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
Manâ—â—cript Lectures and in his first Books the words of Sotus are both found and read If now being of another mind he be not pleased to acknowledge and grant us the same and would have us to belâ—eve that he hath not written what I now avouch and averre the matter is not of any great consequence In his Books we see infinite alterations choppings and changings every day Sotus by him cited hath left it upon Record and that serves my turne And howsoever it imports but little to the principall question whether he will have it so uttered by the tongue and penne of Sotus or no that puts me to no manner of trouble so long as I finde it extant in the writing of Sotus himselfe whose Doctrine whose phrase nay whose verie words the learned take notice to be in great request with his Lordship and not a little pleasing to his appetite 6. You practise no small subteltie of refined wit when you shew that you are so unwilling to have that opinion which is taught by many Canonists called an opinion of the Canonists where is in the same companie a Divine the same opinion and that an opinion of the same may not be called an opinion of Divines when one Canonist is of their side and holds the same Tenet But every Novice in Theologie knowes that Appellatio Donominatio fit a majori parte things have their Appellaâ—ion and Denomination from the greater part yea Bellarmine himselfe works upon this distinction and the title of the question using this Argument Probatur opinio Theologorum ergo contraria opinio est Canonistarum the opinion of the Divines is approved and therefore the contrarie opinion is the Canonists amongst whom albeit in these last impressions he cites Navarrus a Canonist and not a Divine neverthelesse for the reason before alledged it is of no import The opinion of those who affirme the Pope to be Lord in Temporals is called the opinion of Canonists because it is not founded upon any Authoâ—iâ—ie of Scripture but only upon certaine Canons or Lawes Registred in the Decrees and Decretals and the contrarie opinion is that of the Divines because it is built upon Gods Word in the holie Scriptures 7. The Supreame Power Temporall you say is by all Authors except Heretikes granted to the Pope If that be so then doubtlesse Navarrus take him for one amongst many other is a notorious Heretique in this formall conclusion In cap. Novit Quare dicendum est Papam nullam habere potestatem laicam neque supremam neque mediam neque infimam The Pope therefore stands in no degree at all of Laiorck Temporall power neither in the highest nor in the middle nor in the lowest Region of Temporall power For my part I call that opinion Heresie and so I compt it which in explicite and implicite sense fights against holy Scripture and such is the opinion of all those who affirme the Pope to have Supreame Temporall Authority Our Lord Christ saith Mat. 16. Tibi dabo claves Regni coelorum I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven and the Pope saith Regni terrarum of all Earthlie Kingdomes Christ saith Mat. 20. Mark 10. Luke 22. Ioan. 19. Ioan. 20. Reges Gentium dominantur eorum vos autem non sic the Kings of the Earth beare rule over them but so shall not yee and the Pope saith vos autem sic and so shall ye Christ saith my Kingdome is of this World and the Pope saith nay my Kingdome is of this World and over the whole World Christ saith as my Father hath sent me so doe I send you my Disciples and the Pope saith not as the Father hath sent me so doe I send you There be two Supream Powers two Heads of all Christians Professors of Christian Religion Terrena potestas caput Regem Spiritualis potestas habet Summum Pontificem Hug. de Sanct. vict l. 2. de Sacr. p. 2. c. 4. the King is the head of all Earthlie and Temporall power the Pope of all Spirituall power Pope Gelasius in an Epistle to the Emperour Anastasius Duo sunt Imperator Auguste quibus principaliter mundus hic regitur Auctoritas Sacra Pontificum Regalis Potestas This World Decr. dist 96. Caudâ—o sunt most noble Emperour is chiefly governed by two Supreame Powers the Sacred Authoritie of Popes and the Temporall Authoritie of Kings Innocentius III. held this Article for so certaine and indubitable that he made no scruple to affirme Cap. Novit Regem in Temporalibus neminem Superiorem recognoscere that in Temporall causes the Kings of the Earth doe acknowledge and take no mortall creature to have anie Superioritie of Power or any right any reason to crowe over their Crownes How then can there be anie truth in the L. Cardinals affirmative Pontificem recognoscit the King doth acknowledge the Pope for that is to say the Pope is dignified and endowed with Supreame Temporall power with which words I must confesse that I am plunged in a deepe pit of astonishment For those Authors who grant an indirect Authoritie to the Pope break not forth into this unreasonable and exorbitant excesse but use a certaine mitigation of the word indirectlie as that it is Spirituall non per se sed per accidens not in it selfe but by occasion and accessarilie to write in case of necessitie and most of all with consent of the parties interested But for any to affirme the holie Fathers power to be Supreame and Temporall fateor scandalum est mihi to me I must confesse it is a scandall or stumbling block and stone of offence so long as not onely the true doctrine but also the Doctrine of the Lord Cardinall Bellarmine can hold up the head and stand in full force l. 5. de Rom. pont c. 3. and 4. 8. I have not charged the Lord Cardinall to hold the foresaid Booke was never of St. Thomas his penning I have onely alledged that his Lordship hath made so good and so cleare demonstration of that point that never yet anie answer durst peepe abroad to contradâ—ct his Lordships demonstration As for your subterfuge that the said Historie was perhaps afterward primed or popt into the foresa d Booke that carrieâ— no shew of proâ—abilitie seeing you produce not anie one conjâ—cture not any one reason to fortifie the same For to what purpose had any man a mind to patch up the said Historie in so good so faire a Wâ—b as the foresaid Booke to what end how long time since He that dares take upon him to affirme these things shall make the credit of all Histories to shrinke and shake The Lord Cardinall Baronius flies to the same Answers as to his best refuge When he is put hard to his trumpes and shifts how to untie the knot of an Argument drawne from Historicall Authoritie straitwaies he thinkes to take up mens lips and to dazzle their eye-sight with such and such words are
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
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
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
for the next successour to Rodulphus in the year Mccxcii and the Emperour Albertus for the next successour to Adulphus in the year Mccxcix whereas St. Thomas walked the way of all flesh in the yeare Mcclxxiv Moreover they cite another text of St. lib. 2. Senten Dist 44. Thomas Esse in summo Pontifice apicem utriusque potestâ—tis Temporalis Spiritualis That our holy Father the Pope is top and top-gallant both of Temporall power and Spirituall power But let St. Thomas his text be viewed with a cleare eye and it will soone be perceived that he was of a contrary opinion For after he had taught that in Temporall matters we are bound to obey the Temporall Prince rather then the Spirituall and in causes meerly Spirituall the Spirituall rather then the Temporall at last he concludes That were he not Pope who in the P ovinces of his command is armed with the double Sword of both Jurisdictions he Subjects are bound to honour him with due obedience equally both in the one and in the other kind Hetrod Is this your strong Fort Orthodox Is it no better man'd Hath it no stronger Barricadoes Then heare n t yet my Basilisco or double Canons but my Demi-Canons and Culvering play Your third Proposition is like the second neither barâ—ell better herring It neither sorts nor suits with your principall scope it sâ—rves only to bewray the spitefull humour and little sincerity in alledging of the Authors by your selfe alledgâ—d Fiâ—st It jarres with your Scope and purpose For your whole intention tends to set up a Flag or Banner of Defiance against our Holy Fathers sentences of Excommunications and Interdicts thundered against Christian Princes and States in cases of contumacie as one that charges the said sentences and censures with Invaliditie and meer Nullâ—tie To which purpose you might as well affirme that our Holy Father the Pope is not L. Temporall of the World as if you should affirme the Frâ—nch King cannot condemne and send any man to the Gallies because the French King is no Bishop For to the thundering of a sentence Excommunicatorie or of an Interdict no Regall or Temporall Authority but only Papall and Spirituall Power is required as the Spirituall Power is not required for the sending of a man to Chaynes and Oares in the Gallies because the Temporall hath sufficient Autho ity for that Judgement As for your little Sinceritie in citing of Authors let Sotus let Bellarmine be perused with indifferencie of Judgement and and it will soone be found That neither the one nor the other doth use any such termes of immodesty as you have layed to their charge namely to affirme they wonder at our Canonists who had such brasen faces to affirme without any reason or without any Authoritie of the New Testament that Popes are direct Lords of all the World in Temporals a Doctrine in truth full of scandall and built on the Sands of the Sea-shore That wonder which is come out of your owne Forge will never be found in the writings of Sotus and Bellarmine much lesse that either they or we have termed the Doctâ—ine of Canonists a scandalous doctrine and not grounded upon any reason We have rather affirmed it is not absolutely the Doctrine of Canonists because we are not ignorant how farre the Canonists dissent one from another in their opinions Sotus alleadgeth for himselfe Iohannes Andreas and Bellarmine produceth for his opinion the Card. de Turrecremata and Navarras Cap. Novit de Judicii He might likewise have alledged Pope Innocentius the IV. and the Glosse in the same place where the distinction of Directè indirectè is apertly couched The difference between these Authors stands in giving or taking Supream Power from the Pope in Temporall causes For so much is granted of all Writers except Heretikes but rather it consists in the Mannor For by some Authors it is resolved that Popes are armed with Supreame power in Temporals in like manner as all secular Princes are Other Authors contend that Papall power properly and in it selfe is meerly Spirituall but in ordine ad Spiritualia in a certaine order and reflâ—x to Spirituall matters it may distraine and seize with all full and absolute authority upon things Temporall lib. 3. c. 11. 