parties are once drawn into that course it orders them to steere altogether by that compasse and to stand to the tacklings of their determination Now I would gladly learn of you Hetrodox what makes all this for distinction of Courts or to prove there were two distinct Courts two ordinary and competent Judges one for seculars another for the Civill and criminall causes of Churchmen before Justinians constitution 8. You alleadge the authority of the Milenitane Councell wherein it is commanded according to the Apostles councell that Bishops are to accomodate civill causes between themselves that no Bishop shall by Petition demand of the imperiall Majesty a Judge in public judgements but in case he obtaine of the Emperour some ecclesiasticall Judge then he shall not be impeached or contradicted I will here for the purpose alleadge the Canon it selfe Placuit ut quicunque c. It is decreed that whosoever shall Petiton the imperiall Majesty to have his cause come to cognisance and tryall in public judgements he shall be deprived of his dignity but in case he shall solicite the Emperour for Episcopall judgement that shall be no maime no losse no blot no blemish no diminution to his estate In which words first a Bishop is inhibited and restrained from seeking of public judgement before seculars but is not inhibited to make appearance in case he shall be summoned and served with one of his Majesties writs to that purpose Secondly he is permitted to petition the Emperour that his cause may be tryed and judged by the Bishop as hath been shewed before From whence the plain contrary to your pretence and assertion may aptly be collected that in those times there was no distinction of Court but all causes whether of Churchmen or seculars were to be tryed neither in public nor in private judgement unlesse the Emperour himselfe did give way by speciall permission and most gracious licence Nay the very same Councell ordaines Can. 16. that petition shall be made to the most glorious Emperour to be graciously pleased that certain Judges by their imperiall authority might be commanded to appoint and assigne for Churchmen certain Advocates who might protect defend plead the causes of the Church before the said secular Judges It is therefore very manifest by this Canon that Churchmens causes were then handled before the imperiall Judges 9. You blush not also to babble that Justinian usurped excessive or more then due and lawfull authority to frame penne and publish those his Constitutions But I must here be bold to tell you Hetrodox even to your face the judgement of infinite Councels and pontificiall Fathers more especially and by that name of Adrian 4. as hereafter shall better appeare carries a great over-weight in the scales or ballance of sound judgement in comparison of this your new and late upstart censure of a most christian and learned Emperour They never once dreamt of such a partiall verdict as you like a bold fore-man of a corrupt and frontlesse Jury have now presumptuously blurted forth No Sir no Iustinians Constitutions and those likewise of many other Christian Princes in the Primitive Church and age have been ever most cordially caressed with great and speciall humility even in ecclesiasticall matters and other occurrents of like nature and to what purpose To what end That sacred Canons confirmed by imperiall authority might go forth with flying colours to worke the deeper impression of due observance in the mindes and hearts of all People I passe over many examples and wish men to peruse but one Epistle of Pope Leo wherein he Petitions the Emperour Martianus to confirm the Chalcedon Councell and obtaines his Petition of the most gracious and noble Emperour when the pontificiall BP Church of Rome carried that respect humble observance toward Christian Princes which to their imperiall Crowns and Scepters appertaines in those times the Popes and the Church were held in great veneration and admiration withall But so soone as the Church grew to vilipend the R gall authority of Christian Princes into how great and grievous calamities hath she not fallen tumbled hath she not precipitated her former glorious estate What eclypse of her ancient lustre What spots and staines to her Primitive and Native beauty hâ—th she not suffered and indured Let men peruse the life of Boniface 8. of Alexander 3. of Gregory 7. of Julius 2. of Sixtus 4. of Clement 7. of Paul 4. and they shall see without helpe of spectacle or perspective glasses that by vilifying of Christian Kings and Princes the Church may put all her winnings in her eye like an unfortunate and unthrifty Gamester and see never the worse Thus much I wot well that Iustinian was deeply and excellently studied superlatively learned in the Lawes followed and frequented by men of incomparable knowledge and learning and the whole world hath pitcht his authority at a higher price and rate then the shallow judgement given out against his more then eminent gifts by whomsoever without exception Canonist or Cardinall Prelate or Pope 10. By Manus legum the hand of the Lawes for so I like to turne it for this turne you understand the secular Judge whereas before it hath bin shewed to be the lawfull execution of a sentence 11. You affirme the lawes imperiall thinke not scorne to second the sacred Canons and this you pronounce in the generall sence comprehension whereas the Emperour speakes of causes meerly ecclesiasticall and spirituall Besides you contend that the due practise of Iustinians Constitution and the practise of sacred Canons cannot concurre and stand together wherein also with your leave your selfe stands not in the right For doubtlesse the sacred Canons as wee hold are to be duely observed howsoever they beare nor sway nor weight of authority Nisi ex priviligio principum but by the force and vertue of Princely priviledge And in case they be grounded upon so stable a foundation and firm authority as you vaunt wherefore have you been so greatly overseen to make no demonstration thereof by some cleere text of holy Scripture For to transcend the walls or to passe the bounds limits of Princely power without consent of parties interessed is neither acceptable to God nor pleasing to man 12. You counter-poise a Frederick one living but yesterday in a manner against a Iustinian a Prince who reigned when piety with Discipline flourished in the Church like a green Bay Tree You parallel an Emperour of ordinary capacity and small knowledge with an Emperour the most compleat legist in all ages of the world a low shrub in such regard with a tall Oake or the goodliest Cedar in Libanon a Frederick with a Iustinian a Frederick who framed his foresaid constitution out of a cunning counterfeit or disgiused humour whereas never any Prince hath more abased the liberty of the Church and hath more brought it down as it were upon the knees then that Frederick hath whom for the same cause Gregory 9. was
plaintiffs or defendants in criminall cases inhibits Churchmen to runne that course to the end they might avoid the danger of running into the state of irregularity Non permittente Episcopo when the Bishop gives no way to the said course This practise I grant is still in use and to this day goes currant But what force what vigour what sinew is in this moderne practise to prove distinction of Court in the Primitive ages and times Nay it rather inferres the contrary that doubtlesse then there was not any other Court authorized besides that of the secular and temporall Magistrate unto which in as much as Churchmen were to have recourse in criminall cases for feare of incurring irregularity the said Councell hath taken due care and order for the Bishops good care and free consent And this jarres not with my doctrine but jumpes with it hand in hand besides the said ancient Councels were called and held alwaies with consent of the secular Prince and yet all this here spoken is no demonstrative proofe of your pretended distinction 7. The Câ—non of the third Councell held at Carthage speakes not in your language affords no such matter as you insert and inferre makes no distinction of the judiciall Court It layes inhibition upon Bishops and Churchmen after the controversie once is on foot before secular Judges or christian Arbiters at no hand to cast off and relinquish the said Aâ—biters but rather to labour for the deciding and knitting up of such