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
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
black coal yet by the just judgement of God you leave it neither stamped nor smeared in face or front with any kind of odious impression and stigmaticall reprehension but rather give it a kind of stronger back and more pithie with your own approbation As for the long parallel or to give it a better title the large comparison which you frame between the Layic and Ecclesiastic power it is altogether extravagant needlesse and from the purpose for whosoever contends for the Layic power to be immediately of God and without exception in temporalibus doth neither directly nor by consequence deny Ecclesiastic power to proceed immediately from God and to be without exception in spiritualibus which we Roman Catholiques must affirme and are bound to uphold Hetrod Whatsoever you dream of my approbation you shall never draw me to the bent of your Bow nor worke me to any good perswasion of your doctrine with all your perswasions uttered as before by whole-sale and in grosse except you shall deal with me now also by retayle and shall nick up some error keeping a kind of tallie in the severall joynts and branches of my last passage making my said Errors in particular not onely visible but also palpable Orthod I refuse not the Exception and therefore will presently nick up to use your own term or point out your errors one by one 1. Whereas two contradictories are not possible to be true both at once in one and the same respect you have given and granted the honour of truth to both For first you affirm that Princes as higher powers and superiors are invested with power immediately from God to command their Subjects Then as one presently even in the turning of a hand repenting himselfe and falling from his Tenent you sing out and warble these notes of a contrary ayre If the power of secular Princes over Laics be not immediately from God much lesse over Clerics and a little after The Proposition therefore would stand more firm it would go more straight and bolt upright in these tearmes Secular Princes have no power over their Layic Subjects immediately from God Now either the one of your two Propositions must be true and the other false or else Hetrodox who holds them both for true must needs be tainted with a visible and palpable errour 2. You confound title of power with power it selfe which are directly distinct both for matter and word Title is Conditio sine quâ non acquiritur Potestas It is the condition without which power is not setled in the Prince Power is that authority and jurisdiction wherewith Princes are invested immediately of God so soon as they are entitled thereunto by man This was manifestly declared before by a similitude taken from the reasonable soule and your selfe Hetrodox have been forced to grant it against your will for you passe it currant and uncontrouleable in the Popes case and affirm that howsoever his Holines is elected and advanced to the Papacy by the votes of men yet he receives power to sit in Peters Chayre and to govern the Ship of the Church immediately of God 3. You condemne it as hereticall to hold that secular and temporall power is not ordained and made subject by God himselfe to spirituall power But heare me good Sir with patience you can alleadge no text of holy Scripture you can produce no definitive Sentence or determination of the Church which may stand for a cleare and indubitable Oracle that Princes as they are Princes are in any degree of inferioritie and subjection unto the Pope but onely to speake in the sence and phrase of us Roman Catholics as they are Christians when the world was not so happy to be honoured with Christian Princes but was governed and commanded wholly by heathen Lords and Rulers doubtlesse no Prince then regnant was in regard of Princedome the high Bishops Vassâ—ll or in state of subjection to the Pope But as Chrysostome testifies the chiefe Bishop was then Lorded of pagan or infidell and heathen Princes to whom like a Free-holder or Copie-holder he ought both suite and service as to his Lords paramount in temporalties Etiamsi Apostolus etiamsi Evangelista be thou Apostle or be thou Evangelist neque tamen pietatem id est religionem according to the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subvertit istae subjectio howbeit by such estate or degree of subjection true piety that is to say true Religion is neither subverted nor yet undermined Laic power therefore shall not put either head or hand like an Homager under the girdle of Ecclesiastic power ratione potestatis as it is a power For the layic Prince I speak still as a Roman Catholic is onely so far forth subject unto the chiefe Bishop in spiritualities as the said Prince is a christian in which case the Prince and every private person are equall or in one and the same condition And therefore layic power as it is a power is not subject or subordinate unto Ecclesiastick power save only so farre forth as the said layic power is exercised by one that is a christian Prince as every other christian is a christian This makes the power of the Grand-Seignior of the great Cham and of the Persian Monarch to have not so much as the least dependency upon the Popes power And yet I trowe you know it is a power and that an absolute power to which cause if I take not my marke amisse you crowded and slily shuffled in the word christian when you said the Pope had power over all christians wherein you speake this language this in effect and no more That all are subject not ratione potestatis in respect of power but ratione christianitatis in respect of christian profession and so you speak not ad idem to the point which you undertook to prove 4. A Prince you say Hetrodox being demanded by what right he holds the Regall Scepter and possession of his Crown and Kingdome will never avouch the law of God in his defence thereof but either his right of inheritance or else his right by the law of just warre and of lawfull Armes or of election or of donation from which you inferre that his power is not immediately cast upon him by Gods gracious gift I must now be bold to re-joyne and come upon you with an expresse negative The Prince be you Hetrodox well assured will never suffer so lame so loose so dishonourable stuffe to scape his noble heart or lippes but if any shall be more bold then observant and respective to boord his Highnes with such a question how came you Sir by that Soveraign power and authority to govern and command your People He would readily and peremptorily shape him this religious and Prince-like answer I received it as the immediate gift of God and asked or interrogated againe who gave him the title and investiture of such power his answer to stop the interrogators mouth will be this in a word I
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
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.
