person and case which afterward he proclaimed in the Church by the ministery of his Apostle There is no power but of God 5. S. Iohn Chrysostome and S. Cyril whom you have alledged doe not deny that Christ speaks of ordinary judiciary power They onely affirme that whereas Christ might have avoided that judgement either by hiding himselfe perhaps as he did when the Jews would have stoned him to death or by commanding as he was God twelve legions of Angels to come down from heaven for his aid and rescue yet he did not decline retard or any way hinder the course of the said judiciary power and proceeding From whence no argument is to be drawne that such power was not of God but rather the contrary And this our Divines understand not of Christs ordinary but of his absolute power quia oportuit Christum pati Luc. 24.46 for ought not Christ as he speaks himselfe to have suffered these things and enter into his glory 6. Againe you bring the same for a reason which is in the question The Pope being High priest cannot be judged forsooth in temporalls by any temporall Judge therefore Christ being High priest could not be judged by Pilate in the fact of usurped jurisdiction imputed and laid to his charge What shall I call this manner and forme of reasoning but a sophisme or fallacie in a bold begging of the question For it should rather be thus reasoned and argued on the contrary Because Christ our Lord hath not shunned the judgement of the temporall Prince but said that his power was given from above and yet by all meanes was the High priest therefore the Pope or High priest of Rome ought not in like cases to renounce or disclaime the judgement of the temporall Prince for Christs actions must be a rule to the actions of the Roman Bishop not his actions a rule to the actions of Christ You put upon Thomas an exposition of his words cleane contrary to his true meaning and right sence of the same an exposition altogether unworthy of that Angelicall Doctors doctrine and here I am bound to fight for my Country for my Master and Compatriot whose Catholike Doctrine in all Theologicall disputes and in this by name I am resolved to hold His words be these Quicquid communiter de Deo de creaturis dicitur à Deo in creatur as derivatur Potestas autem de Deo hominibus dicitur Job 39 Deus potestates non abjicit eum ipse sit potens unde consequens est quòd omnis humana potestas sit à Deo Dominabitur excelsus in regno hominum Dan. 4. Joh. 19 cuicunque voluerit dabit illud Non haberes in me potestatem ullam nisi tibi datum esset desuper Whatsoever is affirmed in common both of God and the creatures the same is derived and sent from God to the creatures Now power is affirmed of men as well as of God for God who is most powerfull himselfe exalteth Powers by his power whereof it followes in right good consequence that all power is of God The most High ruleth in the Kingdom of men and giveth it unto whom he will Thou couldst have no power against me except it were given thee from above So that we see Thomas there treateth of judiciarie power affirmed in common both of God and the creatures and speaks not of Permissive power You please your selfe in producing the example of a Priest stept into a Laic habit and presented before the secular Judge This man knowing himselfe to be a Priest indeed and not a Laic as he shews pretending and standing upon his exemption would never as you beare us here in hand say thus unto the Judge My Lord You have power against me from heaven but rather thus on the contrary your Lordship hath no power against me from above So that Christ himselfe not so speaking but rather the contrary hath not marked or pointed out any such pretension Where it is to be considered that you bring into the Play and upon the Stage a Priest attired like a Laic di stucâ—â— one who pretending Priesthood is not able to say that he is a Priest nor to produce and present his faculties but I know the contrary practice For in some States where the Prince hath granted exemption from his power unto Clerics in criminall causes many to shun escape the secular judgement have made themselves capable of Orders and Clericship by false and counterfeit faculties or breves whereas you Hetrodox are of another mind as it seems namely that a Priest who is grac'd and priviledged with such exemption in very truth may not say so much nor shew the same to the secular Judge but rather should confesse the contrary to wit That doubtlesse the Judge is authorized and strengthned against him with ordinary power Now these things Hetrodox not onely are false but also stand next doore to things incredible Hetrod Have you done with my errors or have you any more good and sound stuffe wherewith to bombast your 2. Proposition Orthod I have no more to say of your errors but now I long to see how deep your challenging sword can cut in this one shield of brasse Our Lord Christ commanded tribute to be paid unto the secular Prince that is unto Cesar Give unto Cesar the things that are Cesars The truth of this Proposition is opposed by some who say that howsoever Christ paid tribute really unto Cesar both for himselfe and for Peter yet withall he professed and said he was not bound to the payment of such tribute Nunquid filii debent solvere tributum Are the children bound to pay tribute Herein say these men the Lord Christ pointed out as with one of his fingers his owne authority of a temporall Prince no way in termes of obligation to be assessed and laid as a Tributarie To this doubt Answer is made That according to some Doctors all that were natively of the Country bred and borne therein who were called by that name of children were not bound to pay the said tribute and because both Christ himselfe and Peter were of that Country bred and borne therefore Christ affirmed they were not obliged to any such payments or else to speak in a better and higher sense he thereby pointed 〈◊〉 his owne most holy Divinity and said That as the Sonne of God he was not bound to pay But because the rendring of that reason was too deep and too high a mysterie whereof the public ministers or officers for the exacting and collecting of tribute were altogether uncapable he therefore said further sed ne scandalizentur lest we should cause them to stumble at some offence or scandall Where we may see what speciall account reckoning our Saviour Christ made of not scandalizing the Ministers of Secular Princes the Collectors of Tribute or Poll-money alledging so true and reall an exemption howsoever by the said Toll-gatherers it was not understood
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
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