controversie without seeking to any other competent Judge not agreed upon by both parties to rest in their finall determination and arbitrement for the better averting and avoyding of scandall or offence For the better conceiving of this Canon it is to be understood that Christians in the Primitive Church came to agreement in certain controversies growing betwixt parties and with reciprocall or mutuall consent made choise of Infidell or unbelieving Arbiters a fault for which the Apostle Paul somewhat roundly and sharply tooke up the Corinthians in these words Secularia igitur judicia c. If then yee have judgemènts of things pertaining to this life set up such in the Church as are contemptible or at loast esteemed to give judgment I speake this to your shame is it so 1 Cor. 6. that amongst you of the Church there is not one wise man Not one that can judge the causes of Bretheren These words are not very many as all men see and yet do minister diverse matters to be considered As that Paul here speakes of secular busines and temporall causes item of such Judges as by any one might be chosen and appointed of indâ—fferent arbitrators men without any Presidentsh p or commission in tribunals or Courts for he saith Hes constituite set yee up such c. Item the Apostle speakes not of chusing and setting up Bishops in these cases but of such as were of no great ability or sufficiency for the discharging of the said good office men whom there he calls Contemptibiles men of no speciall regard or estimation of which Apostolicall text Chrysostome hath given this excellent exposition Apostoli talibâ—â— non vacabant c. The Apostles themselves never troubled their heads never busied their braines they were at no leisure to deale or to take any paines about litigious occurrents between party and party or about secular judgements their whole Ministery was imployed and spent altogether in travailing through all Nations and teaching in all places where they went but men of the more discreet sort and ranke howsoever otherwise they were men of the meaner condition and lesser merit had the managing or working upon things of that nature And so S. Gregory according to the glosse Terrenas causas examinant c. I advise that men of discretion in outward matters may fift and bolt out causes of worldly nature as for men of endowment with spirituall and heavenly gifts of another element and more transcendent efficacy and power they are not by any meanes to intangle their mindes or to be taken like wild and untame Deere in the strong toyles of terrene matters too farre out of their proper element Item S. Paul what power and authority soever he was armed withall and by some it is thought with Papall power saith not I set up or I appoint but referring such matters to the parties interessed themselves he saith see that yee set up be it your own act and ordinance Nor speakes he of Priests or of priestly orders or of Bishops but in a generall comprehension he speakes of the faithfull who had no exemption from the Princes Tribunals at least seculars according to the opinion of all were not exempted Now this was practised in Africa but whereas many Prelates Bishops and Church men when they first practised this course commenced a new course afterwards by recourse to secular and competent Judges the Councell therefore to meet with so great a mischiefe made that ninth Canon by you cited before in this tenour and stile Item placuit ut quisquis Episcoporum c. Wee moreover appoint and ordaine That whensoever a Bishop Deacon or Cleric charged with any crime and sued in any civill cause shall decline and forsake the Court ecclesiasticall or shall seeke to purge and quit himselfe in any other Court of public judgement he shall then be deprived yea though he carry the cause and winne the day by sentence of his dignity and place if the judgement be criminall but in case it be civill he shall then loose the cause if he mean to preserve and keepe his dignity For he that hath free liberty to make choise of his Judge where he lists himselfe and best likes declares himselfe to be unworthy of the ranck and fellowship of Christian bretheren when he carries a sinister partiall and prejudicate opinion of the Church not forbearing to crave the helpe and favour of secular judgement whereas the Apostle commands the causes of private Christians to be brought to the cognisance of the Church and there to have both full and finall determination which words make evident demonstration of diverse points First of all that you Hetrodox have slily sought to put out mine eye with a text or Canon of this councell which you make but a plain Curtall with a Manâ— undecently shorne with a â—â—it nose and cropt eares as if it had stood upon some Pillory lime and limping besides of the neâ—re lâ—g before Secondly That in this Canon there is no mention at all of any public Court of any competent Judge or of any Prelate but only of Arbiter Judges of seculars and of private judgement Thirdly That by the said Councell it is carefully provided and ordained that whensoever Churchmen shall give any public offence or open scandall then they are to be punished with deprivation and lossâ— of their Free-hold Fourthly and lastly that in the Canon there is couched no expresse precept or direct charge for chusing the said Arbiters when the
Boniface Now the last clause or closing up of your discourse is to this purpose That where the Apostle teacheth obedience to Princes he speaketh by way of precept not of counsell Very true he doâ—h so indeed but what is Pauls meaning Doubtlesse that Princes are to be obeyed of such as by lawfull title are in the state of their subjects as also in causes or matters to which the authority of the said Princes doth stretch and extend From whence it followes that Church-men are not bound to honour secular Princes with any such obedience because they are exempted but Laics alone are comprised within the said bond albeit in civill causes onely and such as impugne neither God himselfe nor his Church whereby the Christian world may cleerly and evidently see how deeply highly the Venetian Republic Anno 1606. offended the Divine Mâ—jesty not onely in committing Ecclesiastics in prison but also in using force and violence to compell as well them as Laics to infringe and contemne the holy Fathers interdiction a censure purely spirituall and ecclesiasticâ—ll Orthod I was never yet found a falsarie no coyner no corrupter of holy Scripture it is your selfe that patch up my garments with your owne rags and marre the Text with an Aurelian glosse I have not said before as you now lay to my charge That Princes are Gods Ministers Ad tributa to receive tribute Hetrod But you know and need not dissemble the shop and forge where thâ—se tooles were hammered Orthod You meane the Author of the 8. Propositions Hetrod The very same Orthod They are none of that Authors words but are suppositions or surreptitions foysted into his Text with a false finger of the Printer or of some other and yet are they justifi ble by the most cleere exposition of our great Master Thomas Aquinas whose words be these Pro ipso recipiendo serviente Princes are Gods Ministers to take up and receive tribute the very same with Ad tributa But I rest confident it was an error of the presse for to that Authors purpose it sufficed to say with Paul Princes are Gods Ministers the word Ad tributa neither mars nor mends the Authors meaning or S. Pauls In reason therefore it may not be conceived that ad tributa was of any set purpose added or sowed to the piece by the workmans needle neither need it seeme strange that ad tributa hath crept in there by the window through the oversight or negligence or false play of the Printer or as well may be suspected by a slie trick of cunning and skill Fâ—r the LL. Card. and Commissioners in the Index printed at Rome Anno 1606. have made declaration That many words have been shuffled and crowded in by the Printer through error on his part Cum in Appendice whereas in the Appendix of the second Classis under the letter I these words are found The Demonomania written by Joannes Bodinus borne at Aniou is expresly and totally prohibited for ever but his Book De Republ. and his Methodus are prohibited with a limitation by name untill they shall be purged and put forth by the Author himselfe with approbation by the Master of the sacred Palace