THE JESUITE THE CHIEFE If not the onely State-Heretique in the World OR The Venetian Quarrell Digested into a DIALOGVE BY THO SWADLIN D. D. Bernard Epist 256. Quale est hoc Principatum tenere Ministerium declinare Printed in the Yeere 1647. TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFVLL My very munificent Friend Sir GEORGE GRYMES Noble Sir IN the following Papers which are but a Translation of Eight Propositions as they were canvased by two learned Romane Catholiques you will meet with some Primitive Learning under the name of Orthodox and that will delight you you will meet with some Moderne Learning under the name of Hetrodox and that will not displease you In both you will find the businesse of Secular and Ecclesiastique Power at full discussed which will be no great burthen for you to reade and a great happinesse to my selfe that the world may therein see J am neither Popishly affected nor ingratefully infected since these lines walke under your Protection no friend to Popery a great friend to Piety and are Dedicated to you as a Tythe of that Gratitude which is necessarily due from Sir Your most humble Servant T. S. London Nov. 19. 1646. THE FIRST DAYES CONFERENCE UPON The first PROPOSITION HETRODOX IS the wind in that doore Orthodox Are you become so deplorately blinded and yet honoured with the reputation of a wel-founded Roman Catholique Is it possible that any Roman Catholique can swallow the sweet Pill but most deadly poyson of hereticall Pravity to assevere so distinctly as you have now done and to believe withall so confidently as you now pretend the power of secular Princes or of our Holy Father himselfe as a temporall Prince doth clayme a kind of Birth-right by lawfull derivation Immediately as it were from the Almighties throne and without exception Orthodox The wind blowes where it lists Hetrodox But whether I be now transformed into a Baertimeus or turned blind as a Beetle in this Theologicall Argument whether I have taken down a drachme or so much as only a drop of hereticall poyson in this dogmaticall assertion I neither intend to shew my selfe so selfe-conceited neither purpose to looke so big upon the tip-toe of my own private spirit as to deprive your critick faculty of any faire and free liberty to censure the verdict of my Position at parting when the Sun sets Hetrodox Fall then roundly and closely to the main of the first Proposition I barre all manner of byes Orthodox Your will be done Hetrodox Then first I take this for granted that all Dominion and Servitude that all Power in the Prince to command and all obligation of Subjects to performe with promptitude all due and requisite obedience unto the just and lawfull behests of their lawfull Princes by the law of nations is grounded and built upon one of these foure Bases Election Inheritance Donation or Law of Armes I mean Sword-Law and right by valiant Conquest So that all Princes advanced to the glorious Throne of sacred Supreamacy or supreame Principallity by any one or more of these foure Bases of State are condignly to be enrolled and registred in the most noble Canon or Calender of lawfull Princes And all such Princes I religiously professe in my conscience are crowned with Authority and Power immediately from God to command to enact Statute Lawes to exact due Tributes to heare and determine causes to inflict capitall and other corporall punishments to impose Pecuniary Mulcts of penall Statutes upon all their naturall Subjects without exception Hetrodox By these last words without exception whether mean you exception of Subjects or exception of Power or exception of Cause If the first surely your Proposition is erroneous For what Power can secular Princes carry over Clerics exempted as you know right well from temporall power at least by mans law as it is held by all Catholique Authors yea by Gods Law also as before our parting I hope so materially and substantially to verify that you shall be enforced to confesse your error to cry Peccavi and glad withall to deliver me your weapons in this Field If you mean exception of Power your Proposition is Hereticall For no Power of any Christian Prince or Monarch can be free frome subjection in some sort unto the power of Christs Vicar thr universall Pastor and Head of all Christians whether Princes o-private persons If you mean exception of Cause your Propositir on doth smell very strong of like pestilent contagious heresie Fot it is the doctrine of sacred Scripture and holy Councels That spirituall causes are not summonable nor bound or tyed to ther Courts of Layics not compatible of tryals in the Kings-Bench or Court of Common-Pleas but in Consistorian Courts and before Ecclesiasticall Tribunals alone in which point all the Doctors as well Divines as Canonists with unanimous consent do jump and accord Orthodox Not so Hetrodox saving your deep and as well may be avouched your infinite reading D. Medina for one dissents and holds hard for the contrary yet a Doctor Marshaled in the ranke of solid Catholique and Classicall Authors He delivers for positive doctrine that exception or exemption of Ecclesiastics in temporall crimes and causes is not commanded or prescribed of Almighty God in the whole volumne of the Bible Medin de Restitut q. 15. His expresse and formall words be these Videtur oppositum esse verum c. The contrary assertion seemes to go forth and bravely to march with flying Colours of truth for the purpose That after abolishing of the old Law there is not found any one obligatory precept in Gods word for the exempting of Clericks or Ecclesiasticks from the power of the secular arme and sword I rather choose to affirm maintain that in former ages Clericks have obtained and for the times present with great happines do enjoy their exemption by the munificent Grants by the gratious Charters by the indulgent priviledges of their noble Princes again Denique hac ratione unica c. To conclude this one argument hits the Nayl on the head drives it home and hits the Bird like a Bolt in the right Eye wee can professe and justify no point of doctrine to be grounded upon Gods Law or word except it can be warranted by some authenticall testimony of the same divine law or word Exempting of Clericks hath no cleer warrant passable or triuable in the law of God ergo Couar lib. pract q. C. 1â— conclu 2. c. Couaruvias also stands as firme like a Colosse for the same assertion In rebus temporalibus et in criminalibus quae spiritualia non attingunt c. In temporall matters and in criminall causes having no correspondency with spirituall cases the persons of Clericks and their possessions or estates are not by Gods word exempted from the jurisdiction of their secular Princes Hetrodox You know Couaruvias is challenged by Cardinall Bellarmine of partiality for the jurisdiction of the most Catholique King Orthodox And you know Cardinall Bellarmine
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
civill Court thus farre Iustinian In which first part of the Emperour Iustinians Novel I may not passe diverse points untouched this for one That Menua is glad to come on his knees and to make humble suite for this priviledge then surely his Churchmen had no such exemption before from God himselfe or Iure divino by Gods law for had the good Patriarch had that string to his Bow by Gods holy Ordinance or constitution doubtlesse his humble begging and earnest Petition for this humane priviledge had been by his leave and yes too Hetrodox no better then direct and voluntary rushing into sinne This for another that Iustinian grants not Menua the Court in any absolute straine or terme but only allowes him to give judgement or sentence without any clamorous noyse and without any formall instruments in writing a course clean contrary to modern practise in our Ecclesiasticall Courts where commonly more clamour and noyse more Advocates Proctors Notaries more Offices and Ministers more chargeable Fees are paid for Transcripts breviats Bookes and such like instruments then are in Courts of secular justice This for a third that Iustinian puts down the reason whereby he was induced to grant such priviledge to wit that Clerics not disquieted nor disturbed with clamours and noises of Courts might more diligently and freely attend upon their divine offices and Ministeriall Functions This for the fourth and last Iustinian grants no absolute but only conditionall priviledge The second point observable in the Novell that in criminall causes of civill nature and kind meerely temporall without any smack or rellish of spirituals which Couaruvias expounds in these words Quae spiritualia non attingunt such as touch not the hemne of the spirituall