13. So St. Thomas in that small treatise de Regim Principum divinelie makes demonstration at least if that little worke was of his penning For Bellarmine denies not in any absolute straine the said little worke to be the Artifice of St. Thomas but only reports that some not without cause have drawne the matter into doubt because in that petit volume there is record of an Historie that succeeded after St. Thomas death And Bellarmine himsâ—lfe affirmes it is no false Latine to conjecture the said Hâ—storie was nimbly conveyed after the death of Thomas into the Libret by some other And yet not building upon so weake an Answer that the said Booke was none of those works which were framed in St. Thomas his shop he subjoynes another more solid and much better soldered answer namely to cleare and explaine one sentence of the said Booke by other sentences thereof But how can your great and gâ—osse â—emeâ—itiâ— be suffeerd in speaking to harshly of the holy Canons I know these are your own wordâ— that some allâ—dge the Canons which as humane Lawes in concurrence or paragon of Gods Word come short in makiâ—g the weight of â—quaâ—l Authoritie They cite as you also affiâ—me St. Thomas c. O how great disparagement nay how great despight is herein uttered against our sacred Canon was ever the like heard from the mouth of any Catholique You seem to take no care at all whether your Doctrine be confirmable or contrary to the sacred Canons and not so much as vouchsafe to answer the opponent by whom they are alledged and propounded as if they were of no weight authoritie at all when they come to be tryed by the common standard and beame of Gods Word For you terme them absolutely humane Lawes as if they had not beene fâ—amed and indited by the assistance of the Holy Spirit wherein you faâ—l and fall from the accustomed phrases of the Hâ—l Fathers by whom the Canons are continually stiled Sacred Holy and inspiâ—ed of God Will you be pleased to heaâ—e what Lâ—o saith writing to Anatâ—lius Nimis haec imorohâ— â—imis prava suat quae Sacratâ—ssimis Canonibus inveniun uâ— esse contraria O in how high a degree of p avity and wickedn sse is that Doctrine rankt which teacheth positions adverse and contrary to the most Sacred Canons Lastly whereas you contend that sacâ—ed Canons in concuâ—rence with Gods Lawes come so short of matching them in equall ballance of Authoritie you plainly shew that Canons in this Argument are contrarie to Gods Word and so to be reputed of no reckoning or accompt Aâ—d in so doing what doe you else but reprove not onely the first Authors of the Sacred Canons for
VII for the sins of King Boneslaus interdicted the whole Kingdome of Polonia excommunicated the King and deprived him of the Regall Title The King persisted indurate and impenitent God punished the King first by making him underprised or despised by his owne Subjects and abhorred by strangers This potion wrought not upon the King God sent a second scourge by raising Rebellion in some part of the Kingdome with great dissentions and seditions in the rest This Medicine also tooke no effect God sent a third scourge made the King runne as it were out of his wits wander thorow Woods and wild Forrests of Chase with his pack or kernell of hounds at his heeles fall downe suddenly dead and suddenly to be devoured by his owne dogs Such was the horrible end of this King for despising the Excommunication and Interdict of Christs Vicar though the King never had the heart never presumed to command the Interdict should not be observed by his people or Subjects The Emperour Ludovicus Bavarus made the same end He despised the Censures of Pope John XXII and after that of Pope Benedict XII His own horse upon a time fell upon his body by mishap and at unawares and so he suddenly dyed without anie time to be absolved of his sins and from the said Censures The same God is now that was then and of the same Omnipotencie which then he had So that if Almightie God hath so severely and rigorouslie punished those who forced not others to despise the Discipline and Censures of the Church but onely have themselves in their owne persons despised the power and Authoritie of the Keyes What marvaile if in these times present he shall punish those who not onely themselves despise the said Censures but likewise by threatning of death compell and inforce their Subjects to despise the same Let us therefore be obedient to the voice of the Holie Ghost in the Psalmes Psal Ps Ps To day if ye will heare his voice harden not your hearts and elsewhere Touch not mine Annointed and yet elsewhere Be wise now therefore ye Kings be lâ—â—â—ed ye Judges of the Earth lay fast hold on Instruction least he be angry and ye perish in the way Orthodox There speakes not an Angell but indeed the Spirit of God If you Hetrodox will lay hold on this Instruction you should be sure not to perish in the way But my Proposition you say is false because it is drawne out of false Principles which you have battered with your Pieces downe to the ground No such matter Sir they stand as firme and stedfast as ever they did There is no necessitie to make repetition of my former Defence and therefore I will hasten to make Demonstration of your Errours 1. You confound two severall Actions of great Disparitie the Action of a Superiour Judge who in the Tribunall Seate of Justice doth judge the Sentence of another Judge inferiour and subject unto himselfe to be void and of none effect and the action of a private person who thinkes and holds the same sentence of the same Judge to be of no validitie because he judges it such by certaine evidence and assurance concerning the Nullitie thereof The first Juridical Action cannot be exercised but by one to whom the foresaid Authoritie and Superioritie doth properlie belong the other Action may be exercised by anie one of mean and common judgement Now Sir the Prince of Venice doth judge esteeme and hold the Censures of his Holinesse to be forcelesse and fectlesse not as Judges Superior to the Pope in Causes of that Nature but as those to whom it is lawfull and permitted by the cleere and manifest evidence of the Fact it selfe to hold and esteeme them for no better This being lawfull for all private persons must needs be much more lawfull in Princes for the conservation of Libertie Peace and Religion in their severall States 2. Whether a Sentence be unjust and in state of meere Nullitie or no credit you say should not be given to the Delinquent or Malefactor but rather to the Judge I have not affirmed that either the one or the other should be credited For both may be interessed and blinded with passion But I onely affirme That he should be credited who discovers and manifests the truth of his Assertions by certaine and evident reasons And in so doing he doth not sin or offend because he doth not anie thing unlawfull or unpermitted Neither can anie power whatsoever controule or curbe his judgement and restraine his free opinion from affirming a thing to be certaine whensoever by the certainty and evidence of strong reasons he is induced to affirme and hold the said opinion nor the judgement or free opinion of those to whom the said certainty and evidence is apparent from affirming and holding the same opinion I say moreover that howsoever those upon whom any unjust Sentence is executed with force and violence cannot shun or avoid the execution thereof neverthelesse they may in publike declare their griefe and sorrow for such injustice and yet shall remaine quit from anie merit of blame No more are those to be blamed who lay open to the whole world the Nullity and Injustice of a Censure published when it is lawfull for them not onelie to hold and affirme the said Censure to be invalid and unjust by the cleer evidence of the Fact but also to refraine from the observation of the said Censure 3. You presume to say the Religious of Venice by departing out of the City and abandoning the same have not given any scandall to the Church or State or other private persons you shall not now heare anything of mine own invention Head or Braine but onely whaâ— with mine Eares I have heard the scandalized people not mutter and mumble betweene the teeth but manifest in bread termes of Speech The people say that some few Religions in the City should not preferre and prize their owne judgement above or before the Cathedrall Church the observance whereof was given to the Religious by the sacred Canons for a Rule of observance in the matter of Censures and should not by their Example condemne others no lesse learned and Religious then they presumed or perswaded themselves to be Secondly that little handfull of Religious forsooke the City as men ambitiously gasping after Chapters and Bishopricks to gaine and purchase grace at his Holinesse hands and not as men thinking and in truth perswaded the cause to be just on the Popes part Thirdly that whereas the Religious had been alwaies before defended protected and succoured in all their necessities by the Prince they did ill to declare themselves wanting in Loyaltie and Fidelitie to the Prince in a Temporall cause and wherein the Prince himselfe wanted neither good â—or important Reasons of State Fourthly their profession was nothing agreeable or correspondent to their Fact For they made profession to go into the most remote Regions and Countries amongst the Indians and Heretiques partly Ethmics
himselfe that can derogate or diminish retard or impaire the least portion of Papall power The reason because Papall power proceeding immediately from God is totally and universally free from Subjection to the will of creatures In secular Principalities experience teacheth us many times the contrary events the point of their power is now and then rebated by rebellious insurrections of their own Subjects or by cunning practices and hostile acts of some more potent Princes yea sometimes Monarchicall Principalityes are changed into free States and on the contrary free States into Monarchies because their power hath no immediate derivation from God but mediate from the consent and assent of men To be short If Secular Princes be not gifted with Power and Authority from God Immediately over the persons of pure Laics how much lesse are they armed with power over Ecclesiastick Estate exempted from the said power by the Law of God and Man whereof I hope to make before our parting evident demonstration Your Proposition therefore might have been better couched and put downe in these termes Secular Princes are not girded with any Sword of power immediately from God over their Laic Subjects but onely by meanes of some lawfull Title from their people and against Clerics or Ecclesiastics within their Dominions they have not so much as a short dagger or a small bodkin of Power and Authority to draw forth neither from God nor Man Orthod With great authority and confidence Hetrod you have taken the paines to utter and say just nothing The word Immediately against which you take so great a stitch is used by Navarrus a most grounded and Catholic Doctor In the Definition of Secular Power comparing the same with Ecclesiastic as you have now done he is positive in these words Cap. Novit de Iudi. Notab 3. Potestas Laica praedicta c. The said Secular power comes immediately from God for this reason because men are furnished with Naturall Reason engrafted by God himselfe and this Natural Reason concludes Power to be due and requisite over man propter bonum regimen eorum as tending and availing to their better more formall and more orderly Government Navarrus for this opinion or verdict rather citeth and produceth Durandus Iohan. Parisiens Almanius Gerson with some other Catholic Authors and then drawes the whole to this faire head As the Precept against Murther is by the Law of Nature Immediately from God so the Authority of Secular Princes against all Delinquents to inflict upon them capitall penalties according to the merit of their cause for the tranquillity and better Politie of the State or Common-wealth is immediately from God alone True it is that some before others are mounted to the Chaire of Soveraigne State as it were upon the backs and shoulders of men I meane by humane meanes as either by Inheritance by Election by Donation or by the Law and Right of Armes as I have laid it downe for an over-ruled Case and Principle in Common-Law And now I avow punctually