Aâ—bose now say for those Princes who take nothing away from the Church when he grants and yeelds the Prince a power to take away and make appropriate unto himselfe at his pleasure the lands of that Church whereof himselfe was Arch-bishop or chiefe Prelate and grants this obedience is to be yeelded unto the Emperour at his pleasure and without all resistance on his part In a word the Church at all times and in all ages hath been so far sensible of the publique good and tranquility even to the great losse and many times to the excessive expences and exorbitant charges of Ecclesiastics that in the Lateran Councell wee read these words Tamet si Clericus à tributo c. Albeit Clerics are discharged and exempted from all payment of tribute yet in cases of necessity and times urging pressing and inforcing thereunto they shall make no spare of their proper means and private estates to provide for the safety of the present State and Common wealth 3. But what meane you Hetrodox to arme the Pope with a materiall sword yea with a naked and drawn sword was not Peter himselfe reproved by Christ with a Mitte gladium put up thy sword into the sheath Item wherefore would not Almighty God give way that David should build the Temple Was it not because David had been Vir sanguineum one that had spilt much bloud and put many soules to the sword whereas the Lord made choise of Solomon to build the Temple because he was a peaceable Prince or a man of Peace This was to let us understand that certes the drawing exercising of the materiall sword hath no manner of congruity nor holds any due correspondence with ecclesiasticall profession and again that such ecclesiastics as challenge to themselves the swaying or weilding of the same sword re-in state of irregularity and again that for this reason the litle shepherd young David a type of every true Christian might not go in the compleat Armour of Saul on his back to fight against Goliah that mighty Giant and uncircumcised Philistine but with a sling and a few pebble-stones in his hand or scrip which is the word of God And for this purpose makes not a litle not only the common practise of Christians approved by your selfe Hetrodox Tradatur brachiâ— seculari let him be passed over to the secular power but also that Godly speech of S. Ambrose Dolere potero well I may afflict my heavy soul with sorrow well I may utter the voice of lamentation well I may mourn like a Crane or a Pellicane in the wildernesse well I may send forth grievous groanes against goatish soldiers in Armes my weapons are bitter teares a priest hath none other weapons or Armes for defence I neither can resist nor ought in any other manner to make resistance where the word Nec debeo nor ought strikes and payes home as a word of great force and efficacy 4. At last Hetrodox you raise a strong Bulwarke with a suteable Parapet and main flankers for the strengthning of your cause and yet but imaginary Castles and Forces out of S. Bernards text which methinkes is a great disadvantage and weakning to your mock-building That holy Father there speakes of the Church in counter-point straines and tâ—rmes I meane by the Figure Antithesis Namely As the Church is compounded of seculars and priests of soldiers and Clerics or as it hath an opposite composition of imperiall and temporall power with Papall and Spirituall power Now saith S. Bernard Vterque c. both swords materiall and spirituall belong to the Church albeit both swords are not for every one to handle neither do both belong to every one How then Hic quidem the one by name the materiall sword pro ecclesiâ is to be drawn in defence of the Churches priviledges liberties and rights Ille vero the other that is the spirituall sword is to be taken up shaken ab ecclesiâ by the Church it selfe this by the hand of the priest and that by the hand of the soldier So the priest bears not in his hand the materiall sword which neverthelesse is used ad nutum sacerdotis when the Priest hath once given a beck or a signe jussum Imperatoris and when the Emperour hath once given the command These two distinct words here stand in a kind of opposition and serve to shew That he who commands execution or putting to death is not sacerdos the Priest but in very deed the Emperor who therefore hath Potestatem gladii the power of the sword which the Priest may long seek and never finde So that ad nutum when the Priest gives a nod doth not signifie or import ad jussum when the Priest commands How then Forsooth it imports that when the Priest hath once degraded a criminall Delinquent or malefactor by delivering him to the secular power he gives the world to understand what deadly punishment the merit of his cause hath justly brought upon his head according to the Law As for Boniface who as you say hath made Bernards doctrine more authenticall if he teach no more in this article then Saint Bernard himselfe who gave Boniface this light for his hint or quâ—u it shall ever like me well to give him the right hand of fellowship for this matter But whether S. Bernard or S. Ambrose be Heretics whether the Arguments and Scriptures produced before for proof and confirmation of my first Proposition be heresies I leave it howsoever you are more famous for a great grounded Catholic of the right stamp and haire to your own judgement reduced to the termes oâ—â—ight and sound information To be short whereas the LL. Ecclesiâ—sticall stand very st ffe and make a strong head or party for a larger size and greater ex ent of authority then in truth may stand proportionable to their degree and calling in case any such auâ—hority fâ—r the materiall sword by them to be drawn and put in practise were essentiall to their State and rank or therewith compatible doubtlesse they might and would bring the same into common practise and therefore it belongs not of right unto their spirituall function and profession This Argument is framed and taken by seculars and in very deed is full of pith Frustra est potentia c. Vain and idle and of no efficacy is that power which is never nobilitated with any act or practise at all especially by those who boast and pretend themselves to be armed with such authority Now Sir to end this first dayes quarrell I have sufficiently argued for my first Proposition to prove the doctrine thereof Catholic sound oecumenicall and uncontrouleable so that you have not been able to supplant it with all your Engines nor to blow it up with all your Mines and Fire-workes Hetrod I never thought I must confesse that any ranke heretic whom like a Roscius or some othâ—r famous actor you have so cunningly personated in this dayes conference was able to