garment Church-men within the City of Constantinople shall be tryed and judged by competent secular Judges and through the whole Empire besides by the Prefects or L. Presidents in their severall Provinces and that moreover with a certain limitation or stint of time namâ—ly that within the tearm and space of two moneths the matter shall be drawn to a head and shall come to a finall issue or end and that sentence being once sped or passed against a Cleric by the L. President of any Province the President shall not proceed to execution before the said Cleric is degraded and quite divested of his priestly or sacerdotall dignity by the Bishop according to the laudable custome and usuall manner in such cases The Emperours own words are thus directly couched in the Novell Si tamen de criminalibus conveniantur c. but if a Church-man be convented or brought Coram nobis upon some criminall cause of a civill nature that is to say such as no way hath dependance or correspondence with Ecclesiastic Regiment or Church-discipline in such a case he shall come to tryall within this imperiall City before competent Judges and in all the Provinces before the most honourable Presidents of the same provided the suite depend or hold not above two months after the Actor hath put in his Declaration and the Reus his Answer or defence that so the suite may have the shorter cut and the more expedite dispatch And in case the President shall find the party impleaded to be guilty in the action and thereupon shall adjudge him to undergo and suffer the punishment ordained and inflicted by Law then the party so judged shall first be deposed from his Priestly Orders and Church dignities by the Bishop beloved of God and after that he shall come under the hand or suffer the penalty of the Lawes In which words likewise divers points are to be observed viz. That some offences criminall are meerely civill meerely politic no way within compasse of spirituall respect or consideration that crimes and offences of such nature are tryable and punishable by temporall Magistrates that Churchmen for the said offences may be sentenced and condemned to death by a temporall Judge that Justinian bindes not himselfe or his LL. the Judges within the City of Constantinople to cause a Priest or Cleric first of all to be degraded and after to be transmitted over into the hands of civil Ministers of justice but in such case he binds only the provinciall Presidents himselfe as the Soveraign and the Judges in Constantinople as his Commissioners Delegates or Subaltern Magistrates remaining exempt and free from such obligation to give order for the degrading of such Delinquents before execution that sentence of the secular Judge must precede and then degradation is to follow before execution for Manus legum the hand of the lawes is the executioner of haut justice from whence it is directly to be deduced that Hetrodox hath drawn but a sinister left handed untoward and perverse construction of Iustinians Novell in bearing us in hand that Churchmen for offeâ—ces and crimes of this nature are first forsooth to be judged and withall to be degraded by the Bâ—shop and after to feel the weight of the secular arme for faith Hetrodox Et tâ—nc sub legum fieri maâ—â— and then to undergo the deadly stroake of the law whereas without all ambiguity the great and learned Emperour speakes in perspicuous tearmes and sayes that a definitive sentence of the secular Judge shall precâ—de degradation by the Bishop shall second execution of the sentence shall follow in the Reare and yet withall that such course of proceeding shall be only held in the Provinces and not in the imperiall City The third point or branch of the said Novell that in case a Clerics offence be of Ecclesiasticall nature namely such as requires and calles for justice by some ecclesiasticall censure or penalty thâ—n the punishment shall be inflicted and the penalty awarded according to the divine and sacred rules or Canons which in such cases the lawes imperiall do not hold it any abatement or disparâ—gement of their honour to follow The Emperours proper words runne precisely thus Si vero Ecclesiasticum siâ— delictum c. But when the offence is meerely Ecclesiastic such as requires the censure and correction of the Church then shall the Bishop beloved of God take due contemplation of the nature quality and merit of the offence the right honourable Judges residing and exercising their charge in the severall Provinces shall beare no hand and strike no stroake in the busines neither as head nor foot for it is not our pleasure or mind at any hand that civill Magistrates take any cognizance at all of such cases because they are to be sifted scanned and tryed by ecclesiasticall proceedings and the faults of delinquents in that kind are corrigible only by Ecclesiastic censures according to the sacred Canons which our lawes imperiall do not disdaine to imitate In which branch or context of the Novell these few heads come in like manner to be observed that some offences are meerly ecclesiasticall and annexed to the clericall order that when the holy Canons and sacred Scripture make it lawfull for Prelates to inflict and
award the said penalties they alwaies intend it of ecclesiasticall offences that such judgements and penalties are to be passed without stâ—p or impeachment by any corporall voices and to reflect or to tend onely to the reformation of delinquents Per Paternam correctionem by a fatherly chastisement or corrâ—ction a kind of ecclesiastâ—c censure and by such like penalties which are not corporall Now Sir for as much as this distinction of delicts faults offences judgements punishments and Courts is not read in written Monuments before Iustinians time upon this ground I have affirmed and am perswaded that herein I have not plaid the blind and unskilfull Cobler in seeing beyond my Last and Latchet that no such distinction of Court for which you fight and contend with so much heat and alacrity had got any the least footing in the primitive Church And because this word Court intends or implyes the civill Court it is very certain that before Iustinian granted this gracious priviledge to the Patriarch Menua no man had recourse in the foresaid cases unto Prelates as unto publique Magistrates but only unto secular Judges It is high time now to lay open your palpable errors Hetrod Well remembred hold you to your method and therein use your best skill to turne my Argent into Subtes my Whites into Blacks Orthod My chiefest aime shall be bent unto none other white Is it not first a grosse error to wrest S. Pauls words written to Timothy with a wrench of wrong and idle supposition For you suppose that godly Timothy Lorded it in some publique Tribunall or solemne seat of judgement sitting upon offences that were not ecclesiasticall and spirituall whereas you cannot chuse but know that Paul there treats not of any judiciary forme but only of ecclesiasticall and paternall correction his words are evident Against an Elder receive no accusation but under the testimony of two or three Againe Them that sinne rebuke openly that others may fear where the word rebuke armes not young Timothy with any authority to attach the body to lay in close prison to send into banishment to condemne either to the Gallies or Gallowes but onely to give private admonition for private offences and public reproofe for public scandals The text is expounded by S. Augustine according to the glosse after this manner Aliquando debes corripere c. sometimes thou shalt rebuke him that sinneth betwix your selves in private sometimes thou shalt not spare to pay his coat as it were and to chastise him with open rebuke that others may be the more affraid to runne or to chop into the like snare S. Paul therefore in that place speakes not of any Tribunal as you very fain would make us believe but of ecclesiasticall correction proper to an Evangelâ—st and to no Judge according to the same Apostles words Improve rebuke exhort with all long suffering and doctrine do the worke of an Evangelist make thy Ministery fully known Howbeit I do not deny that mens qualities degrees and the enormities of their offences being weighed in just and equall scales it is lawfull for those unto whom authority for such purpose is deputed and committed to practise Ecclesiasticall correction cum omni imperio with all Mâ—jesty and power that is without all feare as the same Apostle speakes But whosoever shall so beare himselfe in his lawfull authority hath need to be endowed furnished besides the former qualities with all those abilities conditions complements of a good rightworthy Prelate which are mustered rancked by the same