for the purpose The very same principle can be no crosse or over-thwart-barre to the abatement of any honour in the armes of a secular Prince his power or to hinder his power from being the immediate gift of God neither can it be any forcible instrument or Engine to make the said power the immediate act or worke of man Rom. 13. First not of men as you pretend because all power is of God as Sâ— Paul affirmes in expresse words But authority of Princes is a power item no mortall creature I speak not now of supream Princes hath power to bind the conscience of any other unto the precise keeping of his commands whereas the supream secular Prince is invested with power to bind the consciences of all his own Subjects to the due obedience of his Decrees Lawes Acts or Statutes The secular Prince therefore is not armed with authority by mortall men but by the immortall and eternall God himselfe St. Paul frames the same argument and reason Whosoever resists the Power resists the Apostle sayth not mans Ordinance the Ordinance of God Rom. 13. and they that resist shall receive to themselves judgement Now then to take you up at your own weapon As Papall power is immediately from God saith Hetrodox howsoever the Popes election is acted by the suffrages and votes of Cardinals who are but men so howsoever the meanes or manner whereby the Prince is assumed or exalted to his throne be humane or of men his power also if the Popes be so or any such at all must needs be of God An example in Philosophy will make this point cleare The reasonable soule is not infused or inspired of God into mans body before the same body be fitted and accommodated with all the organs or instruments and with all naturall dispositions of nec ssity required to make the body a fit receptacle for the soule Now all these abilities and meanes are termed by Philosophers Conditio sine quâ non the condition without which the body at no hand can be framed or built for a convenient House Tent or Tabernacle for the immortall soule This notwithstanding shall any mans boldnesse abuse his reason so farre as to make him affirme the reasonable soule is not created and infuâ—ed in mans Body immediately of God but mediantibus dispositionibus by meanes of the corporall dispositions first fitted and prepared in the body Farre be it from any Christian tongue to utter so great blasphemy In like manner howsoever the meanes by which a Prince is mounted to his throne are but humane or of men and that is the condition without which the Prince is not installed in his throne yet his power to rule and govern the Stern of State is immediately of God But I must here take you Hetrodox at your word as one convicted by the power of truth it selfe and acknowledge so that Habemus confitentem reum the word immediately may be taken as you contend in two severall senses and this for the first Princes have immediate power from God to command their subjects that is to say the precept or law that bindes to the obedience of Princes our lawful Superiors and Lords is immediately from God and this I grant is true now albeit you here seek to confound the word Power and the word Command yet according to your own sence and acceptation of the words they both do signifie the same thing to all intents and purposes And in very deed the word Power would be better expressed by the word authority or jurisdiction For so the originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which directly signifies authority to command would be translated and turned for the avoyding of equivocation Briefly The doctrine by me propounded in these two words immediately and without exception is not only Catholique and sound but likewise justified by verdict of your own mouth And howsoever you pretend to what purpose I cannot see to marke this doctrine with a
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
authority sought indeed to heare the causes of Ecclesiastics and thereby intruded himselfe to cut as it were their spreading Combes for that reason Menua in all submissive humility petitioned Iustinian to leave the cognisance at least of civill causes unto the Bishop to which Petition the Emperour was pleased to give both gracious care and princely grant How true it is that Iustinian usurped excessive authority it is evident by his practise for he both shufled and cut the cards he intruded himselfe to bridle the Clergy to tye and hold them short unto the stake by his Lawes as well in spirituals as temporals who so lists to read the titles De sanctit Episcop de sacro sanct Ecclesiis may clearely see the same with halfe an eye but more pregnant and positive for the purpose is the Nomocanon of Photius Howbeit you know Orthodox it is the doctrine of all Divines and Canonists yea of Couaruvias himselfe too that by Gods own word the judgement of spirituall causes belongs only to Bishops and to the highest Bishop as to the supreame Judge whereupon both before Iustinian and after the sacred Councels have debarred and restrained the clergy by expresse and peremptory inhibition from procuring any tryals before secular Judges as in the councell of Toledo besides divers other Councels it is more then manifest Perhaps Tholouse in France Can. 13. And that all the world may see the foundation which you have laid I mean that novell-constitution 83. of Iustinian to be but a rotten foundation it is much considerable that Iustinian himselfe in the very same constitution hath decreed it shall not be lawfull for the secular Judge to punish an ecclesiasticall person except first he be deprived by his own Ordinary of his Clericall dignity and thereby brought under the whip or lash of the common lawes Now if ecclesiastics be not found within the compasse and power of the common lawes before they be degraded by the Bâ—shop how shall they be judged and sentenced by any secular power so long as they are still invested with clericall dignity and holy Orders In the same constitution it is professed by the said Emperour that his lawes imperiall thinke not scorn to follow and come after the sacred Canons whereas then by the said Canons it is well and wisely decreed provided and ordered that Ecclesiasticks are to be judged by their own superiors how can the said constitution stand in force and be observed which determines the cleane contrary And now to draw the Arrow up close to the very point of the head the inconvenience of this decree made by the Emperour Iustinian seemed to the judgement of Frederick the second to be of so dangerous a straine and consequence that he repealed the foresaid law of Justinian with all other the like lawes repugnant unto the liberty of the Church for it is found in Fredericks first constitution thus recorded Sanâ— infideliam quorundam c. the pravity of certain miscreant and unjust Princes hath so disborded and over-flown the Banks that now contrary to the discipline of the holy Apostles and to the name of sacred Canons they make no bones to contrive new Statutes and to frame new lawes against Church-men and Church-liberty A little after Statuimus ut nullus c. Wee decree that none shall presume to sue any ecclesiasticall person before a secular Judge in any criminall or civill cause contrary to the imperiall constitutions and canonicall decrees and in case any suite shall be otherwise commenced or entered wee decree the plaintiffe to lose his cause and to take no benefit of the Judges order or sentence as also the Judge himselfe to be put out of the commission for Judicature Likewise the Emperour Basilius long before Frederick repealed a law made by the Emperour Nicephorus against ecclesiastics liberty with asseveration that infinite calamities like epidemicall diseases or publique ulcers and botches had runne over and infected the whole body of State and common wealth with poyson of the said pestiferous and unwholsome lawes let Balsamon upon the Nomocanon of Photius be consulted and viewed where he expounds the first Canon of the first and second Councels celebrated at Constantinople and thus much touching the authority of your great Iustinian Orthod I am not ignorant Hetrodox in whose goodly Vivaries or fresh Ponds you have taken so great paines to fish for this dish of dainty Mullets as you suppose but saving his savour with whose heifers you have thus plowed up the goodly field of the Emperour Iustinians 38. Novel the said Novell comprehends three distinct parts the first is that upon petition of Menua this noble Emperour sealed a patent and passed a most gratious priviledge for the Cleargy of this faire tenure and tenour that in matter of pecuniary causes called after the common stile civill causes Church-men might be tryed and judged by their Prelates Non ex scripto without some formall drawing of Bils Bookes or pleas except both parties agreed to have some necessary essentiall and materiall points of the case formally drawn couched and put down in writing and in case the knot or difficulty of the matter would not beare and suffer such summary decision then it should be free and lawfull for the complainants to take the benefit of civill Courts and to commence their suites before the ordinary secular Judges The Emperours own words lye penned thus Petiâ—i sumus c. Menua beloved of God Arch-bishop of this most flourishing City and universall patriarch by humble Petition hath moved our imperiall highnesse to grant unto the most reverend Cleargy this gracious priviledge that if any shall have just and lawfull occasion to sue Churchmen in a pecuniary cause he shall first repaire unto the Archbishop beloved of God as unto his Diocesan within whose jurisdiction he then liveth and inhabiteth and shall require the Archbishop to take information of the cause whereby he may merit his judgement Ex non scripto by summary proceeding without drawing of Bookes or breviats And in case the Archbishop shall undertake to proceed in such forme the Cleric shall not be molested nor drawn into any Court of civill Audience nor driven to intermit the exercises of his holy Function but rather without damages the cause it selfe shall be throughly canvased and sifted Ex non scripto Howbeit withall the said cause may be couâ—hed in written forme if the parties be willing and condescend both alike to require that course and to relinquish the other but in case for the quality of the cause or for some other emergent difficulty the Bishop beloved of God shall not be able by any meanes possible to make a full and finall end of the matter then shall it be lawfull to bring the said cause before civill Judges and Magistrates and all priviledges granted to the right reverend Churchmen preserved it shall be lawfull to implead to take examinations to make a finall end of the suite and contention in the
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
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