it is bâ—leeved that all the said words inclosed here by Parenthesis are crept in through the error of the Printer Now if so long a thred of speech might drop or chop in per errorem Librarii through some error of the Printer it may be thought with more verisimilitude and with greater probability that ad tributa which makes but one poore single stitch was nimbly and slily drawn by the Printers errour into that learned Authors Proposition As for the words Ira vindicta wrath and revenge or vengeance they are in effect all one but because the word vengeance comes neerer to S. Pauls purpose and sense as also because the same Vindicta vengeance is a word used by many holy Fathers I therefore have the more willingly made choice thereof 1. You are also bold to affirm That no tribute is given to God there is one of your errors For I affirme with confidence that whatsoever is given to his Ministers is given to himselfe of alms here given to the poore our Saviour Christ will pronounce in the day of judgement Quod uni ex minimis meis Mat. 25. whatsoever you have given to any one the least of these my brethren yee have done to my selfe And saith not God himselfe in the same or like manner of almes and sacrifice Misericordiam volo non sacrificum I will have mercy and not sacrifice To the same purpose is it not in Saint Hierome Per hoc quod illis tributa datis Deo servitis In giving tribute unto your Princes you doe service unto God 2. You grant that Aquinas is on our side for this point That Clerics are exempted from payment of tribute by the speciall priviledges of Princes who graciously conferre their said priviledges upon a certain equity and yet you affirm Aquinas to hold that Clerics pay no tribute not because they are exempted by humane priviledge but by divine law To what purpose hath Thomas testified they pay no tribute by the priviledge of Princes if they be exempted from payment by the law of God Was it not sufficient for him to say they pay no tribute because they are freed from all taxations by the law of God But for so much as Thomas there cites the 47. Chapter of Genesis where wee read that King Pharaoh exempted the priest of Egypt from tribute who without question was not exempted by Gods Law because they were Idolaters he concludes à pari that Clerics are now exempted from tribute by the priviledge of Princes and not by the Law of God Iustine Matyr is positive in the same article that payment of tribute is due to the Prince by divine precept Vestigalia tributa c. the customes and tributes imposed by your imperiall Majesty in all places and before all other Subjects wee endeavour to pay as wee are taught and commanded by Christ himselfe for being asked whether tribute should be given to Caesar he made this answer Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesars For this reason S. Ambrose Bishop of Millan writing to the Bishop of Vercelli was moved to make this good and godly profession Si tributum petit c. If our Lord the Emperour be pleased to demand tribute wee will not presume to deny to withstand or to refuse his imposition the Church-lands must bow and stoope if there be no remedy to pay down upon the naile if the imperiall Majesty proceed to require the said lands it lyes in his power to make challenge thereunto let him take them from the Church if his mind and pleasure be absolutely and resolutely bent so to deale For my part with my good will I have no purpose to give them away unto his Majesty yet may I not deny or contradict his prerogative royall pleasure what would S.
c. except it be for some evident benefit and most honourable acquist unto the Crown and State 9. You contend that secular Princes may suffer losse of their Subjects whereas the Pope lyes not obnoxious or obvious to hazard in that kind Oh that I could here truly say There speakes an Angell but see see how many Countries Nations Tribes and Kindreds have quitted their obedience to the Roman Church A word shall suffice that most beautifull flourishing nobilitated renowned Cedar of Libanus which in former ages hath spread it selfe both farre and wide over the face of the universe is now reduced to such pight and pickle that she hardly hath two or three Arms left growing to ward much lesse to beautifie the whole aged Trunke 10. Your tenth errour layes it selfe open and perspicuous in a most pernicious nice and tickle assertion That neither by the Generall Councell nor by the whole Corporation and body of Cardinals the chiefe Bishops power can suffer the least diminution and yet by the Subjects the secular Princes power may be plumed of the bravest feathers Touching the former branch of this assertion I have signified my mind before that I have no humour to draw into dispute whether Papall power when death seizeth upon the chiefe Bishop his mortall body doth remain in the Church or whether the Councell be above the Pope only this I hold to be indubitable that In causa haeresis est supra Papam in case of Heresie the Councell is above the Pope and that in case of scandalous offences the Church never wanted requisite and convenient remedies for the maintenance of her own rights and priviledges against Popes themselves But what shall I say to the other branch of your assertion Let us measure the truth thereof by the standard of common reason tell me then what People hath power to crow over the authority and power of any Soveraign and absolute Prince Surely none for by what authority Who dares now shew himselfe upon the Stage to broach and to draw the vessell of such pestiferous and scandalous doctrine What Is there a power in any people to depose their lawfull and Sovereign Prince To pare the nayles of his power To make a Soveraign Prince In esse no Prince De facto but a meer Subject To pull the Imperiall Crown from his head the royall Scepter out of his hand the purple robe or mantle royall from his shoulders and to kick him after a sort or to tumble him down from his Regall Throne Can there be a more desperate device more dangerous and forcible Bellows to blow the coales and to kindle the flames of most detestable rebellions of odious and insupportable Seditions of dreadfull conspiracies of Absolom-like or Judas-like treasons in the very bowels of the State I am loth to be a medler or a stickler and to have any hand in choaking or drowning the venemous seeds or in quenching the pestilentiall sparkes of these horible combustions with inke of Pen It is for noble and heroicall Princes themselves in these cases interested In Capite to rowse up their brave spirits and if the matter must needs come to blowes to draw the Sword in defence of their own so just and honourable a quarrell I must confesse it sorts well with a Princes honour to rule out his absolute power by his grave Councell of State and the wholsome Lawes of his Realmes and Kingdomes as it concernes and beseems the chiefe Bishop himselfe no lesse to square and to compasse out his power by the councell of his Cardinals provided they be no way interested or ingaged and overborn with passion but still have an eye to reflect upon the good of the Pope and the good of the Church alwaies directed by the laudable Canons and the venerable Councell For howsoever the absolute Prince perhaps Non tenetur suis legibus quoad obligationem is not liable to the conserving of his own lawes by plain termes of obligation tenetur saltem quoad directionem yet without perhaps or peradventure he stands bound to the conserving of his own Lawes at least for the office and duty of direction 11. You assume or presume rather that Monarchicall Rule of Laic Princes is changed sometimes into free States and free States of Laics are sometimes changed into Monarchies But as for the Church you affirme that she is not subject like the Moon unto the like mutation and change First if the case be put concerning Christ himselfe who is the supream soveraign Pastor of the Church there is no question but his Monarchie shall stand remain and endure for ever without all change Because of his Kingdom there shall be no end which comes not by reason of Title or no Title as you seem to inferre but by reason that Christ himselfe is not subject unto the least inward or outward violence the proper cause of all such mutation and change But make the case to concern Christ his Ministers and who can deny the Church was governed at the first after the form of a republick Let