Apostle Oportet autem Episcopum esse irreprehensibilem c. A Bishop therefore must be unreproveable c. For between one that fits upon the seat of justâ—ce as a Judge upon the Bench and one that hath authority to rebuke here lyes the main odds The sentence of the Judge is profitable though the man himselfe be as bad as Barabbas but he that reproves or gives verball correction seldome or never workes any deep impression or good effect in his hearer if he teach that a man shall not steale and yet steales himselfe 2. By witnesses you understand such as are juridically to be sifted by examination deposition and such other juridicall courses of Court whereas to give a fatherly admonition or paternall correction who doth not know that a Bishops bare and simple word for such purpose is held sufficient and will serve the turne to the end he be not induced to passe against a Priest by way of correction but when with great reason his conscience is duely certified and informed that the accusation or presentment hath been materially confirmed and substantially veryfied by the testimony of two or three Thus Ambrose in the glosse to the same purpose Quoniam vero non facile c. And because accusations against Priests are not hand over head to be admitted with easy credence the crime or accusation pretended and objected must clearely be proved or in case the matter be manifest otherwise that a Priests deportment or demeanour in his orders hath been very scandalous and notoriously unreverend the Apostle layes his charge upon Timothy to rebuke the party before the face of others that others may feare to runne the like scandalous and unreverend courses which manner of proceeding is very profitable not onely for such as are in orders but likewise for the common sort of People when they shall see one of the long robe a man of such Priestly marke and ranke so roundly taken up for his misdemeanors by which the holy Father S. Ambrose meanes offeâ—ces of a conversation mis-becoming the estate condition and calling of a religious person all this tends not in any wise to point at any Court much lesse at any distinction of Court but beares a reflecting eye and gives ayme with a kind of nod and bending of the head only to paternall correction 3. You argue upon a vaine supposition that even by Pauls own testimony there it is necessary for Churchmen in all temporall causes and offences to have recourse and refuge unto the ecclesiasticall Judge that were doubtlesse to approve a distinction of Court But be not you Hetrodox wilfully blind to close or to seal up your own eyes from beholding the cleare light of truth For Canon by the helpe of your own spectacles and none other You maintain that by the same Canon Church-men are barred from the benefit of recourse unto secular Judges whereas the Councell presupposes the contrary viz. That Clerics may take the benefit of that course howsoever not before they have put in practise the meanes to have the matter taken up and ordered by their Prelate whom the Councell even by the averrement of your own mouth termes the competent Judge of their cause whereas in the text or body of that Canon Point des paroles not one such word 6. The Councell held at Agatha upon your supposition that Clerics for criminall delicts fled for their lawfull reliefe to the secular Tribunals as
it is to be clearly seen in Constantines own practise against Caecilianus the Bishop of Carthage whose cause being accused promoted by the Donatists Constantine himselfe durst neither sift nor touch but only ordered that Caecilianus and his cause should be transmitted to Rome and there should undergo the censure of the holy Father who then was Meltiades this was the practise of Constantine to confound the Donatists with an intention or mind to crave pardon of the Bishops for thrusting his crooked Sickle into other mens harvest and intruding himselfe into a businesse of that spirituall nature Optat. lib. contra parmen Aug. Ep. 48. 162. as forced or drawn thereunto by the violent necessity of the said cause witnesse Optatus Milenitanus and S. Augustine in diverse of his Epistles Orthod I never knew nor heard before this day that excesse of love and superlative praise in any sort or fashion whatsoever to a good end should merit the distastefull name of a lye Hath not Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe expounded the Canon Quicunque of Theodosius in the very same phrase and stile By name that certes Theodosius framed that Canon in the excesse of his piety But let us passe that circumstance and come to the maine of your last passage it will not be denyed that as in secular Causes temporall Princes may be called Gods even so Priests in spirituall causes may have the honour of the same name howbeit with your leave that text Deus stetit God standeth in the Assembly of Gods by Hetrodox late alleadged is understood of secular Princes and not of Priests as you Hetrodox would insinuate But seeing that Ruffinus you say hath recorded that Constantine tooke it in your sence Valeat quantum valere potest be it of what force or credit it may or can most certain it is that neither Ruffinus nor Constantine himselfe with all his greatnesse can hold water or weight with expositors of sacred Scripture howbeit from hence there can be made no firme and solid inference that Constantines words ad Dei judicium yea are doubtlesse reserved to Gods judgement are thus to be understood id est Prelati to the Prelates judgment because he exerciseth Gods judgement For Constantine there speaks without any termes of ambiguity waite you for the judgment of God alone reserve your causes and quarrels to tryall at his lâ—st and great Assizes for you are given unto us of God as Gods very unmeet it is that men should presume to judge Gods but he alone of whom it is written God standeth in the Assembly of Gods In which words first I observe that here Constantine hath an eye only to spirituall causes for so much as here he speaketh of Ecclesiastics not as men but as Gods by vertue of their spirituall power to bind and loose Secondly that he meddles not here with any humane judgement but expressely with the last judgement of God Thirdly that he speakes not of any God which makes the whole number of the Assembly but of the God who stands in the Assembly of Gods even of that God who is the supream and Soveraign Judge This of Constantine therefore is a kind of speech in excesse as before hath been said And as for your anticipation that when the Prelate judgeth God himselfe then judgeth by the Prelate and therefore not man but God himselfe is the Judge I must be bold to tell you Hetrodox it lacks just weight and therefore may not be allowed to go currant For by the same reason it shall hold good and strong that when the secular Magistrate sits in the seate of justice it is not man that gives judgement but God himselfe because the Magistrate is Dei Minister Gods Minister to take vengeance on such as do evill Moreover for so much as all Prelats yea the highest Bishop himselfe may erre saith Cardinall Bellarmine in many places which likewise is the common opinion yea and many times hath actually erred In judiciis facti in judgement of the Fact it is therefore not absolutely to be held that when they judge then God himselfe judgeth because it is impossible for to erre as it is to lye upon this exposition of Constantines words whether his own or the words of Ruffinus uttered by a straine of excesse in things not intelligible you runne into diverse errours 1. First be it in some sort granted that Priests are not lawfully to be tryed by the temporall Magistrate or secular Prince in such causes wherein Priests by Constantine are called Judges yet can it not be inferred without errour that in temporall and secular causes wherein Priests will they nill they are and must be Subjects they ought not to be judged by the same Prince 2. Secondly To affirme that God made Moses King Pharaohs Judge because he said to Moses I have made thee Pharaohs God what can it be but an erroneous misprision and a violent wrâ—sting of the holy text For God gave Moses no authority to be Pharaohs Judge in any sort whatsoever least of all was he armed with such authority as in the quality of a Priest But say that Moses was a Priest as wee Catholics believe and teach yet he was but Priest unto the Hebrewes Gods own people he had no authority over King Pharaoh an Egyptian and Idolater But because Moses with a Rod in his hand wrought so great miracles and wonders in the sight of King Pharaoh not possible by any Saint or devil to be done but onely by the finger and power of the true Almighty eternall God therefore it was that God said to