himselfe to follow another tract and better path Now in this large discourse diverse things occurre and concurre worthy of observation in favour of the point which I here maintaine The first by name that Emanuel is honourably commended and highly praised by Nicetas for a most noble and pious Prince The next is that for the reformation of monasticall discipline he revoked the repealed and annulled Act or law of Nicephorus which was not done out of passion or out of any envious or venemous humour against the Church but only out of a religious disposition to worke and effect a timely reformation of the Church The third is that Emanuel renewed the law of Nicephorus annulled by Basilius because Nicephorus was directed guided by most prudent consideration to enact and establish the same Law which because Emanuel did set on the own first feet again therefore Nicetas gives him the honourable adjunct and stile of Cordatus Imperator an Emperour of an upright right couragious and right sincere heart The fourth is that never any man opened his mouth to complaine or to declare himselfe grieved-or offended against Emanuel for the re-establishment of the said law The last is that as well by this Act of Emanuel as by the Acts of Nicephorus Basilius and other christian Princes it is lawfull and free for christian Princes as it is now practised in act at pleasure to establish and re-establish the like lawes and that immunities whether passant or dormant do grow and flow Ex privilegio principum from the sweet spring of Princely priviledges I passe over diverse matters Hetrodox as namely that you pick out of Authors and scrape any thing together which may but seem to make for your purpose and omit or leave out all that makes against your cause as also that you build and worke upon texts of no weight or importance upon priviledges cassed and annulled in like manner that you disclaime and reject authorities of the most noble and christian Emperours their most holy Lawes and priviledges never yet annulled neither by custome nor by any superior power Hetrod I feare Orthodox you will breake your wind or at least runne your selfe out of breath in this argument if you may be suffered to have your own swinge I will therefore take down and coole the heate of your discourse as it were with a sprinkling or two of holy water Answer but one example and you shall give me more then meane satisfaction when certain Processes were preferred and presented on a time to Constantine the Great against sundry ecclesiasticall persons what was his gracious and Princely response Vos à nemine c. No mortall man hath power to judge you of the Church but you are to be judged by God alone Orthod What aime you to inferre upon this one instance Hetrod That Clerics or Churchmen are not subject unto secular Princes Orthod You shoot both too farre short and too farre wide of your marke That Princely response was only a kind of excesse wherein the noble Emperour endeavoured to demonstrate an over-weight of his exceeding benignity and piety towards the Church the gracious eye of his internall judgment lookt another way then you seeke to inferre For if that response had been true and according to his inward perswasion or beliefe thereof then Clerics without all question might not be judged by their own Prelates For Constantine there saith Ad Dei judicium reservamini you Churchmen are exempted by the benefit of reservation to be judged by God alone which doubtlesse is a blurre to your learning and a grosse Non sequitur to inferre Hetrod Beleeve me Orthodox you labour to crown the great Emperour Constantine with garlands of homely praises and perfumes when to make him renowned and glorious for his benignity and piety you paint him forth as a masqued and cunning lyar But Sir to the end you may plainly see in what heighth and elevation of the Pole Hist Eccl. lib. 10. c. 2. the words of Constantine deserve to be placed have patience whiles I turne word for word what Ruffinus hath recorded Constantine said to the Bishops Almighty God hath given you the Order of Priesthood with power to judge us Princes wee therefore of right are to be judged of you Priests and you may not here below be judged of men stay then wait and expect in suites commenced by men of your own Coat and Order the time when you shall be judged by God alone keepe your suites to be tryed quarrels to be decided at his Barre are you not given to us of God as Gods on earth Is it not a great and a shamefull fault for men to 〈◊〉 and to judge their Gods Is not he alone to hold the great assizes for their tryals of whom it is written Deus stetit c. God standeth in the Assembly of Gods Where it is to be noted that as temporall and secular Princes are Gods in respect of their People so Priests are Gods in respect of Laics though they be Princes as Constantine sticks not here to affirme and upon this foundation the great Emperour very safely grounds his conclusion that Priests have power to judge Emperours but Emperours have no power at all to judge Priests Now if this great Emperour of the world hath acknowledged that he held Priests as in the ranke of Gods that he could be no judge of Priests and yet might himselfe be judged by Priests how much more ought other inferior Princes and States confesse the same in word and acknowledge the same in fact Nor doth it follow in right consequence that Priests cannot be judged by their own Prelates but rather the contrary for ever and at all times the superior judgeth in Gods name from whom he receiveth authority and power Nay rather God himselfe then sitteth in judgement by the mouth of his lawfull Minister for the exercise of judgement So when a Bishop judgeth some inferior Ecclesiastic or when the Pope himselfe judgeth a Bishop it is God that judgeth by the Ministery or mediate worke of his appointed and approved servant This was therefore great Constantines beliefe and perswasion that Bishops who in respect of Laics are Gods cannot be judged by Laics who are but men and not Gods in respect of Priests Again that it resteth in God alone to judge Clerics viz. by the interposition or mediat act of his great Vicar as in like sort secular Princes who in respect of their secular People and Subjects are Gods cannot be judged by the said People being but private persons but only by God by meanes of his Vicar the Priest who in that regard is called God to wit in regard of the secular Prince In that only sence the Lord said to Moses I have made thee Pharaohs God namely to judge to chastise that cruell King with my rodds my sore judgements And for some good proofe of Constantines beliefe that power to judge censure Bishops is in the hand of the Pope
therefore no lesse then Laics are subject unto the secular Prince Let every soul be subject unto the higher Powers As none is exempted from the obedience that he owes to God so none is exempted from the obedience that he owes to his lawfull Prince For all power is of God as the Apostle there subjoynes This was it which moved the Kingly Prophet and propheticall King David to stile Kings and secular Princes Gods with a Deus stâ—tit God standeth in the assembly of Gods he judgeth among the Gods For as it is truly and religiously avouched by King Jehosaphat secular Judges do not execute the judgements of men but of God himselfe the very same former text of David our Saviour Christ speaking of secular Princes and Judges hath cited in the Gospell and there makes it good that unto them doth belong the name of Gods If he called them Gods unto whom the word of God was given as Cardinall Bellarmine hath learnedly noted and observed Hetrod If you had in this manner drawn your conclusion to a head Ecclesiastics therefore and seculars too are not by Gods Law subjâ—ct unto the secular Prince but seculars by mans law and ecclesiastics by no law at all neither of God nor man then your conclusion had been aptly deduced from your premises For it hath been proved before that Princes attaine to Soveraignty over their people not by divine title but olny humane If it be otherwise I pray let me have it well proved by some plain passage of Scripture that for instance the LL. of Venice are Jure divino the LL. Paramount of Padua Verona with other like Cities and if any question should grow concerning the Kingdome of Cyprus what faire title would the Venetian State alledge for the same Some goodly Charter of sacred Scripture Surely no but either some title of donation or ancient possession or some other like humane title Now then if they shall fall short in proving their title over the Laics of Padua Cyprus c. by divine authority when will they prove their pretended title over Clerics by the same authority I dare passe yet a whole degree further namely to maintain that all degrees and sorts of Laics yea that Soveraign Princes are by Gods Law in the state of subjection to Priests and that by the same Law of God Priests are quitted and freed from subjection to secular Princes My reason because according to Gods holy writ and word the positive law of God priests are pastors or shepheards to feed and Laics though never so great Princes are sheepe to be fed Priests are Fathers and Laics are sonnes Now according to the light of nature the law naturall of God the sheep are under tearmes of subjection to the Shepheard and the Shepherd is bound under no such termes to the sheep as the sonne also lives in state of subjection to the Father whereas the Father owes no duty of that nature to the sonne moreover the comparison made by Gregory Nazianzene between ecclesiasticall and secular is most excellent and usually taken up of holy Divines as in mans nature there is reason and flesh of which two united the whole frame and composition of man doth consist so in the Church their ecclesiasticall or spirituall power and secular or temporall power of which two the mysticall body of the Church is aptly composed and as in man reason hath superiority over the flesh and the flesh is never superior over reason except it be in some fit of rage and fury of Rebellion Againe as reason directs rules commands the flesh and sometime brings her to a kind of rack I meane doth chastise the flesh and puts her to a certain pennance of long fasting watching whereas the flesh never directs rules commands nor layes any hard lawes of punishment upon reason even so the spirituall power hath a superiority over the secular by vertue and force whereof it both may and ought also to give direction to rule to command and punish the secular power whensoever it kicks or spurnes or proves refractory or makes any breach into the inclosures of ecclesiasticall Regiment whereas the secular power is not superior to the spirituall nor can it direct rule command or punish the same De facto in cases of Rebellion and Tyrannie which by Heathen Princes or by Heretics hath been sometimes put in practise true it is that all power is of God but how either immediately or else by meanes And as none is exempted from obedience due to God so none is exempted from obedience due to the Prince provided alwaies that a man be the said Princes vassall or Subject and in cases likewise wherein he owes vassalage or subjection to the said Prince It is no lesse true that Princes as Princes are Gods Lievtenants and therefore to be honoured yea served with due obedience as God himselfe in such causes and matters as lye within their power Servants be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh even as unto Christ And whereas you say Cardinall Bellarmine hath averred in writing that secular Princes in Scripture are called Gods he was you must understand induced so to write of purpose to confound hereticall Anabaptists who teach that neither secular Princes nor tribunals nor judgements nor other like politick and civill regiments are to be tolerated in the Church of God But as that Cardinall hath written and witnessed that secular Princes are Gods in respect of their Subjects even so he hath justified that priests are Gods in respect of secular Princes If you therefore Orthodox like a good Roman Catholique would have trod in the steps of that Cardinall you should have taken up his weapons and should have made use of them against Heretics not against our mother the Church nor should you like the Spider have suckt such poyson from the same flowers out of which the Bee sucks and gathers hony Orthod I am not able to reach the bottome of your deep conceptions would you have your own conclusions to be drawne out of my premises If I had been inspired with a spirit of divination and by the gift of Sooth-saying could have foreseen that your selfe or Cardinall Bellarmine was to be the Champion that would undertake to cudgell my coat I mean so subtilly to trounce me and to play such trumps in my way I would have directly drawn two distinct conclusions the one true and built upon my own true certaine and infallible premises the other false obliquely derived from your premises or those of his illustrious Lordship but for as much as the spirit of divination doth not harbour in my brest or braine I must only shape and lay in this answer for my selfe that from the same premises which I have now framed I would wish none other but mine own conclusion to be inferred and from your premises and those of the Lord Cardinall your own or his own conclusions to be inducted for as my conclusion is true because it