men read the fifteenth of the Acts there Peter proposes the case he puts down the Proposition he makes the Declararation Simeon hath declared as proloqutor then Iames gives the sentence or determination as President of the Councell wherefore my sentence is Lastly the Decree is ratified in the name of the whole Assembly or holy Convocation The Apostles Elders and Brethren unto the Faithfull send greeting It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us c. Whether S. Peter was then installed in the primacy like the Venetian Duke who holding a most honourable preheminence and ranke in that most illustrious and renowned State is neverthelesse restrained and kept in a State of Subjection to the whole body of that Republick I leave the matter to be discussed and sifted by those whom it may or doth chiefly concern It sufficiently makes for my purpose that whereas Decrees were published in the Primitive Church under the name of the republick or whole Assembly now edicts and constitutions are published under the name and authority of one alone And whether any mutation or change is imported thereby speak your selfe Hetrodox by whom it hath been denyed before 12. Your last errour is palpable in inferring this for a reason of difference between the two powers The rule of the one is immediate from God whereas the title of the other hath no such immediate derivation here I say you misse the marke and erre from the sense two manner of wayes For if by Title you meane the Power there is no such matter because neither is the Title the power nor the power the Title And if by Title you understand the means or manner of reaching to the height or top of power the one is no lesse humane or of men then the other The Conclave it selfe shall never be able to prove me a lyar in this point but I here put on a step further The power
reason I now presse you Hetrodox to expresse what you mean by force of reason I suppose you understand with Bellarmine and all other Authors the law of reason to be the law of nature This now supposed and granted to be their meaning and yours Thereupon would very fain learn what need so many monitories To what end so many thundering Cannon-shot of excommunication Wherefore some few yeares past have not many Priests and other Ecclesiastics of the Venetian state stooped and yeelded obedience unto the particular demonstrations Lawes and reasons of State published by that most illustrious and renowned Republick which all Christian Princes have judged and approved no lesse reasonable then honourable The law of nature is a farre stronger binder then the lawes of Magistrates and therefore it neither will nor can brooke and admit any kicking or spurning against the due obedience thereof but you say In case the Law be transgressed it is not for secular Princes to rake any cognisance of Clerics faults and to rake in the sink of their facts but all transgressions or delicts of Clerics are punishable only by the power and authority of the Keyes Now I answer This cuâ—s not off the power of Christian Princes and Magistrates to enact and establish Lawes Politick which may bind Ecclesiastics to the good behaviour in the politick and civill Government by the sword For in your verdict Clerics are bound at least by force of reason to keepe and observe the said politick lawes And to wade yet somewhat deeper into these waters what ward have you Hetrodox for this blow He that hath power to give life soul and being to any Law hath no lesse power as the supream and Soveraign Judge to punish every transgressour of the same law how thinke you Hetrodox is it not so Hetrod Very good Orthodox bee it so Orthod And who if not secular Princes have power to make Lawes which may bind Subjects of any calling condition or quality both in temporalls and in conscience besides The secular Prince then is armed with power to judge and with a Sword to cut off or to bring in all sorts of Subjects who like Outlawes and Rebels forsake their assigned Quarter and fly out of the pale of lawfull obedience A Cleric of any Order by the character thereof is made subject unto his Prelate say wee in all duties essentially annexed to his holy Order and Function But for a man born a Princes naturall and lawfull Subject so soon as he hath gotten any degree of holy Orders on his back to be made free exempted from the subjection of his Prince That in my understanding is a very Monster and prodigious creature not in Evangelicall doctrine alone where humility and subjection are prized and valued at a very high rate but also even in the light of nature which were all written Lawes in the world for ever lost and the light of the same totally extinguished would perpetually stand and remain to us a positive law Rom. 2. But suppose your assertion in this point is grounded upon invincible truth tell me now Hetrodox wherefore is it not consonant and agreeable to Gods law that Clerics may not live in wedlock Would you have it rest in the Popes power to slate in these dayes the roof of that old Fabrick or frame which Boniface 8. projected and attempted in the height of his Papacy to erect and raise not sparing nor fearing to remove every Stone for the purpose You know he declared by his Buls and Breeves that all such as had received the first sharing and shaving with all others entered into the foure inferior Orders should stand in subjection to the Church as his vassals though they had assumed the state of wedlock a constitution of such a dangerous exorbitant strain to supream States that all christian Princes by the vigour and rigour of their most holy and wholsome lawes have prudently and politicly laboured to quash and nip it in the crown For as then it might have been to Boniface so now it might be to his Holinesse a fit silver stirrop whereby to mount into the golden Sadle of perpetuall patronage dominion and lordship of all Christendome even in temporall estate How so Forsooth by causing all degrees of People to be sheared or else to undertake some one or other of the foure inferior Orders This liberty Hetrodox is removed and distant all the degrees in the Zodiack from Apostolical subjection I mean from that state of subjection which the Apostle S. Paul hath described and prescribed To make short work Howsoever the Levites in the old Law had their high Priest Aaron by name neverthelesse in temporall matters causes and judgments of Court still they remained under the authority of Moses their temporall Prince as right well is proved by Couaruvias Hetrodox How now Orthodox A fling at Moses too Cap. 31. qq Pract. concil 2. Rob Moses of his right of his honour Was not Moses high Priest even together with Aaron Was he not by Gods own Ordinance and extraordinary disposition greater then Aaron I know Couaruvias descants upon this plain song with unperfect cords yea with flat discords I therefore do esteem his musick not worth a blue point I credit divine Scripture and holy Fathers farre above Couaruvias by great odds who in matter of jurisdiction is caried with full sayles of partiality But heare me a little Psal 98. Exod. 40. Is it not extant in fair and faithfull record that Moses and Aaron were among his Priests even the Lords Priests That Moses offered incense unto the Lord which was the high Priests principall office and chiefe charge That Moses as high Priest and in quality of high Priest consecrated his brother Aaron made the Sonnes of Aaron Priests and offered sacrifice at their consecration That Pen to a most learned Hebrew honours Moses with stile of high Priest King and Prophet That Gregory Nazian stiles Moses Priest of priests and Prince of princes That Augustine avertes how both Moses and Aaron were high Priests That Hierome comes not an ace behind all the forenamed Authors That before all these Fathers and writers Dion Areop leads the dance and sings the same note So that Moses being high Priest it is no marvaile the Levites who were the onely chiefe Ecclesiastics of those times were subject unto Moses as unto their own proper Head and peculiar Judge Orthod You need not Hetrodox to put your selfe in so great a heate when you deal with any well grounded Catholique to prove by the authority of Fathers that Moses was either Priest or high Priest Levit. 8. and before himselfe was in the order and calling of high Priest invested Aaron in the office of high Priest viz. That he might the better apply himselfe to the exercise of the civill government surely this point is not denyed neither by Couaruvias himselfe nor by the Author whom I defend whose word is Rimasero the Levites remained subject unto