Moses I have made thee Pharaohs God 3. Lastly you affirme Hetrodox wherein I wish you to take some sight and knowledge of your errour that Pope Meltiades had lawfull power to judge the cause of Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage because Constantine turned him over to the Consistory and Chaire of Meltiades at Rome I will not deny that civill and criminall causes may come to judgement before Consistorian Judges but when Forsooth when Christian Princes are graciously pleased by their Charters Commissions Grants and speciall Graces or priviledges to lay open such Gaps and to give such waies Much lesse will I deny that in causes meerly ecclesiasticall the Pope is to inflict and fasten correction upon Bishops and Bishops to take round courses against such as do stand within the reach of their Episcopall Verges but I must confidently affirme and stand to it like a man when all is done or said that in civill and criminall causes meerly temporall the Prince hath lawfull power from God to judge ecclesiastics when he hath not disarmed himselfe of his lawfull authority by some former gracious grant And this I confirme even by the very same act of Constantine which your selfe have produced and alledged For Constantine you say transmitted an act of power and authority the cause of Caecilianus unto the Pope and afterward himselfe sate upon Caecilianus in place of judgement All Ecclesiastics
done with much disgrace and contempt As to that which you say touching the cause for which Christian subjects were bound to obey Infidel and unbeleeving Princes I will content my selfe to make use of Saint Pauls words for a sufficient and full answer thereunto You must be subject and obedient not onely because of wrath but also for conscience sake Rom. 13. Item Whosoever resists the power he resists the ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves condemnation In so cleere Texts and passages of Scripture what need you or any other fly to the shifts of any new expositions with danger to fall into infidelity or mis-creance and notorious Heresie especially when Chrysostome hath decided the matter before by so strong an argument from the lesse to the greater in this forme If the Apostle enjoyneth obedience to Heathen and miscreant Magistrates how much more ought we to performe and yeeld all due obedience unto beleeving and godly princes Thus Chrysostome Hetrod The Sunne is now declined many degrees and now ready to depart out of our Horizon Are you Orthodox as neere to the period of your first dayes labour and taske as the Sunne is to the full end of his Journall or Diurnall motion Orthod I am indeed as you shall presently perceive Saint Paul commands all men to pay Tribute unto their lawfull Soveraigne because he that dischargeth such duty makes good payment unto God himselfe Give Tribute unto whom you owe Tribute Custome unto whom Custome fâ—r they are the Ministers of God This passage is expounded by the Angelicall Doctor the great Master of Divines and onely Sunne of the Catholic School This great Clark saith you know full well That in case Clerics be free and exempt from payment of Tribute doubtlesse they are endowed with such freedome and exemption not by Gods Law as by divers it is thought and taught but by speciall grace and priviledge of secular princes who beare not Gladium the sword for nought seeing they are Gods Ministers to take vengeance c. See you not here the authority of Secular Princes to punish poena sanguinâ—â— with losse of blood or with corporall death Now the same authority Ecclesiasticall Prelats have not from God and therefore when they have once degraded a Cleric for some capitall crime or scandalous and notorious offence whereby they declare the party criminall to be devested of his Clericall degree and holy orders they take no course nor care at all for any further proceeding to his execution but for punishment by death tradunt brachio saeculari they refer and poast him over to the secular power And to the end it might not be conceived that Pauls words are not uttered by way of precept but onely of counsell Behold to make good his assertion he strengthens the same words with a very substantiall sinew Ideo necessitate c. Wherefore ye must be subject not onely because of wrath but also for conscience sake So then we are bound by Saint Pauls holy doctrine as it were with a forcible chaine of necessity O portet ye must to serve and obey the secular Prince in all such matters and cases as have been discussed and insisted on before Hetrod How now Orthodox play the lazie Poet Faile flag and faint in the last Act of your first dayes Conference Coyne or at least corrupt Scripture at your pleasure and for your purpose where find you this word in S. Paul For they are the Ministers of God Ad tributa to receive tribute or this word For he is the Minister of God Ad vindictam to take vengeance The sense of the latter words I grant is found in the Apostles Text but whensoever men cite the words of Scripture which indeed are Gods owne words it is but a sacrilegious trick to chop and change the right words especially when the genuine sense proclaimes it selfe to every meane capacity For example in the first sentence For they are the Ministers of God to receive tribute Paul doth not say That Princes are Gods Ministers to receive tribute but rather by all meanes to provide for and to procure the tranquility of the whole body So the words are expounded by Chrysostome and other holy Fathers Ministri Dei sunt in hoc ipsum servientes For they are the Ministers of God to the very same purpose that is to provide for and to procure the tranquillity of Gods people Yea the same Thomas also whom you so highly magnifie and upon whose testimony as you think and suppose you build so sure is of the very same judgement or mind For he reckons and ranks Tributes in the nature of Salaries given to Princes for the laborious taske surmounting the twelve labours of Hercules which they daily undertake for the good and happy government of their Subjects And who doth not know that no salarie can be given to God Princes therefore are not Gods Ministers Ad tributa to receive tribute but rather to bring their subjects unto a statâ— of blessednesse under a good and happy government Againe touching Thomas Aquinas whom you quote for another purpose namely to prove That Ecclesiasticks have been freed from payment of tribute by the most gracious charters and speciall priviledges of Princes it is in good sooth the assertion of Thomas and conformable to Historicall Truth But you impose and father upon Thomas more then he sets downe to wit That Ecclesiasticks are not so endowed and priviledged by Gods Law whereas Thomas affirmâ— the cleane contrary For thus he saith Princes by gracious priviledges have exempted Ecclesiastics from tribute because it stands and agrees well with naturall equity He means that Princes in so doing confirme the law of nature which doubtlesse is the Law of God To be short whereas in your last point you deny the power of the Church to punish by death I know not where you have pulled that wild and sowre grape except it be in the Desarts of certaine Hereticks as the Valdâ—nses Hussites Marsilius of Padua or the like who denyed the Church to have any right unto the power of both swords True it is the Church never strikes with any materiall sword nor doth punish criminall malefactors by death But wherefore what is it because the Church wants power in that case No verily but because it seems neither convenient nor suitable to Ecclesiasticall meeknesse in regard whereof the Church is well contented and apayed to leave all such criminall offenders in the hand of secular justice Vterque igitur Ecclesia c. Both swords therefore the spirituâ—ll and the maâ—eriall of right belong to the Church the materiall to be unsheathed in the Churches defence the spirituall to be drawn by the Churches arme the spirituall to be used by the Priest the materiall by the Soldier but yet when the Priest holds up his finger and the Emperour commands or sends out warrant for the purpose This doctrine of S. Bernard was afterward made authenticall by Pope