riseth out of true premises even so your concluon or his Lordshrhs which you please is false because it is inferred upon false premises that is drawn from a fufty vessel of unwholsome doctrine which the one of you two hath broached the piercing or at least running whereof I have now as you see endeavoured to stop with a handsome Faucet 1. Will you now be pleased to see your errours to make men subject unto their lawfull Prince by Gods law you hold it needfull that for the right and title of their subjection some text of holy Scripture be produced remember it hath been declared before that power and title to power are two different heads that power is from God and of necessity followes or comes after title The French King rules and governes in France not by law of inheritance but by vertue of authority received from God The Venetian Prince I meane the Republic and body of State howsoever you have learned of Cardinall Bellarmine with great artifice and skill to seale up the eyes of your own knowledge in the matter beares not command and rule over Padua by such meanes as they first attained to the dominion thereof but because being impatronised or made Lords of Padua by humane meanes they have it now in command and ever had from the time of their first occupation possession by vertue of the power and right received from God himselfe And herein what difference can you find to lye between Prince and Pope For if the Pope shall be asked wherefore he is Pope this will be his answer because I have been Canonically elected by the Cardinals to the Popedome and for that purpose he will never study or stand to produce any testimony of Scripture but aske him by what authority he gives or grants his indulgences c. surely he will answer because God hath given him power to forgive sinnes 2. To prove that Princes are subject unto priests by the law of God you cut out and frame a silly sheepish argument from sheepe and shepherds Gods law say you is the law of nature by natures law the sheep is in state of subjection to the Shepherd by Gods law therefore the Laic Prince is in the like state of Subjection to the Priest I answer the Prince is no sheep of the Shepheard priest but of the great Shepherd Christ for Christ said not to Peter Feed thy Sheep but Feed my Sheep So that your Argument if it conclude any thing at all concludes that Princes are subject unto Christ and not unto the Priest Nay the Priest as a sheep in temporall causes and matters is rather subject unto the Prince David gave the terme and nomination of sheep to all his people and Subjects Ego erravi isti qui sunt Oves quid focerunt It is I that have sinned what have these my sheepe done S. Pauls words are pungent and peremptory Let every soule be subject unto the higher Powers If then your argument hath any sinewes to evince that Subjects are bound by Gods law to yeeld obedience unto their Superiors of highest power then all priests likewise who are Subjects no lesse then others are directly bound by Gods law to the due obedience of their temporall Princes penall or Statute Lawes at least in temporall matters 3. The father you say is not subject unto the sonne if Hetrodox his own Father yet living were now elected King or Pope should not Hetrodox his Father as a man and a Christian be subject unto Hetrodox his Sonne whether King or Pope Howsoever young Hetrodox the sonne should beare due respect and reverence to old Hetrodox as to the Father Again the Father a Laic may receive absolution of his own sonne a priest and the son a priest may receive correction by the authority and command of his Father a secular Magistrate if men would not be intrapped in the snares of error they must learn to distinguish between titles and persons a Prince in spirituals being a sonne in temporals may be a Father 4. Touching the similitude of body and soul howsoever I grant it may be true in part as in this point by name that a temporall Prince his power is Per se of it selfe over the body and the spirituall priests power is over mens soules yet your similitude wants weight of truth in some other part and halts down right For temporall power save only as it is exercised by a Christian is not subordinate to spirituall power no not in ecclesiasticall and spirituall causes on the contrary the subjection of priests in temporall causes is plainly subordinate unto the temporall Prince Arguments thus framed are not worth a rush temporall power is over mens bodies and spirituall power is over their soules as the body then is directed and ruled by the soule and the soule not by the Body so he that is armed and authorised with temporall power must be directed and ruled by such as are invested with spirituall power I say again such reasons are not worth a rush for body and soule together do make one whole compound creature which is man whereas corporall power and spirituall power make not one body but rather two bodies and two heads These two powers as both are powers are different in all things and without subordination as either of them is a power neither doth Nazianzen teach the contrary much lesse teach your affirmative as who soever will read Gregory himselfe shall readily finde For thus much Gregory writeth in effect and no more that as the soule is more noble then the body so the spirituall power is more noble then the temporall which for my part so long as I go for a Roman Catholic I dare not deny 5. You are much overseen Hetrodox to charge me with makeing use of this doctrine to the hurt of the Church when I should rather whet and scoure my weapons against hereticks And herein you resemble me to the spider that sucks poyson from the same sweet and oderiferous herbs or flowers out of which the industrious Bee sucks honey Have you not herein much forgot your selfe He that delivers the truth neither fights nor speakes against our mother the Church but against such as harbour settled and secret pretensions in their breasts to usurpe more then appertains to their persons callings or degrees Again the Church is the Kingdome of heaven and you speak in your whole discourse of none but earthly Kingdomes in which without all question the Church can have no share nor interest nisi per accidens ex donatione fidelium but such as comes upon the By as we say that is by casuall meanes or else by franke donation or free gift of the faithfull the grandeur of all which earthly Kingdomes and of all other temporall States the Church doth establish Thirdly the use of this doctrine tendeth and serveth not only for the confuting and extirping of heresies or heretics but likewise of all such as maintain and broach any
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
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.
act play his part or handled his weapons like a skilfull master of defence halfe so well you have indeed to deale plainly and truly puzzâ—ld my wits a litle and put my reading perhaps to some stagger If you can play the man and lay about you as well in the other seven Propositions for the second whereof in token of challenge I here cast downe my glove as the Appellant calling for your personall appearance to answer the challenge in this place to morrow by sun-rising you may perhaps work more with my present opinions beginning to waver then you are aware Orthod I refuse not your challenge but in signe of acceptation I take up your glove and will not faile to be in the field at the houre assigned Interim I wish you good rest for this night and sharper weapons for the next morning The second dayes Conference upon the second Proposition Het A Good morrow to you Orthodox worthy Champion Defendant you come well armed I make no doubt at all pieces Orthod The same salutation to you Hetrodox noble Champion Appellant whose armes I wish to be more pungent in the conflict of this day then I could find them in our late former skirmish Hetrod Be pleased then without further delay and more losse of time to lay forth your second Ground or Proposition Orthod Nothing pleaseth me better Then mark well the words and contents thereof Christ our Saviour as the Sonne of God equall to the Father is King of Kings and Lord of Lords and yet all the time that he was clothed with our mortall spoyles not onely before his bitter death but likewise after his most blessed and glorious resurrection he never exercised the least power of a secular and temporall Prince Hetrod Make that good and you shall win the spurs or carry away my weapons out of the field Orthod Then sure it shall goe very hard but I will here leave you unarmed in the place For Christ our Saviour was never invested or inthronised in any temporall Kingdome Pilate makes the question to Christ Art thou a King Christ gives the answer Thou sayest I am a King But know O Pilate howsoever I am a King yet my Kingdome is not of this world that is not a temporall Kingdome When that multitude of people who had been miraculously fed and sated with five loaves and two fishes were minded and purposed to make him King he stept aside that he might not be taken by them and so made King He never took upon him to sit as Judge or Umpire in any mans cause Tho. Aqui. in ep ad Roman but answered those who required him to give sentence in a certaine litigious matter Who made me a Judge over your persons or your causes Yea he directly acknowledged Pilate Caesars deputy or Governour to be his lawfull Judge Thou couldst not have any power over me if it were not given thee from above Hetrod This your second Proposition seems to shoot and have a fling at matters of State in present question and no meane garboyles But in sooth it doth not so much as touch the same for they treat not of temporall Kingdomes but of Ecclesiasticall affaires so that your Proposition serveth onely to bewray your own bad affection and erroneous conceit I therefore must give you thus much to understand Very certaine it is that Christ as he was Man mortall did never exercise any power of a temporall Prince in this world For his comming into the world it is his owne testimony was to suffer to serve to teach men contempt of worldly wealth and honour as also by his humility and obedience to chalke out and make plaine the way or path which leadeth to the celestiall Paradise before the face and eyes of all proud and rebellious or disobedient people The Sonne of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life for the redemption of many Mar. 20.28 The Sonne of Man hath not whereon to lay his head Learne of mee that I am meek and lowly in heart Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ Luc. 9.58 Mat. 11.29 2 Cor. 8.9 Phil. 2.8 that he being rich for your sakes became poore He humbled himselfe and became ebedient to the death even the death of the crosse But your Proposition should carry this one joynt or branch more That Christ even as man in case he had been so minded might have assumed to himselfe the dominion of all temporall causes or matters and made himselfe a King or an Emperour Jam. 11. Heb. 1.2 which of the two he would The Father hath given all things into his hands and hath made him heyre of all things Againe It should not have been put down in your Proposition that Christ after his Resurrection exercised no power of a temporall Prince without addition of this clause that Christ after his Resurrection even as he is man hath obtained the government of the whole wold not as a temporall Prince but as an Eternall Prince Reve. 1.5 Mat. 28.18 farre superiour to all temporall Princes as the first begotten of the dead and Prince of all earthly Princes and to whom all power is given both in Heaven and in earth Which power is not properly temporall bâ—cause it is eternall and yet is above all things both temporall and eternall But now againe that Christ acknowledged Pilate for his Judge as you affirme I must be bold to tell you Orthodox It smells somwhat ranke of errour For Christ even as man was the High preist with power of excellencie yea he was the head of men and of Angells so that he had no superiour upon the face of the whole earth neither could he be judged of any other I meane de jure by right Philip. 