Moses c. But Couaruvias with many catholique Doctors doth avouch that doubtlesse it is an evident sign and strong presumption that in temporall matters and in civill judgements the Levites were not subject unto the High Priest but unto the temporall Prince or Judge Because when Moses by a kind of mean conveyance and resignation as Catholiques would have it transmitted or transferred his whole authority of high Priest and his attendance upon the sacred service unto Aaron yet by no meanes did he then deprive or divest himselfe of authority to judge the Priests and Levits in their temporals And from hence it is evicted that such authority was not knit by any essentiall connexion to the office of the high Priest for had it been connexed in such a manner no doubt Moses would never have so wickedly robbed and cozened Aaron of such a collop as the moety or one halfe of his authority First of all lest he should be noted to wrong his brother Aaron in so high a degree namely by stripping him of no lesse then a whole moety or one halfe of his entire charge again because exemption of Clerics being as you pretend so grounded on Gods Law Moses was to leave the whole course exercise and execution of judgement in the hand of Aaron their ordinary and competent Judge lastly because Moses thereby should have gained the more free scope and greater liberty to serve in other politick imployments and affaires But howsoever Moses was both Priest and high Priest before Aaron if so much must needs be granted yet sure it is a flat Non sequitur to inferre Therefore at one and the same instant two high Priests concurred Quoad exercitium both at once executing and exercising one and the same office For wheresoever the Scripture makes mention of the high Priest it never points out Moses for the man but Aaron as Paul speaking of the high Priest Hebr. 5. saith not Who is called of God the high Priest as Moses was called but as Aaron was called As for the Fathers whom you cite and alleadge adorning Moses with all the foresaid titles I dare take upon me to affirme they witnesse the state and condition of Moses only before the time of Aarons consecration but none of them all do qualifie Moses high Priest Quoad exercitium in point of executing of the high Priests Office after Aaron himselfe was once made and consecrated high Priest For the Church with two heads in spirituals had then bin a very Monster withall the unity of the Church and of Christ himselfe had been thereby very poorely and weakely represented but in case you are so certaine as you seem That Levits were exempted from all power and judgement of the temporall Prince in temporals what meant you to be so farre overseen as to alleadge not so much as one testimony divine or humane in demonstration thereof As I and my Authors have produced two this of Moses for one and that of Solomon 1 Reg. 2. for another Howbeit had you produced any one such testimony yet for so much as the Ceremoniall and Judiciall precepts of the old Law are now abrogated I see not how they could make any thing or stand you in any stead at all for your purpose because I require and stand upon precepts of exemption drawn from Evangelicall and not from legall grounds Hetrod What man It seemes then you purpose now to inferre there was no distinction of Court in the Primitive Church Orthod You have it right in very deed there was no distinction of Court before Justinians time he was the first who upon the humble Petition and suite of Menua Bishop of Constantinople granted that Ecclesiastics might be judged in civill causes by their Prelates Nov. constit 83. Ipso tamen non impedito provided alwaies that his imperiall prerogative thereby were not any manner of way impeached In which case and in case of criminall Delinquents he leaves Ecclesiastics under the power of the temporall Prince and of his Ministers Hetrod I thinke you dreame Orthodox at least I believe you are groslly mistaken S. Paul averres the contrary that in the Primitive Church the Bishop had his peculiar Tribunall and in his own Court gave judgement or sentence upon his ecclesiasticall Subjects I mean his Cleargy Against an Elder saith Paul receive no accusation but under two or three witnesses that is to say admit none to put in a Bill or to preferre Articles against any Priest before thy Tribunall-seat except it be Billa vera or articles verified by the depositions of two or three witnesses I can dazle your eyes with a huge cloud of Councels but I am very loth to impaire your sight a few shall suffice The Councell of Agatha in Provence thus Conc. Canon 32. Clericus nè quenquam praesumat c. A Cleric shall not presume to sue any man before a secular Judge and in case a Cleric be sued in any such Court of Record he shall not put in his answer to the Declaration in any criminall cause before a secular Judge Conc. 1. Canon 9. The generall Councell held and celebrated at Chalcedon in Bethinia before Justinian was hatcht hath decreed in these expresse words Si Clericus adversus Clericum c. If one Cleric shall have an action against another the plaintiffe shall enter his action and prosecute the suite before his own Ordinary and not before any secular Judge The third Councell at Carthage in Africa more ancient you know then the former at Agatha Canon 9. about some 130. yeares before Justitian peept out of the shell thus Item placuit c. Furthermore it is decreed that if any Bishop or Presbyter Deacon or Cleric shall decline his own competent Judge and peculiar Court or cause plea to be entered or made in any other Court of judiciall audience and preceeding he shall forfeit his Ecclesiasticall dignity or other his pastorall charge if the action be of any criminall nature or quality though the sentence doth passe for the plaintiffe in case it be a civill action he shall then pay cost and dammage yea he shall forfeit whatsoever he hath evicted by sentence of the said Court The Milenitane Councell of like antiquity to that of Carthage Can. 19. thus Placuit ut quicunque c. Wee decree that whosoever shall petition the imperiall Majesty to take cognizance of his cause for Oyer Terminer thereof in any of his Majesties imperiall Courts he shall be deprived of his ecclesiasticall Dignity Now then Orthodox upon what ground what authority what warrant dare you affirme that in the Primitive Church there was no distinction of Court and that Justinian was the first by whose constitutions it was ordained and provided that Ecclesiasticks were priviledged to have their tryals and sentences before their Prelates But in plain truth at least if you can abide to heare the truth because Iustinian was a Prince who by usurpation of more then competent
other untruth be it heresie or errour howsoever I am directly of this minde it is flat heresie to stand upon termes of contradiction against so cleer a text of the divine Apostle Paul And lastly know this Hetrodox that man is a spider who weaves a spiders web to catch flies and poysons the springs or fountains of wholsome doctrine with venome of his own corrupt and false exposition know you moreover that Orthodox who now like the Bee sucks from the sweet flowers of Saints and chiefe pillars of the Church the most delicious honey of truth will never take pepper in the nose to heare himselfe blamâ—d on this wise sometimes your sweet honie Hetrodox turnes to bitter wormwood yea to deadly poyson to make false and erroneous doctrine burst all her bowels Hetrod Well Sir have you any more gall to spit up any more to say in confirmation of your first Proposition Orthod It is not I that will say the rest but Paul the Apostle who thus proceeds and subjoynes in the sacred text Rom. 13. Whosoever he be that resists the Power the same resists the ordinance of God here is clearly to be seen the authority of secular Princes to make lawes in any matter cause or subject whatsoever lawes obligatory to bind all degrees and sorts of persons Quicunque whosoever he be c. in full conformity to the words of God himselfe speaking thus in his own person By me Kings raign and law-givers or Princes decree justice From hence have sprung as from the prime roote many lawes in the Code made by Iustinian and Theodosius