Pilate was extended and stretched over Christ it grew out of Pilates ignorance who never knew the super-excellent dignity of Christ and gave sentence against Christ as against a private person of the same Country or Territory whereof then under Cesar he was L. President or chief Governour As if a Priest in these dayes under the name of a Laic and in a Laic habit should be brought by warrant before a Secular Magistrate or Judge he might be judged by the same power whereby he judgeth all other Laics yet doth it not follow that Priests are to come under the judgement of Laics or that Christ was to submit his neck under the yoke of Pilates judgement Orthod You deny that in the present garboyles at which you wrongfully charge me to aime there is any reference to the temperoll Kingdome and yet because you needs will draw me to the scanning of that point I say it is most notorious that in a manner the best Freehold of all temporall Kingdoms is thereby drawn into debatement I let passe your Thesis and will stand upon the Hypothesis Say the Pope now sends forth prohibition to any Christian King or temporall State that he or they shall not meddle with judging Ecclesiasticall persons running into delicts of nature meerly temporall and no way reflecting upon spirituall matters Againe that he or they shall not frame particular Provisoes or Lawes concerning Lands not hitherto acquired or accrued to Ecclesiasticall dominion In quae bonae nondum ipsis est jus quaesitum I now demand By what authority the Pope sends forth any such prohibition I hope not by any authority of Temporall Princes or States for he is not Lord Paramount in Temporalls of their Dominions and Territories By like then he doth it by his authority of universall Pastor Now because that authority of Universall Pastor as we hold he holds as the Vicar of Christ it was not impertinent or superfluous for me to shew but necessary to demonstrate what authority Christ himselfe exercised in temporall causes For Christs authority must be the onely rule of the Popes authority witnesse the words of Christs owne mouth As my Father hath even so doe I send you forth Joan. 20. In which words Christ communicated the authority of jurisdiction to Peter and the rest of his Apostles as by Card. Bellarmine himselfe it is confessed And moreover for so much as the Disciple is not above his Master nor the servant above his Lord Luc. 6. it serveth to draw from those words Paseâ— oves Feed my sheep That as Christ himselfe was no Pastor in Temporals but in Spirituals in like manner the Pope Iure Pontificatus in his right of Popedome hath do authority or dominion in temporall matters and in particular when the lawes temporall Non impedunt cursum ad vitam aeternam are no hinderance in the way to life eternall but establish a civill peace are directed and leveld to the maintaining and preserving of that State of that Liberty of that Dominion wherin particular profession is made of Christian Religion and of Piety as also to the conserving and upholding of publ que justice Now then if I to bring proofe of all this have laboured in the first place to shew what power our Lord Christ himselfe exercised in temporall matters then sure I have spoken home to the point and nothing from the purpose as you cavill Now I will have a bout or a course at your errours not as in a May-game or light skirmish but with Champion-like devoyre 1. You confesse that Christ never exercised any temporall power in this world and it is all that I either have affirmed or can desire to be confessed Neverthelesse you take upon you to teach that I looked not before I leaped because I should have subjoyned that Christ if it had been his good pleasure might by his power have exercised the said temporall power Now as I freely canfesse and acknowledge that in this point you are not our of the right way that if Christ had been so pleased he lawfully might have exercised the said power because he was not only man but also God natures being united in one person and actions according to that rule in philosophy Sunt suppositorum idiomata communicantur according to that rule in divinity neverthelesse whereas you pretend that all I have delivered of this point before is to litle purpose and from the purpose you are to take this for a short but yet for a sufficient and full answer that our present question is de facto a question of the fact non de possibili not a question of what might be or what was possible to be done Forasmuch as the Popes authority being founded upon Christs example the supream Pastor it sufficed to shew what actions Christ himselfe used for the feeding of his little flock and not medle with another new question what actions he was able to do if he had been willing For doubts any man that Christ was able by extraordinary power to worke the conversion of the whole world To sanctify the whole stock and race of mankind in the twinckling of an eye without shedding one drop of his precious blood Is there any thing impossible with God Luc. 1.37 But well assured that arguments drawn from possible to fact are of no force therefore I would not be so idle before to talke of what Christ was able to do in temporall matters but what he hath done in very truth 2. This again you have supponed that our Lord Christ as mortall man had lawfull dominion in temporall matters But Moldonate a learned Jesuite of your own Order in his exposition of these words My Kingdome is not of this world In cap. 27. mat hath learnedly and effectually proved the contrary it may by some perhaps be collected that Christ had the temporall dominion of the world three wayes as he was man 1. By right of inheritance 2. By right of creation 3. By authenticall testimony of Scripture where in many places he is called a King and that as he was man which in effect is thus much That Christ was King of this world either jure naturali by the law of nature that is by the right of inheritance or jure humano by mans law that is by right of election or jure divino by Gods law that is by authority of Scripture But first by right of inheritance I say Christ was no such King for albeit he was descended from the royall stock of Judah yet wee know that Kingdome according to the fore-threatning of Almighty God ended and came to the last period in Jeconiah and was a kind of particular reigning neither was Christ lawfull heire apparant unto any other King Next he was no King by election for it is not known that ever he was chosen King by the People but rather that he gave them the slip and went aside when he knew they intended to make him King It
the honour of Christ as if they were the Kings eldest sonnes that is exempted by the Law of God Who sees not here the great and notable discrepance between the spirit of godly Saints the blanched pretensions of our times But most of all it grieves and afflicts my mind to see and heare how men impose one thing upon the learned Saints and ancient Fathers when they teach another and the cleane contrary Iansenius in this place affirms That Exemption is Privilegium Principum secularium non jure divino the priviledge of Secular Princes and not by Gods Law 9. You run Hetrodox into the same error in citing the words of S. Augustine whose words be these Quod dixit ergo liberi sunt filii in omni regno intelligendum est libeâ—os esse Regis filios non vestigales multò ergo magis liberi esse debent in regno terrenâ— filii illius regis sub quo sunt omnia a regna terrae whereas therefore Christ hath said the children are free it is to be understood that in every Kingdome the Kings own children are no tributaries to pay any Subsidies Rents or Pensions How much more then should the sonnes and children of that King be free in a terrene or earthly Kingdome under whose footstool all the Kingdomes of the earth are couched S. Thomas expounding this passage useth a very direct and perspicuous answer Qui facti sunt Filii Dei per gratiam liberi sunt in quolibet regno secundum mentem à servitute scilicet peccati non autem liberi à servitute corporali In every Kingdome the sonnes of God by grace are free as touching the mind namely from the bondage of sin but not free from service of the body And here three things are to be noted 1. that S. August speaks not of Ecclesiastics as Card. Bellarm. pretends but of all Christians 2. That he speaks not of any liberty or immunity from corporall charges or burthens S. August Tho. in 13. ad Rom but speaks of spirituall liberty and freedome from sinne 3. That from this place Thomas collects wee have no liberty no immunity from God whereby wee are exempted from the dominion of temporall Kings in temporall causes Jansenius brings a better and more literall exposition of S. August words for he saith S. August reasons from the plurall number as Christ himselfe argues from the plurall neverthelesse it is to be understood of the singular number that is of Christ alone As for example suppose a son of the French King should say if in every Kingdome the Kings children be free from tribute much more then in the Kingdome of France ought all the sonnes of the King be free and therefore I ought So saith S. August that Christ spake unto Peter Jn omni regno liberi sunt regis filii