2.8 howsoever perhaps de facto by fact he might be brought coram nobis upon his owne sufferance and permission For it was he that humbled himself viz. because he would be so humbled by the death of the Crosse And as for his words to Pilate Thou couldst have no power over me O Pilate if it were not given thee from above where Christ seems to take Pilate for his Judge this answer I make By power in those words is meant Permission and so the sense of that passage results to this reckoning That Pilate had never been able to stir either one foot or finger if it had not been by Gods permission In the same sense are these other words to be taken Luc. This is your houre and the power of darknesse And this is the answer of the holy Fathers Chrysostom and Cyril in their Expositions upon the 19. of John In 13. ad Rom. But whereas Thomas understands the same place of Iohn of the power that Princes have from God it likes me well to confesse and say that Pilates power as the Minister of Cesar was from God from whom all lawfull power descends Howbeit with your favour that such power in
as a Publicane where our Saviour gives Authority to Excommunicate but with a supposition of sin and of obstinate persisting in sinne Hetrodox Verily Orthodox you seeme to paire the nailes of Pontificiall power so near that you give me just cause to suspect you believe that our holy Father the Pope is but simple Priest or Curate without any lawfull Jurisdiction and that hee can doe no more but exhort to the obedient keeping of Gods Law as every ordinary Preacher doth or Baptise and confesse the people as every common Curate doth And so it seems you seek to revoke and to renew the Heresie of the Valdenses or Lionists of Wickliffe Mansilius of Padua and Iohn Huss which blind and pestiferous Heresie is caressed or embraced by all moderne Heretiques But I must come to a more narrow sifting of your words First You say the Popes power is meerly Spirituall To what end serves your meerlie was it not enough to say it is a Spirituall power was it not better to say it is principally Spirituall Navarrus whom you so highly commend Cap. Novit de judiciis and exhort all men to reade with diligence and great attention saith vâ—ry well that surely the Popes power is not meerly Temporall but he never saith it is meerly Spirituall as if the Pope could not in any sort shuffle and cut the Cards of Temporall affaires Nay hee further termes it a most eminent power which in it selfe being Spirituall and by consequence far Superiour to the Temporall both can and ought also to set the Temporall strait when it growes crooked or goes out of the right path And whereas our Saviour Christ said I will give thee the Keyes not of any Terrene Kingdome but of the Celestiall Kingdome or the Church of Christ hath said he that gives the Celestiall Kingdome takes not away Earthly Kingdomes or your selfe Orthodox hath said the Temporall Monarchie was founded of old from the beginning of the World surely none of all this makes either for the fortifying of your Sconce or to the weakening of my Campe For herein you affirme thus much and no more The Kingdome of Christ whereof Peter the Apostle received the keyes is no Temporall Kingdome which one cannot acquire but some other must lose but it is a Kingdome which governes all other Kingdomes without spoyling any man of that Dominion which by good just and lawfull right he holds Otherwise you might say as well that God himselfe hath no power over Temporall matters because God himselfe the giver of Heavenly Kingdomes is no robber and spoiler of mens Earthly Inheritances Againe you say Christ gave his Apostles and Peter a power but yet restrained Ioan. 20. and not without limitation that is a power over sinnes because he breathed on them all and said Receive the Holy Ghost c. This you cannot be ignorant is the Heresie of those who rob the Pope and the Church of all Jurisdiction an Heresie condemned by Christ himselfe in the very same place a little before the words now cited For before the words Quorum remiseritis c. whose sinnes ye shall remit shall be remitted he saith Sicut misit me Pater as the Father hath sent me into the World so doe I send you forth in which words he gave them absolute power and without limitation to governe the Church in his owne roome Hereupon Divines teach that in these words he gave the power of Jurisdiction in the other the power of Order And when afterward he said to Peter in the Chapter next following Pasce oves feed my sheepe doubtlesse he restrained not power to Absolution from sinne but hee gave a most ample power to rule and governe the whole Church For the word Pasce Feed is the very same in the Greeke language wherein St. Iohn did write his Gospell which is used in St. Iohns Revelation he shall rule them with a rod of Iron Apoc. 19. Mich. 2. as also in the Prophet as is translated by the Septuagint Ex te mihi erit Dux qui regat populum meum Israel out of thee shall come a Captaine unto me that shall rule my people Israel Mat. 16. So that by the usuall phrase of Scripture to make St. Peter a Shepheard or Feeder was to make him Ruler Governour and Prince of the whole Church So when Christ said to Peter whatsoever thou shalt loose or bind he restrained not the power unto sin nor unto the persons for he said not Quemcuuque but Quodcunque not whomsoever but whatsoever thou shalt binde or loose His meaning was to signifie and expresse an universall power of Binding and Loosing that is of commanding of making Lawes of Dispensing as it should be found needfull for the leading and bringing in of the Faithfull into the Kingdome of Heaven with most full and ample authoritie to enjoyne every man what he should believe and likewise to labour and to remove all the rubs blocks and impediments whereby they might be crossed in the way of Salvation as Cardinall Bellarmine hath declared at great length You give me thirdly to understand that our holy Father the Pope hath power onely over Soules and this you draw from that Prayer of the Church Deus qui Petro animas ligandi c. O God who hast given Peter the power of Pontificiall Dignity to bind and to loose the Soules of men If this Reason hath any force then secular Princes must have no power but over the Soules of their Subjects because Paul saith Let every soule be subject unto the higher powers And so either you make your selfe too simple as one who doth not consider that in Scripture the soule is taken for the whole man or else you seeke to catch the simple with words of holy Church not right understood And therefore perhaps the Divine providence to take away the like deceitfull sleights and flie shifts hath inspired the Reformers of the Breviarie to lib and geld the said Prayer of the word Soules which of old neither was found in the said Prayer nor ought at all there to be read because that Prayer was founded and formed upon the foresaid words in the Gospell whatsoever thou Peter shalt binde and whatsoever thou shalt loose Last of all you contend that power to excommunicate is conditionall presupposing sin and obstinacie in sin This Doctrine is both new and false you are not able to produce any Author that ever so taught Sinne I confesse must be presupposed for Excommunication is a punishment and the most grievous the most dreadfull of all other so that no sinne committed no punishment by Excommunicarion can be inflicted Disobedience also otherwise called contumacie is I confesse againe presupposed a sinne and to Excommunicate every sinne gives not sufficient warrant but only that sinne which is cloathed or clogged rather with Contumacie For Christ saith Si Ecclesiam non audierit If he will not heare the Church The censure therefore of Excommunication cannot be denounced against
can be no seemlie thing to make the Church of God lesse free in the Reigne and Government of Christian Princes then shee was in Pharohs time Let us now see and examine the reasons which you bring for proofe of your first Proposition For you pretend and alledge That Exemption of Ecclesiasticall Persons and their Possessions is onelie established and granted by mans Law and that your opinion in that point is more conformable to sacred Scripture to the holy Doctors and to the Histories of the Church then the contrarie opinion Orthodox You demand the reasons of my Doctrine in verie good time Hâ—trodox For in truth we are now come to the golden Key that opens the Closet and Cabinet of my Catholique Doctrine Howbeit Sir before I shall alleadge proofes of his Doctrine First it will be needfull to declare by certaine Propositions in what points your opinion dâ—ffâ—â—s from theirs who are commonly cited under the name of Heretiques which to be plaine iâ— likewise my opinion 1. There is a great difference betweene these two termes not Subject and exempt For the man is not subject unto any Prince Propositions foreâ—aid for grounds of the defence following over whom the power of the said Prince doth not extend and stretch Take this for Example An English man usually and commonly dwelling in England is not subject unto the French King For the French Kings power extends not over the English who have their common habitation in the Realme of England But in case an English-man dwelling in England shall not obey the King of England and his Lawes and shall not be conformable to the Statutes of England it must not be said that he is a Refractory because he is not subject unto the King of England but because he is exempted either by Almighty God the Lord of all or else by the King of Englands most Royall and gracious Priviledge So that whereas I affirme that Ecclesiastick Exemption and Immunitie is not in force de Jure divino by Gods Law my meaning is not in Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall causes cases or delicts For in cases of that nature and kind we cannot say that Clerics are excempt from the power of their lawfull and naturall Priâ—ce but we onely pronounce they are not subject unto the said Prince Then it remains that my meaning is in such Goods in such Causes in such Delicts as properly fall within the termes of Princely power not only to take due cognisance thereof but also to set and appoint due order in the same and what can such things but meerely Temporall and Politicall matters