most christian Emperours concerning Ecclesiasticall persons their lands goods c. All which lawes the Apostle commands to be obeyed without resistance for so much as all that resist shall purchase and receive to themselves condemnation they runne and tumble into mortall sinne wherein if they shall finally depart out of the body without repentance in this life they shall be adjudged and condemned to eternall flames of hell Hetrod Where did Paul ever write or witnesse That secular princes have power to make Lawes in all matters and causes Lawes to bind all sorts conditions and qualities of people what shall Princes make Lawes for the manner and forme of saying Masse for binding Laics to say Masse and to make the vow of chastity for binding Priests to marry and instead of a Breviarie and a Portuis to weare a Fauchion a Skaine or a Sword Shall not all these be bound to shew and performe obedience if Princes have authority to make Lawes in all causes and in all matters yea binding Lawes for all persons iâ— when Lawes were enacted by Heathen or unbeleeving Princes that all people Nations Tribes and Kindreds should renounce Christ and offer sacrifice to Idols were they not bound then under the penalty of mortall sinne to obey the said Heathenish Lawes and Ordinances They were doubtlesse to my understanding though all Princes then were Infidels when Paul commanded the said obedience to Princes And yet Orthodox according to your new interpretation from Pauls precept or Apostolicall Canon it is forsooth to be collected That secular Princes have authority from God to make Lawes in all matters and lawes to bind all persons It may seem your wits are gone on wool-gathering that you perceive not how many errours flow from the source of your last speech and passage And yet you stick not here to come in with a strange and uncouth addition That your doctrine hath due and requisite conformity with King Solomons verdict in the Proverbs not discerning that Solomon there nips your new device in the crown or rather strikes it stone dead For he there bringing in the wisdome of God using these words viz. By me Kings raigne and Princes or Law-makers decree justice doth manifestly declare and shew That none but just Lawes doe proceed from the wisdome of God and that other Lawes many times enacted by Princes in matters which nothing at all concerne their dignities and imperiall places or established against persons not subject unto their secular authority or otherwise unjust lawes are but like puddle waters which run from the corrupt fountaine of their owne braine so not flowing from the spring which riseth in Gods bosome neither are the said lawes approved of Gods divine wisdome To the other addition which you make that Iustinian and Theodosius enacted lawes concerning ecclesiastical persons their goods lands Church-government or discipline it hath been already answered that in such their practise they exceeded the termes and limits of their power and whereas you affirme the Apostle commands obedience to their lawes you affirm a most large and no lesse manifest untruth or falshood for the Apostle there speaks in generall that he would have Subjects obedient to their superiors and whereas a litle after the Apostle brings in the example of secular Princes he speaks of Princes who in his time were Infidels and is not so to be taken or understood as if he did advise and teach Christians to obey such Princes I mean in lawes that concern the service and worship of God or the discipline of his Church but in civill and politick lawes alone and in temporall matters which lawes it was necessary then for christians to obey for the preservation of peace and unity as also to the end the Gentiles might not be carryed away with mis-credence or false beliefe and perswasion that Christian lawes or the lawes of Christ are opposite and repugnant unto the rules and reasons of civill or State government Orthod You thought my wits were gone a gadding and now I think your mouth runs over but I will stop the Fistula or the running issue of your mouth with a tent or two My meaning is this That Princes have power to make Lawes in all causes and matters Temporall but onely for the Public and Civill good and benefit provided alwayes their Lawes be just For it is alwayes presupposed That obedience is never due nisi justa praecipienti but when the Prince or State or other Superiors command things just and lawfull So that your late Consequences grow from a certaine misprision or wrong conception of my project purpose position and proofes For when I teach That a Temporall prince hath power to make Lawes in any or in all cases I meane such Lawes and such cases as are just conformable and agreeable to his power as also after the pattern and practice of his predecessors and other just Princes This was ever my meaning As for your exception taken to Justinians Lawes and those of Theodosius it shall suffice thus to answer in a word Their Lawes are sacred and have ever been reputed irreprehensible they were contrived and penned partly upon temporall grounds and subjects partly for the more strict observance of spirituall Canons and Orders partly for public benefit and yet did never any chiefe Bishop or High priest so kick and spurne against either of their Lawes as you Hetrodox have now
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
remaines then that by authority of Scripture he was a temporall King albeit he never exercised his temporall power But in holy Scripture not a word of any such temporall Kingdome but only of his spirituall Kingdome Thus the great Father S. Augustine and thus Maldonate Tract 115 in Joan. agreeable to the opinion of al Divines of the best rank whereupon he concludes in this notable manner Quâ verô parte Christus homo erat non erat universi orbis terrarum temporalis Rex ut Augustinus eo loco quem modò nominavimus omnes boni Theologi sentiunt Aut enim naturali aut divino aut humana jure rex esset naturali non erat quia regis filius non erat quod est naturalem esse regem Divino non erat quia omnia sacrarum literarum testimonia quae de ejus loquuntur regno ut August aâ—t et omnes boni theologi affirmant de spirituali intelliguntur humano non erat quia non fuit orbis terrarum consensu res electus et cum Iudaei vellent eum rapere ut regem facerent aufugit So that Christ as mortall man then having no temporall dominion he could never exercise the same For Non est actus ubi non est ulla potentia ad illum actum no exercise where no power to bring forth such exercise This must be understood of Christ as he was man and mortall man For as God no doubt as before hath been said he was King of Kings Lord of Lords As for the eternall power of Christ our Lord for so you call it which was given him after his resurrection there was no need to make any speech or motion thereof because the present question is of temporall Power and not of eternall which eternall power for certain Christ our Lord hath not given and left unto his Vicar 3. Your third errour lyes in a mis-interpretation of two severall texts this for the one knowing that his Father hath given al things into his hands and this for the other whom he hath made heire of all things For you understand them both of his temporall power whereas Maldonate by the authority of S. Augustine and of all the best Divines affirmes they are to be understood as they ought in very truth of Christs spirituall Kingdom which in the Gospell is called the Kingdome of heaven Joan. 19. For if the said words might be understood of Christs temporall Kingdome then Christ himselfe had not forborn which God forbid to rap or breathe out a lye when he said My Kingdom is not of this world againe My Kingdome is not from hence For he had by that means denied what holy Scripture had affirmed he was indeed that is a temporall King But say still that Christ as man had temporall dominion yet still it remaines good that he did never put such temporall dominion in practise or execution which as you have already confessed so it is sufficient for my purpose Joan. 19.11 4. That place in S. Iohn Thou couldest have no power over me except it had been given thee from above you say is not understood of the Judge or Lord Governours ordinary power but of a permissive power In good time Sir but were it so as you interpret surely then Christ had proved himselfe but a bad Logician to