c. In every Kingdome the Kings children are no tributaries but free then much more ought all the sonnes and children of that King be free in a terrene Kingdome to whom all the Kingdomes of the earth are in subjection and that is I ought much more to be exempted from paying tribute or Poll-money but lest wee should scandalize these Publicans and toll-gatherers or Collectors c. And this doubtlesse is the true exposition of that place wherein who can be so blind as not to see your ninth most manifest and palpable errour Hetrod No doubt Orthodox if some of your hereticall Sect where here now in place they would bestow upon you a ringing plaudite for acting your part so well in the defence of this dayes Proposition Orthod I confesse Hetrodox that after the way which you call heresie touching this dayes Proposition so worship I the God of my Fathers believing all things concerning this Article which are written in the Law in the Prophets in the Apostles in the holy Fathers writings not blurred nor abused with erroneous expositions and false glosses Errare possum Haereticus esse nolo subject I may be and am to errors as all men are your selfe Hetrodox not excepted with all your deepe Clark-ship but you shall never find me wilfully to persist or stick in any errour as heretics do by the grace of my God as I said before It seemes by your falling to reproachfull termes that you have no more Petarres to blow up the strong gates of my second Proposition or other Engines and Peeces of great Ordnance to batter the Walls and Flankers thereof will your courage and heart serve you to play with your Artillery to morrow morning to give a brave assault upon the Fort of my third Proposition Het In the word of a Generall it shall be done assuring my selfe of honour and victory in the action Orth. The houre Het At Sun-rise Orth. Agreed Sir Het At your service Sir The third daies Conference Orthodox THe houre is jâ—stly kept of both parts Is your gâ—t Ordnaâ—ce placed Then let us heare it â—ay Time you know is precious Hetrodox It shall presently roare and thunder to the raising of the Fort vainly fancied to be impregnable if you dare first give me leavâ— to take some view of your third Proposition Orthod Dare Hetrodox I dare and I doe Here is the true modell or plat-forme to lesse then a haire Take a full view thereof at your good pleasure Hetrod O strange what do â—here set First it purports that our Lord Christ never exercised any authority of a Temporall Prince Orthod I perceive Hetrodox there is neither Beame nor Pin and Web in your eye Indeed it purports no lesse and thereupon it inferres That Christ never left any such authority to St. Peter and his successours whom we Catholiques call his Vicar For the Vicar is never advanced to a higher degree of Dignity and Power then the chiefe and principall Commander himselfe even purchased and possessed before Lib. 1 sent De auct Papae Sotus and Cardinall Bellarmine looking into this matter thorow cleer Christalline Spectacles do much wonder to see the boldnesse of our Canonists who have the face to maintain without any reason or authority of the New-Testament That Papa est Dominus totius orbis directè in temporalibus the Pope in all temporall causes is the direct Lord of the whole World a Doctrine for certain full of scandall and built upon a sandâ— foundation Some Authors besides the Canons which will never hold weight in concurrence with Scripture do avouch Thomas of Aquine De Regim Princ. c. 10. and 19. That Papa est Dominus totius orbis in Temporalibus Spiritualibus the Pope is Lord of the whole World as well in Temporals as in Spirituals But by their good leave Thomas never had neither head or hand in the inditing or penning of that work I appeale herein to Card. Bellar. himselfe De potest Papae Bâ—sides divers others of his most certain conjectures this one is of strong sinewes and thereby carries the greater force He sets downe the Emperour Adulphus
word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but once Hee thereby expounds that one word with two words which without all doubt signifie Pasce Feed Nay the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies to feed and by a Metaphor to rule and governe as in the aforesaid Text as in this Text of St. Johns Revelation All this makes much against you Hetrodox and nothing at all to favour your cause Will you now give mee leave to make good my Exposition of the word Pasce Feed with Authority of the holy Fathers Hetrodox Proceed at your pleasure Orthodox Ter dictum est Pasce c. Three times over the Lord Christ repeated the word Feed to St. Peter And wherefore thrice Forsooth to intimate that all such as are charged with cure of soules are bound to feed their People triplici Pastu with a three-fold Dyet namelie with the Food of Gods heavenly word with Food of good Example in life and with Temporall Aid so far as their meanes are not wanting But alasse this three-fold Feeding is now adaies changed by unconscionable shepheards into a three-fold polling and pelting of their Flocks by pilling and pinching their Subjects with intollerable burthens of exactions without anie due regard at all to the said three-fold Feediâ—g Thus Chrysostome Hom. 87. Perpende verba Pasce agnos meos c. weigh these words of Christ well Feed my Lambes that is Feed my faithfull Flock not thine use them not as thy proper Possession but as mine I therefore asked if thou lovest mee O Peter because I have a purpose to recommend my little Flocke to thy Feeding and to bee kept of thee as mine owne Goods and Cattells that love which thou bearest my selfe in profession I would have thee shew and practise towards my tender Lambes Fat not pamper not up thy selfe like those unfaithfull Shepheards of whom the holy Prophet cryed Ezech. 34. Vae Paestoaibus woe to the Shepheards of Israel that have fed their owne bellies That man that feeds himselfe who gapes after his owne gaine who hunts after his owne glorie who removes every stone for his owne commodity never sâ—eking for the benefit of the Faithfull over whom hee beares rule never aiming at Gods glorie in exercising the state and office of a Ruler Tract 132. in Ioannâ—m Thus far St. Augustine Qui hoc animo pascunt ones c. Such as feed the Flock with a mind to make the sheep their owne and none of Christs doubtlesse beare no love at all to Christ himselfe St. Augustine againe Ibid. Sicut oves meas Pasce non sicut tuas Feed the Flock as my sheepe and not as thine owne Cattle in them seeke my Glory my gaine and neither thine owne gaine or thine owne glorie This Peter himselfe hath also taught Feed the Flock of God which dependeth upon you 1 Petr. 5. caring for it not by constraint but willingly not for filthy lucre but of a ready mind not as if ye were Lords over Gods heritage but that ye may be examples to the Flock These be the exercises of the true Shepheard and thus the words Feed my Lambes are to be understood and not that the Popes Feeding should be a Temporall reigning over all Temporall Kings The holy Fathers you see Hetrodox teach the contray namely that hee ought carefelly to shun and avoid all filthy Lucre Acquists Glory Dominion c. 13. Againe by Quodcunque solveris whatsoever thou Peter shalt loose you understand every thing And by this means the Pope shall have power to untie all knoâ—s to set open all prisons to transferre all Kingdomes to deliver all the slaves in Turkie at his pleasure nay to solve all difficulties in all matters whatsoever What man doth not perceive the fâ—lsity of this Doctrine Our Lord Christ câ—me to deliver Soules from sinne and as the onely Redeemer So teach all Divines The Pope by like shall worke the same effects hee shall cooperate in this great worke of Redemption he shall bind and loose the sinnes of 〈◊〉 you have no reason Hetrodox to cast such colours on your false opinions whereby to make the Pope Lord and Patrone of every thing with a Quodcunque whatsoever For â—â—ere is no such matter as you conceive in your dreames 14. Againe the word Soule is understood and taken sometimes for the whole man and sometimes for the Spirit of man above according to the matter handled Now your Argument is drawne from one place to another For St. Paul speaks of Temporall Dominion The word Omnis anima every Soule in understood of power over mens bodies and in Temporality But because our Lord Christ gave Spirituall Power to Peter the word Animas Soules which is used in the Prayer of the Church doth signifie the Spirit or Soule of Man and not his Body in Spirituality forsooth and not in Temporality 15. Those who wiped the word Animas out of the Breviâ—rie were inspired as you believe by the Holy Spirit of God I never