This hath begot and bred the Errour in some writers and your Error Hetrodox in particular In that whereas I contend that Clerics are not exempt from the power of their Naturall Prince by Gods Law you in all hast inferre thereupon Ergo Princes have power to make Lawes for saying Masse and for the marriage of Priests Certes Hetrodox this consequence hath no weight like a scive that holds no water they are not exempt from Temporall Power Ergo in Spirituall Delicts and causes they are subject Such equivocating Arguments of double sense and construction which are and ever have beene the precipitating of many simple spirits into erroneous conceipts ought by all meanes in so grave and weighty a subject both carefully and curiouslie to be avoided When I therefore speake of Exception Exemption and Immunitie from Secular power I must of necessity be conceived and taken to meane in such Causes in such Goods and in such Delicts wherein without all priviledge both Divine and Humane of God or man a man should of necessitie be subject unto the Secular Prince 2. There be foure opinions laid to the charge of Heretiques and rejected in this Argument as condemned and cursed with Bell Booke and Candle The Fathers of the first opinion are Marsilius of Padua and Jandunus These are charged and challenged by some to teach that Christ paid Tribute Necessitate coactus as one enforced by necessitie The next is Calvins opinion He dreames that Clerics are subject unto the Temporall Prince Ex debito in all Causes except onely such as are meerely Ecclesiasticall The third opinion calls Peter Martyr father He makes no bones to pâ—ofesse that it rests not in the hands it lyes not in the power of Princes to grant any such Priviledge of Exemption unto Clerics and in case they shall grant any such Priviledge they shall run into the snares of sinne because every such Grant is repugnant and contrary to Gods Law The fourth is the opinion of Brentius and Philip Melancthon they contend that Clerics are subject unto the Secular Prince even in causes meerly Ecclesiasticall All this verbatim is taken out of Card. Bellarmine Lib. 1. cap. 28. de Clericis It was therefore either out of affected Ignorance or else out of Supine Malignitie that one hath charged my Doctrine to be sprinkled or dipt in Brentianated Calviniated and Marsilianated holy water For I neither affirme with Marsilius of Padua if neverthelesse Marsilius was culpable of any such condemned opinion that our Lord Christ paid tribute as enforced by necessity but onely to shun the rocke of giving scandall Neither doe I teach with Calvin that in all Causes and Criminall Delicts Clerics are subject and ought so to be but in such onely wherein they have not beene exempted which Exemption stands not in force by Gods Law but by Princes Priviledge Neither doe I contend with Peter Martyr that Princes can grant no such Exemption but rather the contrarie that such Exemption may be granted Neither doe I lastly maintaine with Brentius that Clerics are subject in Spirituall Causes For I distinguish the two Powers the Temporall and the Spirituall And when I speake of Subjection or Exemption of Clerics I speake onely in Temporall matters over which the said power extends and stretches out her mighty arme and not in meere Ecclesiasticall matters and Spirituall save onely by Accident 3. My opinion is this that Clerics are not exempted from the power of Secular Princes by Gods Law but onely by Princely Priviledge either expressed or at least in tacite grant I mean after Canons lawfully published received as also after many laudable and approved Customes for such purpose Now that my Doctrine herein is Catholique it is confest by Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe in the place last cited For in his last Edition he holds that Exemption is by Gods Law forgetting by like what he had taught like a Doctor out of his Chaire in his other Bookes to the contrary of the same subject As where he writes of Medina and Conarruuias two Catholique Authors and both of them resolute in my true opinion for this point For he takes them downe in a round Censure terming them bold and hardy speakers in these words Sed operae pretium erit C de Restit q 15. ad eas objectiones breviter respondere quas Didacus Conarruuias Joannes Medina
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
you shall affirme it is no new Doctrine you shall be sure to find none other Authors Fautors and followers of this Doctrine but Heretiques and in particular Martyr a Lutheran upon the 13. chapter of St. Pauls Epistle to the Romanes Orthodox I have made no long Repetition but onely a short remembrance of some former speeches what need such a hot reprehension for putting you only in mind what I have said before Now then Sir your Errors 1. In defence of your opinion de Iure divino you find no place of Scripture to warrant your assertion whereupon you fall into this new and strange Doctrine that Exemption holds by the Law of Nations and that Law of Nations is Law Divine or the Law of God No marvaile for I suppose you have spoken this to please your selfe and flatter others against one who of late hath written according to the Doctrine of the best Authors In such a mind how could you doe lesse then fall into such a Noveltie 2. You affirme the Doctrine of repealing and revoking Priviledges in case of necessity is not approved by the foresaid Authors By your leave Hetrodox it is not onelie by them approved but likewise by all that handle the matter of Priviledges and yet are not so to be ranked and reckoned with Machiavelists which Sect is more dispersed and scattered in other Cities and States I will not say in Rome then it is in Venice where the Lords aime at none other marke but publike Tranquilities Religion Justice and in case of necessitie to represse force by force and strong hand All which things and actions are permitted by God himselfe by Catholique Authors and by the Law of Nature which in case all the writers in the world should bind their pens to the Peace and condemne them to perpetuall silence would 〈◊〉 unto us a Law Rom. 2.14 3. Yâ—â—â—eject and reprove the Division into the Law of Nature Canonicall Priviledge of Princes and Custome whereas all Authors make the same Division to the very same purpose and in very truth it is very necessary 4. Whereas the Text of St. Paul is manifest All power is of God Rom. 13. â—â— Sap. 6.1.2.3 and that other oâ— Solomon Here therefore O ye Kings c. for the râ—le is gâ—ven you of God and power by the most High All this notwithstanding you doe not blush to affi me â—ha◠〈◊〉 have proved the poweâ— of Princes over their Laick Subjâ—cts is not by Gods Law but by Mans Law and much lesse their power over Clerics It is not possible to speake of Exemption in such broad termes and not speak against Scripture inspired by the Holie Ghost 5. You say the Power of Princes may be taken away and diminâ—shed by the Canons I take this to be false de Jure and never taught by any judicious Divine The Pope will some Divine say may admonish and exhort a Prince to admit and receive his Canons of immunitie but I never yet read in any Divine that Popes have Power to force Princes when the Canons treate of matters neither Spirituall nor just yea St. Bernard reproves Pope Eugenius with a Quid alienos fines invaditis si volâ—s utrumque perdes utrumque Why will you thrust your sickle into another mans harvest If you will flourish with both Swords you shall beare neither of both 6. True it is that Popes have power to make Canons concerning Exemption and other matters Howbeit no Canons can challenge or carry any force where they are not lawfully published and recâ—ived For all Canons are Lawes of men according to all the Doctors which to bring in and impose obligation do necessarily require the two-fold condition of lawfull publication and generall acception Therfore the sacred Councell of Trent binds not in some Provinces because it was neither lawfully published nor admitted and received in the said Provinces as other Canons in some other Provinces Hereof none of the Dâ—ctors to my knowledge at least hath ever doubted Sotus Nâ—varrus and Conarruuias require beside the Canon the consent of all that are interessed The reason Because when the Pâ—pâ— not being otherwise Dominis totius orbis in Temporalibus Jurâ— Divino Lord of the whole World in Temporals by Gods Law makes anie Canons prejudiciall to Lâ—ick Jurisdiction it is nâ—câ—ssary to make them stand in any force and verâ—uâ— for the said Canons to be protested by thâ— content of him that is Lord of the said Jurisdiction otherwise there would be found in the said Canons a meere Nullitie This Doctrine is held for most certaine by Conarruuias by Sotus by Navarrus by Medina Navar. cap. Novit and all those who treate of this matter upon the safest and firmest foundations 7. You contend that Princes cannot diminish the Authority of Canons received True so teacheth Sotus and Conarruuias but here is to be understood this word Ordinarilie and because they have given their consent for the admitting and receiâ—â—â—g the said Canons it is not fitting for every light cause and â—rifling occurrent to deprive them of Priviledge Howbeit none denies that in case of necessity the Priviledge may suffer derogation and admit diminution yea Popes themselves daily use to derogate from their owne Priviledges 8. Lastly you come on with a false and crooked inference and be sprinkle me with villainous waters or at least mine Author and me in him In which veine of reproachfull termes I forbeare to follow your Example and will onely conclude that my Authors Doctrine is true in the Superlative Catholique grounded on holy Scripture and Fathers of the Primitive Church whereas your Doctrine Hetrodox and your Masters Cardinall Bellarmine merits those Epithets which the Judicious no doubt will marke and brand it withall if ever this my Defence may be so happy to come in their sight Hetrodox By this full conclusion it seemes Orthodox that you have done with all your Propositions in Thesis Orthodox You guesse right Hetrodox But have you any humour to heare the Doctrine of the rest in Hypothesis at large confirmed Hetrodox I have in earnest for so hideous is their aspect at first sight that I am almost astonished therewith and am wrapt with a kind of wonder to thinke what can be well spoken in their Defence Orthodox I purpose to dispatch them all three to morrow in one day Be stirring early for wee will make no more daies and spend no longer time in Conference The sixt daies Conference upon the sixt Proposition Orthodox I Am glad to see you Hetrodox thus risen with the Larke We have three large and long courses to run in this one day And therefore I will presently set forth E. carcoribus Hetrodox Be it so and I will run close so long as my breath shall hold without breaking my winde Prop. 6. Orthodox Then heare the sixt Proposition The Venetian Prince is the lawfull and naturall Signor of the Venetian Sâ—â—e He never knew any Superior in Temporals but God himselfe He makes