answer the governour clean from the purpose for Pilate spake of his judiciary power Joan. 16. when he said to Christ Knowest thou not that I have power to loose thee c. Secondly not Pilate alone but likewise all the Iewes had the same permissive power of which permissive power your text before cited is to be understood this is your houre and the power af darkenesse which for this reason is called the power of darknes because It is not given from above 20. Jac. 1.17 even from the Father of lights Thirdly permissive power cannot be called a power given but rather a power not denyed or not letted hindered from above Non data sed non negata vel non impedita desuper Fourthly that is called permissive power whereby God permits and suffers a sinner to fall into sinne but God gives no such power from above for if he give it from above then he himselfe concurres with sinne and is the author of sinne which doctrine is even as false as God is true and as truth is no lye S. Thomas therefore saith and you Hetrodox confesse the words are understood of the Judge Pilats ordinary power as the Minister of Cesar yea S. Augustine upon the same words thus Discamus ergo quod Christus dixit quod Apostolum docuit quia non est potestas nisi à Deo quidquid sit de actu malè utentis eâ quia plus peccat qui innocentem occidendum potestati livore tradit quam ipsa potestas si eum timore alterius potestatis majoris occidit talem quippe Deus dederat illi potestatem ut esset etiam sub Caesaris potestate Learne wee then saith S Augustine as first Christ himselfe said in person and after taught his Apostle Paul there is no power but of God be the act of the person by whom the said power is abused what it will And learn wee withall that he commits the greater sinne who for envy delivers up the innocent unto the higher power to be executed then the Magistrate himselfe commits who for feare of some other Power higher then himselfe puts the innocent unto death For God gave Pilate such power as might be many degrees under Cesars absolute and supream power And here I will touch another of your errors a twig of the same branch in attributing that unto Pilats ignorance which Augustine with all the rest have ascribed to his feare of purchasing to himselfe Cesars heavy displeasure and indignation To my purpose I have this also from Saint Bernard Romani presidiis potestatem Christus super se quoque fatâ—tur fuisse ordinatam In Ep. ad Archiep. Senoven Our Saviour Christ was not ashamed to confesse that over himselfe the Roman President had lawfull and ordinate power And in the same Epistle to the same Archbishop Quid secularitatem contemnitis Secularior nâ—mo Pilato cui Dominus astitit judicandus Non haberes in me potestatem nisi tibi datuâ— esset desuper Iam tunc pro se loquâ—batur quod post per Apostoloâ— clamavit in Ecclesiis Non est potestas nisi à Deo Wherefore set you so light by Secularity who ever was more secular then Pilate before whose Tribunall and at whose Barre the Lord Christ himselfe stood indicted to receive judgement and sentence of death from his mouth Thou couldst not have any power against me saith Christ except it were given thee from above Even then there Christ was his own Advocate even then and there he pleaded his owne cause even then and there he had sensible experience of the same thing in his owne
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
your Actions when the Lords are certain and sure their Actions are not sinfull doubtlesse the Lords would stand to his Judgement because it is Divine and infallible Wisedome But for as much as his Vicar may erre and hath actually erred in judiciis Facti in certaine and evident matters who doubts there is no standing to his judgment No man ever affirmed the Popes judgement concerning sin whether a thing is or is not sin should be interposed in certain matters but onely professe that in matters doubtfull men should stand to the judgement of their Superior And who that Superior may be according to the diversity of occurrences I referre myselfe to the judgement of the Doctors 5. The question in controversie betweene the Lords of Veâ—â—â—â— and the Pope you say is dubitable It is not dubitable to the Lords for matter of Fact but certaine And albeit some Doctors should hold the contrary that neverthelesse doth not make the question doubtfull unto the Lords For ita prabent assensum um parti ommino denegons alteri parti they in such wise give their assent unto the one side as they make sure work to keep it back from the other side And this makes the opinion certaine at least probable and not doubtful For every authority or apparent Reason doth not make an opinion doubtfull but â—â—â—ly such Authorities and Reasons as are thought and esteemed marchable to the contrary Reasons and grounded upon 〈◊〉 common Doctrine of Conscience Now because the Reasons produced and brought against the opinion of the most illuâ—â—â—â—s Republic are not able any way to make it a doubtfull opinion it shall be needlesse to runne unto the judgement of any other Superior One pause more Hetrodox for a short rest and so to the third Race The sixt daies Conference upon the Eight Proposition Orthodox HOwsoever it goes for a true Rule or Principle of St. Gregorie the Pope Sententia Pastoris justa sivè injusta timenda the Sentence of the Ecclesiasticall Judge or Pastor be it just or unjust is to be feared yet doth it nothing serve the purpose in this case For there is a great difference betweene the unjust sentence of an Ecclesiasticall Judge and a sentence which is no sentence Navar. de censuris Eccl. cap. 27. Sotus 4. Sent. Dist â—2 Thus Navarrus thus Sotus and that an unjust sentence is to be feared but a No-Sentence is not to be observed The Censures therefore published by our Holy Father Paulus V. being of no force or vertue but vaine and void as hath beene declared before because they are like a manâ— writing in the Water or in the Ayre I am in this opinion service that Ecclesiastics in Venice ought not in conscience to 〈◊〉 the same Censures not to innovate any thing in their Church For albeit Navarrus discoursing in the place left 〈◊〉 and alledged of Excommunication which hath no vâ—â—â—â—ty â—â—â—t â—â—pure nullity hath pronounced in these 〈◊〉 Seâ—â—â—â—ti â—â—â—â—lida seâ— nulla nihil aliud operatur in for◠〈…〉 iâ—â— quam quod obligat Excommunis atâ—â—â— ad 〈◊〉 aâ—â—um 〈◊〉 quâ—â—d Populus sibi persuadâ—â—t vel persâ—adâ—re 〈◊〉 cauâ—as nullitatis propter Scandalum the invalid and void sentence he meanes of an Ecclesiasticall Judge is of no force to worke any effect either in the secret Court of Conscience or in the open Court of Judicature but onely to bind the person Excommunicated to the observation of the said Excommunicatorie sentence untill the people be wall perswaded or at least should be perswaded touching the nullitie thereof and that for the avoiding of public scandall yet for certaine this Doctrine of Navarrus â—â—â—es very strongly for our present Cause And wherefore Forsooth because the Reason of the Nullitie hath beene made manifest unto all the Venetian people And suppose it is yet not manifest unto some they ought doubtlesse to have taken it for manifested by that course which the Venetian Prince hath taken for the manifesting thereof unto all men in all their solemne Edicts and publike Proclamations So that in this case there is no publike scandall to be feared I goe further and say more that some Religions by Order can by no meanes be excused who erring perhaps by their little knowledge or perhaps out of some other sinister affection have chosen to leave the City rather then to persevere in ministring the holy Sacraments and celebrating the Divine Service as for the good of Religion and of the Common-Wealth by their Prince his Ordinance they were enjoyned wherein they have offered scandall unto all because Ipsi sibi fuerunt Lex they have been a Law unto themselves and have not followed the example of the Cathedrall Church of all other most holy and most ancient Religions as like wise of all the other parish Churches To which Religious persons in a straine and fit of godly zeale I say with our Saviour Christ it had beene better that a Mill-stone had beene hanged about their necks I forbeare to say the rest and they cast into the bottome of the Sea then to have given so great a scandall unto any of these little ones Besides to defend the