yet read or heard that Gods owne Spirit is the Author of Dissention strife or Discord But well I wot Peace is one of the Gifts or Fruits of the Holy Spirit The makers of the foresaid Prayer aymed at the Exposition of these words Quodcunque ligvaeris whatsoever thou shalt bind by the word Animas and by that other Text Quorum remiseritis peccata whose sinnes ye remit as a just exposition of the word Animas because all sinnes to speake properly are bred and hatcht up in the Soule not in the Bodie And this they did to a speciall end and purpose namely to drive certaine Opinastres from their Tenent or hold That Popes are Domini in Temporalibus Spiritualibus the absolute Lords over mens goods their Bodies and Soules with a power to bind and loose all things as it seemes your selfe Hetrodox is of the same opinion This Exposition they made by the word Animas and by the same exposition they produced an excellent remedy against all Discords which might grow betweene the Pope and other Princes about Meuâ—â— Tuum about Mine Thine whereas on the other side those who last spung'd the Breviarie by taking away the word Animas have ministred new Tinder and Match to kindle the Coales of great contention discord and litigious quarrels Besides it is not unknowne to the World that in the Bookes of the Councels of the Canons and of other Doctors yea downe so low as to the very Breviaries and Missals many matters recorded and registred in favour of Layick Princes have beene blotted and still are scraped out of the ancient Rolls and all to make experiment if after long travaile and sore labour that huge mountaine of opinion de illimitatâ Potestate Pontificis in Temporalibus touching the unboundable power of the Pope in Temporals might be brought forth reared up and established in the Church of God Conferre the Bookes printed in 30. and 50. with Bookes printed in these daies as well the Bookes of
Gods Law as in like manner the Law Civill is neverthelesse it is not Divine but only Nationall and Humane Law neither hath any man ever thought it was Divine 2. Every thing done by some Nations cannot be called the Law of Nations and consequently Divine For it is a common and ordinary Custome of Nations to seeke and to exercise Revenge and yet Revenge hath no ground no warrant from Gods Law nay it is directly prohibited by our Lord Jesus Christ himselfe Audistis quia dictum c. you have heard how it hath been said to them of old Mat. 5. thou shalt hate thine enemy but I say unto you love your Enemies 3. Albeit some Princes have granted such Immunity or Priviledge in some particular case as in the exempting of Priests from Tributes neverthelesse the Exemption in all cases is not in force by Law of Nations because most Nations neither have practised nor do this day exercise any such course of Benignity For example In the Law of Nature all the First borne according to the common opinion were Priests shall it hereupon be concluded that all the First-borne in the world were exempt at least from Tribute The Lord Cardinals Argument proves not a haires bredth more which to me seems an answer little beseeming a man of his Lordships incomparable learning 4. If his Lordships Argument had any force at all to prove that Exemption is by the Law of Nations it should only work this conclusion that Princes ought to exempt Priests from Tribute But our question turnes not upon that hindge No the main question consists in this point Whether Ecclesiastics are exempt in all Temporall matters and causes without speciall and gracious priviledge of their Princes 5. That is called Jus Gentium the Law of Nations which ever was from the beginning of the world unchangeable and shall so continue unto the worlds end as that of just Dominion and Servitude That of Marriage for the perpetuall preservation of man-kind That which all Nations indifferently have observed and still observe to this day Turks Pagans Christians Jewes c. But for Christian Priests to be exempted it cannot stand by the Law of Nations because they were instituted by Christ and besides All Nations have not exempted their Priests 6. To conclude Whereas Christ our Lord hath so deepely charged all Christians to practise Humility and Subjection whereas also St. Paul on his part hath absolutely commanded every Soule to be subject unto the higher Powers though Exemption had been by the Law of Nations that is observed of all Nations Wherefore might it not be abrogated or at least derogated by Divine Law Positive As Christ was able to repeale and disanull that Custome of Nations concerning the revenge of Enemies with a new Law Hetrodox If you have now sufficiently fore-layd all your grounds for this present matter it is time that you apply your selfe to your best Defence and to trace out my particular Errours Orthodox Well remembred you shall see mee trace them out one by one in my defence as men use to trace Hares in a Snow Two things I have affirmed before the one that Ecclesiastics and their Possessions or Goods are not exempted from Secular power meaning as hath been said in such Cases and Causes unto which the said Secular power doth properly extend for so much the word Exemption signifies The other that Ecclesiastics enjoy no such Exemption by the Law of God but by mans Law without growing or descending to any particular whether the said mans Law be the Law of Nations or the Civill or the Canon Law Howbeit my opinion is the same that Medina holds and other Authors alledged for this purpose That Exemption goes by Priviledge of Princes Now to your Errours in your late and last opposition which I find to be Eight 1. The sacred Councell of Trent you say hath determined that immunity of Clerics is by Divine Law Sess 25. cap. 20. But in the said Councell and Session which your selfe have cited I can read no such Determination The Councell there treats onely in generall of Ecclesiastick Immunity and Liberty adding this Adjunct or Epithet Divinâ ordinatione constitutam appointed by Gods Ordinance It doth not say whosoever shall affirme that such Immunity in Temporals is not by Gods Law let him be Anathema let him be accursed Nor doth it determine it is by Gods Law but speakes in a generality including that Immunity or Exemption which is in Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall causes And how those words Appointed by Gods Ordinance are to be taken or understood I appeale to the Glosse unto which the Doctors are alwaies referred whensoever Exemption in Temporals is avouched to be appointed by Gods Ordinance or by the Law of God For the Glosse it selfe saith Est de Jure Divino id est deducitur ab exemplo c. It is by Gods Law What is that It is drawne from the example of the Patriarch Joseph and Artaxerxes the Persian King Where the Glosse doth not meane it is from Gods Law as by any way of Precept but rather that by Princes it is granted by reason and occasion of those two Examples read in holy Scripture which is Gods Law But I deny not Hetrodox that by these Examples it is decent for Princes to grant by Patent or or Charter such Exemption from Tributes or that Princes having once granted the same by the said Examples for the Tributes in particular whereof we now intreat and of none other Subject should revoke repeale and nullifie the said Grant of Exemption Extra casum necessitatis except in cases of necessity I onely maintaine there is no precâ—pt neither in Scripture nor in the Divine Law of Nâ—ture Tâ—â—t either the persons of Cleries or their Goodâ— Possessi ns as Free-hold can be exempted except onely the Prince be pleased out of his Royall Grace and Prerogative to seale such priviledge of Exemption Then Sir with your favour the Councell having determined no more then is by the foresaid Canon cited must have and carry this construction That first of all the Councell grounds no Determination Secondly That it provides for Exemption in Spirituall Causes Thirdly that in case it speakes of Exemption in Temporall it speakes onely per quandam decentiam probabilitatem similitudinem by way of Decencie Probability and Similitude as the Glosse and other Doctors avouch whom I neither dare nor purpose to contradict For I speake of Gods Law not by way of Similitude but in propriety of termes This Hetrodox is the reason wherefore neither Medina nor Iansenius nor Conarruuias and others who printed their workes and writings after the Councell of Trent never said they held any opinion against the Councell and yet are directly of my opinion Sess 25. Moreover the said Session was dispatcht in Post-hast and Precipice if I may take up the Diaries own word when the French Prelates were departed from the Councell and the Spanish for their part