetian Lords so that in advertising us how much these two Authors Conarruuias and Sotus are to be regarded and esteemed you know not Orthodox what you speake and affirme Lastly whereas you draw in Conarruuias alledging for his opinion Innocentius III. that point must not be past over in silence For here two Errours come to be discovered and reproved Of the one your selfe Hetrodox is culpable Of the other Conarruuias You are first out of the right way because Conarruuias never cited Innocentius III. for his Patron in this cause knowing full well that Innocentius goes against him in the quarrell and stands against him in the gap Then secondly Conarruuias is in the wrong path or in a wrong boxe because hee alledgeth for his opinion Innocentius IV. whereas Innocentius IV. affirmes in the very same place In commen cap. 2. de majorit obed that Exemption granted by the high Bishop with consent of the Emperour is not full and therefore it is to be confessed that Ecclesiastics are exempted from the power of Secular Princes by God himselfe It was not possible for Innocentius IV. to affirme in clearer termes that Exemption of Ecclesiastics is grounded upon Gods Law and yet Conarruuias hath face enough to affirme that Innocentius IV. denies the said Exemption to stand by the Law of God whereupon Panâ—rmitaâ—us writes â—hat Innocentius IV. holds Exemption of Ecclesiastics to be tenable by Gods Law Have you any more to say Orthodox No Sir not for proofe of the Proposition I will therefore now addresse my selfe to handy strokes and blowes with your Errours 1. St. Paul and St. Chrysostome you say doe speake in generall But I have evidently proved already that both of them have treated in the particular 2. St. Thomas you say holds Exemption to stand in force by Gods Law But I have clearly shewed that St. Thomas holds it is by the priviledge of Pâ—inces and founded upon Principles or grounds of Reason upon which all humane Priviledges and Lawes are grounded as also that St. Thomas was not the Author of the Booke De Regimine Principum 3. Sotus and Conarrunias affirm you say that all Princes joyned together are not able to derogate one haires bredth from those immunities which they have once granted or have accepted and received by the high Priests Canons And in this point your Speech is absolute whereas the said Authors write with termes of condition that is Ordinarily For Sotus affirmes in particular that ad viâ— vi repellendam for the repulsing of force by force in certain cases the Priviledge of Exemption may be disabled removed and taken away Thus Conarruuias and Medina likewise are to be understood according to the opinion of all the Doctors in the matter of Priviledges which indeed cannot be derogated but in case of necessity et propter finem superiorem and for a higher end or purpose As the Pope every day derogates from the Priviledges granted by his Pontificiall Chaire 4. You reprove the State of Venice for violating the Priviledges of Church immunitie you wrong that most illustrious and flourishing State For they have alwaies judged their Ecclesiastics time out of mind in heinous and atrocious delicts and offences And in so doing they have observed the contents of Iustinians Novell in points to them seeming good and convenient not because they are tyed to that Novelâ— but because they have thought and judged it good to maintain in their Dominion and State that which in the eye of Iustinians great wisedome learning and judgement seemed good to be observed and maintained in his Dominions Touching the Lawes made by the Lords of Venice about Church-mens goods it hath beene answered that all such Lawes are de Temporalibus quae nondum pervenerunt in Dominium Ecclesiasticorum they are concerning things Temporall not yet belonging to Ecclesiastics as just Lords and true Proprietaries of the same and hereof in the opinion of all men there is no doubt And that Law which was made Anno 1333. they might afterwards justly ampliate by the same Authority by which they first made the same which never yet was contradicted by Ecclesiasticall persons As for other immunities which the said Lords of Venice have granted to the Ecclesiasticks of their Dominion either by Priviledges or by Canons received and approved or by custome continued the said Lords maintain them all as pure chast Virgins in violated and untouched yea according to the sacred Councell they are protectors of the said Immunities neither will they at any time after any priviledge except it be ad vim vi repellendam for the driving out of one naile by another et ad redimendam vexationem for the repressing of wrongs which all the Doctors permit propter bonum commune evidentissimum and for some most evident benefit of the publike 5. Innocentius IV. holds that the Emperours consent is to be sought for in the matter of immunities and for that purpose Innocentius is alledged by Conarrunias 6. You charge me with errour in citing Innocentius III. for Innocentius IV. Sir it was the Printers errour not mine And in the Answer is not read Third by letters â—f Alphabet as the Lord Cardinall Bellarminâ— hath caused to bâ— printed of purpose to make the Errour more inexcusable but by numbers in this manner III. 7. Sotus you say with a nice distinction did not write after the Councell but in the midd time of the Councell my meaning is that Sotus was personally present in the Councell and his Booke was printed after the Councell so did Conarruuias Medina and others write after the time of the Councell and yet were never prohibited by any Authority as writing any thing contrarie to the Councell which makes mee to collect and conclude that in affirming the said Councell hath determined Exemption to be grounded on Gods Law you are cleane out of the truth For had the Councell made any full Determination to your said
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