liberty of their naturall Prince the maintainer preserver and upholder of Peace Liberty and Religion to all the people is a Principle grounded upon the Law of Nature that is Law Divine or the Law of God whereas all Ecclesiasticall sentences are grounded upon the Law positive which ought alwaies to give place unto the other and most of all when 〈◊〉 have a Constat of the Nullitie Some therefore deceive themselves who take this controversie to be de Fide for it is only a Moribus And if any thing be expresly set downe in holy Scripture which makes this Controversie to stand in matter of Faith it is the opinion of the Signorie which they have grounded on the expresse Doctrine of St. Paul Let me here freely deliver my mind most learned Hetrodox I could wish and would exhort all the Clergie of the Venetian Sâ—â—â— if they were now present not onely to celebrate Divine Service and to communicate or administer the Sacraments but likewise to performe all other Ecclesiasticall Duties which before the publication of these late Censures they have beene accustomed to practise in their Church both for that I am in good hope they are all fixt already upon that Resolution and likewise to avoid scandall not onely because Sententia nulla minimè est observanda cùm constat de nullitate a void Sentence binds none to the observation thereof when the Nullity is apparent but also because they ought at no hand to rend themselves from their Head the Prince without any reason or cause in controversies of Jurisdiction yea I am of opinion for the same reason ther all such as shall not heare Masse at least upon Holie daies during the time of this Interdict shall commit sin because they refute so to doe without any lawfull cause and reason the sentence being void
and the Masse being celebrated in all the rest of the Churches I would not have men to feare where no feare is nor cause to feare nor to give any cause why those who alwaies have beene faithfull to their Prince the most illustrious Republic should draw upon their own heads any such imputation as this Filii matris mea pugnaverunt contra me the Sons of my mother have fought against me but I would wish them rather to fight and strive how they may best obey that Apostolicall Precept let every soule be subject unto the higher Powers Rom. 13.15 not only because of wrath but also for Conscience sake I make no doubt at all of their constancie for I rest well assured they are almost ready to lay downe their life for their Prince The Lords of Venice have ordained on paine of death That all the Religions in the City shall keepe their Churches open and shall celebrate Divine Service as they have done before Have the Lords made this Decree out of any feare least such of the Religions to whom they stand well-affected who both know and follow the true Doctrine as in a manner they doe all would now doe otherwise than they have done or would not goe on to celebrate and exercise all the Offices of their Ministerie No sure wherefore then was that grievous penalty ordained Forsooth onely that none of the said Offices might be intermitted in that Citie which ever hath stood Catholique and now professeth to continue Catholique more then ever Whereupon she will not suffer any change at all to be seene in the exercises of Piety or â—â—e intermission of the said exercises to be unto any an occasion of their Precipitation For which mischiefe the Prince for the Churches behalfe and for her benefit by Gods Law is bound to provide a Remedy by all meanes possible Last of all I commend to the Religions the Doctrine of Navarrus as a most safe haven Cap. Novit de judiciu Notab 3. manu cap. 27. de Censuris wherein they may ride without all danger and this it is That what Exemption soever they enjoy the same they enjoy not by Gods Law but by the Priviledge of their Princes who have power to retract diminish dilate and amplifie the said Priviledges when and how they please according to such new reasons as rise and as good occasion shall be represented for the doing thereof to the common utility and publike benefit or advantage of the Dominions under their Subjection For the same power the Pope exerciseth in the priviledges of Indulgences and other matters depending upon his Spirituall Authority which by him sometimes are annulled sometimes diminished and sometimes augmented Hetrodox From false Principles you inferre a false conclusion That for so much as the sentence of our holy Father is of no validity therefore it ought not in any wise to be feared and that by consequence the Priests of Venice and thorow the whole Venetian Dominion are bound in conscience to celebrate all Divine offices as if they had not beene interdicted at all First you affirme That according to the Doctrine of Navarrus the Sentence of the Pope when it is Nulla is to be feared and observed untill the people shall be thorowly perswaded of the Nullitie to the end there may breed and grow no scandall Then you subjoyne the Venetian people are fully and wholly perswaded of the Nullity of the Popes Excommunication by the Dukes Edict as much to say when the Judge affirmes his Sentence is just and in full force and the Malefactor sales it is unjust and of no force when the Malefactor should be credited and the Judge not believed What Sentence at any time shall goe current for just and in force if the Malefactors word and credit may be taken Next you affirme That certaine Religious persons are inexcuseable for chusing to depart out of the City rather then to celebrate Divine Offices and that very many thereby have beene scandalized Alas good Sir the said Religious have no need of your excuse and if any other have beene scandalized by their obedience to the holy Father the words of our Saviour to the Pharisees will serve well to remove and take away the scandall Sinite illoâ— they are blind leaders of the blind Mat. 15. let them alone Then you affirme it is enjoyned by Gods Law to defend the liberty of their Prince whereas Ecclesiasticall Sentences are enjoyned by mans Law and that ought ever to give place unto the Law of God At every word you take the Divine Law in your mouth no mervaile your Argument runs in this divine forme To defend the Princes liberty is by the Law of God Ecclesiastical Sentences are by the Law of man the Law of man gives place unto the Law of God Ergo the Priests ought to despise the Popes Excommunication and Interdict and to defend the Liberty of the Venetian Duke But heare you Sir my answer If it be by Gods Law to defend the Liberty of an Earthly Prince much more it is by Gods Law to defend the liberty of the Church the Spouse of the Heavenlie Prince I say moreover The liberty which the Duke of Venice pretends now a daies is a liberty to clap up such in prison as are none of his Subjects and to make Lawes against Justice and Piety and therefore it is according to Gods Law not to defend but rather to impugne such a Liberty And I yet subjoyn that Ecclesiasticall Sentences as touching Power are by Gods Law established Mat. 10. and founded on the Gospell And againe you affirme That some are deceived in thinking this present controversie to be de Fide when it is onely de Moribus and that if any thing be expressed in Scripture which makes this businesse to be de Fide it is the Republics opinion expressely taught by St. Paul I answer The Principall controversie is not de Fide Neverthelesse those who have undertaken the defence of the Venetian Cause have in their discourses mingled certain Errors in matter of Faith And whereas in your accustomed way of Wisedome no doubt you tell us the opinion of the Signorie is expresly taught by St. Paul your wisedome doth not marke That such things as are expressely taught by St. Paul cannot be called opinions For then it should follow that some doubt might be made of St. Pauls Doctrine because opinions are ever doubtfull and uncertaine The truth is Hetrodox the opinion of the Signorie is not found in St. Pauls Epistle to the Hebrewes Obey them that have the oversight of you Hebr. 13.17 and submit your selves for they watch for your soules as they that must give account for your Soules Now against this Doctrine which goes not in the Church for an opinion but for a most certaine Article of Catholique Faith your Lords of Venice deceived by such as your selfe no DD. but Seducers are precipitated in these daies and carried headlong as it were downe