remaines then that by authority of Scripture he was a temporall King albeit he never exercised his temporall power But in holy Scripture not a word of any such temporall Kingdome but only of his spirituall Kingdome Thus the great Father S. Augustine and thus Maldonate Tract 115 in Joan. agreeable to the opinion of al Divines of the best rank whereupon he concludes in this notable manner Quâ verô parte Christus homo erat non erat universi orbis terrarum temporalis Rex ut Augustinus eo loco quem modò nominavimus omnes boni Theologi sentiunt Aut enim naturali aut divino aut humana jure rex esset naturali non erat quia regis filius non erat quod est naturalem esse regem Divino non erat quia omnia sacrarum literarum testimonia quae de ejus loquuntur regno ut August aâ—t et omnes boni theologi affirmant de spirituali intelliguntur humano non erat quia non fuit orbis terrarum consensu res electus et cum Iudaei vellent eum rapere ut regem facerent aufugit So that Christ as mortall man then having no temporall dominion he could never exercise the same For Non est actus ubi non est ulla potentia ad illum actum no exercise where no power to bring forth such exercise This must be understood of Christ as he was man and mortall man For as God no doubt as before hath been said he was King of Kings Lord of Lords As for the eternall power of Christ our Lord for so you call it which was given him after his resurrection there was no need to make any speech or motion thereof because the present question is of temporall Power and not of eternall which eternall power for certain Christ our Lord hath not given and left unto his Vicar 3. Your third errour lyes in a mis-interpretation of two severall texts this for the one knowing that his Father hath given al things into his hands and this for the other whom he hath made heire of all things For you understand them both of his temporall power whereas Maldonate by the authority of S. Augustine and of all the best Divines affirmes they are to be understood as they ought in very truth of Christs spirituall Kingdom which in the Gospell is called the Kingdome of heaven Joan. 19. For if the said words might be understood of Christs temporall Kingdome then Christ himselfe had not forborn which God forbid to rap or breathe out a lye when he said My Kingdom is not of this world againe My Kingdome is not from hence For he had by that means denied what holy Scripture had affirmed he was indeed that is a temporall King But say still that Christ as man had temporall dominion yet still it remaines good that he did never put such temporall dominion in practise or execution which as you have already confessed so it is sufficient for my purpose Joan. 19.11 4. That place in S. Iohn Thou couldest have no power over me except it had been given thee from above you say is not understood of the Judge or Lord Governours ordinary power but of a permissive power In good time Sir but were it so as you interpret surely then Christ had proved himselfe but a bad Logician to answer the governour clean from the purpose for Pilate spake of his judiciary power Joan. 16. when he said to Christ Knowest thou not that I have power to loose thee c. Secondly not Pilate alone but likewise all the Iewes had the same permissive power of which permissive power your text before cited is to be understood this is your houre and the power af darkenesse which for this reason is called the power of darknes because It is not given from above 20. Jac. 1.17 even from the Father of lights Thirdly permissive power cannot be called a power given but rather a power not denyed or not letted hindered from above Non data sed non negata vel non impedita desuper Fourthly that is called permissive power whereby God permits and suffers a sinner to fall into sinne but God gives no such power from above for if he give it from above then he himselfe concurres with sinne and is the author of sinne which doctrine is even as false as God is true and as truth is no lye S. Thomas therefore saith and you Hetrodox confesse the words are understood of the Judge Pilats ordinary power as the Minister of Cesar yea S. Augustine upon the same words thus Discamus ergo quod Christus dixit quod Apostolum docuit quia non est potestas nisi à Deo quidquid sit de actu malè utentis eâ quia plus peccat qui innocentem occidendum potestati livore tradit quam ipsa potestas si eum timore alterius potestatis majoris occidit talem quippe Deus dederat illi potestatem ut esset etiam sub Caesaris potestate Learne wee then saith S Augustine as first Christ himselfe said in person and after taught his Apostle Paul there is no power but of God be the act of the person by whom the said power is abused what it will And learn wee withall that he commits the greater sinne who for envy delivers up the innocent unto the higher power to be executed then the Magistrate himselfe commits who for feare of some other Power higher then himselfe puts the innocent unto death For God gave Pilate such power as might be many degrees under Cesars absolute and supream power And here I will touch another of your errors a twig of the same branch in attributing that unto Pilats ignorance which Augustine with all the rest have ascribed to his feare of purchasing to himselfe Cesars heavy displeasure and indignation To my purpose I have this also from Saint Bernard Romani presidiis potestatem Christus super se quoque fatâ—tur fuisse ordinatam In Ep. ad Archiep. Senoven Our Saviour Christ was not ashamed to confesse that over himselfe the Roman President had lawfull and ordinate power And in the same Epistle to the same Archbishop Quid secularitatem contemnitis Secularior nâ—mo Pilato cui Dominus astitit judicandus Non haberes in me potestatem nisi tibi datuâ— esset desuper Iam tunc pro se loquâ—batur quod post per Apostoloâ— clamavit in Ecclesiis Non est potestas nisi à Deo Wherefore set you so light by Secularity who ever was more secular then Pilate before whose Tribunall and at whose Barre the Lord Christ himselfe stood indicted to receive judgement and sentence of death from his mouth Thou couldst not have any power against me saith Christ except it were given thee from above Even then there Christ was his own Advocate even then and there he pleaded his owne cause even then and there he had sensible experience of the same thing in his owne
person and case which afterward he proclaimed in the Church by the ministery of his Apostle There is no power but of God 5. S. Iohn Chrysostome and S. Cyril whom you have alledged doe not deny that Christ speaks of ordinary judiciary power They onely affirme that whereas Christ might have avoided that judgement either by hiding himselfe perhaps as he did when the Jews would have stoned him to death or by commanding as he was God twelve legions of Angels to come down from heaven for his aid and rescue yet he did not decline retard or any way hinder the course of the said judiciary power and proceeding From whence no argument is to be drawne that such power was not of God but rather the contrary And this our Divines understand not of Christs ordinary but of his absolute power quia oportuit Christum pati Luc. 24.46 for ought not Christ as he speaks himselfe to have suffered these things and enter into his glory 6. Againe you bring the same for a reason which is in the question The Pope being High priest cannot be judged forsooth in temporalls by any temporall Judge therefore Christ being High priest could not be judged by Pilate in the fact of usurped jurisdiction imputed and laid to his charge What shall I call this manner and forme of reasoning but a sophisme or fallacie in a bold begging of the question For it should rather be thus reasoned and argued on the contrary Because Christ our Lord hath not shunned the judgement of the temporall Prince but said that his power was given from above and yet by all meanes was the High priest therefore the Pope or High priest of Rome ought not in like cases to renounce or disclaime the judgement of the temporall Prince for Christs actions must be a rule to the actions of the Roman Bishop not his actions a rule to the actions of Christ You put upon Thomas an exposition of his words cleane contrary to his true meaning and right sence of the same an exposition altogether unworthy of that Angelicall Doctors doctrine and here I am bound to fight for my Country for my Master and Compatriot whose Catholike Doctrine in all Theologicall disputes and in this by name I am resolved to hold His words be these Quicquid communiter de Deo de creaturis dicitur à Deo in creatur as derivatur Potestas autem de Deo hominibus dicitur Job 39 Deus potestates non abjicit eum ipse sit potens unde consequens est quòd omnis humana potestas sit à Deo Dominabitur excelsus in regno hominum Dan. 4. Joh. 19 cuicunque voluerit dabit illud Non haberes in me potestatem ullam nisi tibi datum esset desuper Whatsoever is affirmed in common both of God and the creatures the same is derived and sent from God to the creatures Now power is affirmed of men as well as of God for God who is most powerfull himselfe exalteth Powers by his power whereof it followes in right good consequence that all power is of God The most High ruleth in the Kingdom of men and giveth it unto whom he will Thou couldst have no power against me except it were given thee from above So that we see Thomas there treateth of judiciarie power affirmed in common both of God and the creatures and speaks not of Permissive power You please your selfe in producing the example of a Priest stept into a Laic habit and presented before the secular Judge This man knowing himselfe to be a Priest indeed and not a Laic as he shews pretending and standing upon his exemption would never as you beare us here in hand say thus unto the Judge My Lord You have power against me from heaven but rather thus on the contrary your Lordship hath no power against me from above So that Christ himselfe not so speaking but rather the contrary hath not marked or pointed out any such pretension Where it is to be considered that you bring into the Play and upon the Stage a Priest attired like a Laic di stucâ—â— one who pretending Priesthood is not able to say that he is a Priest nor to produce and present his faculties but I know the contrary practice For in some States where the Prince hath granted exemption from his power unto Clerics in criminall causes many to shun escape the secular judgement have made themselves capable of Orders and Clericship by false and counterfeit faculties or breves whereas you Hetrodox are of another mind as it seems namely that a Priest who is grac'd and priviledged with such exemption in very truth may not say so much nor shew the same to the secular Judge but rather should confesse the contrary to wit That doubtlesse the Judge is authorized and strengthned against him with ordinary power Now these things Hetrodox not onely are false but also stand next doore to things incredible Hetrod Have you done with my errors or have you any more good and sound stuffe wherewith to bombast your 2. Proposition Orthod I have no more to say of your errors but now I long to see how deep your challenging sword can cut in this one shield of brasse Our Lord Christ commanded tribute to be paid unto the secular Prince that is unto Cesar Give unto Cesar the things that are Cesars The truth of this Proposition is opposed by some who say that howsoever Christ paid tribute really unto Cesar both for himselfe and for Peter yet withall he professed and said he was not bound to the payment of such tribute Nunquid filii debent solvere tributum Are the children bound to pay tribute Herein say these men the Lord Christ pointed out as with one of his fingers his owne authority of a temporall Prince no way in termes of obligation to be assessed and laid as a Tributarie To this doubt Answer is made That according to some Doctors all that were natively of the Country bred and borne therein who were called by that name of children were not bound to pay the said tribute and because both Christ himselfe and Peter were of that Country bred and borne therefore Christ affirmed they were not obliged to any such payments or else to speak in a better and higher sense he thereby pointed 〈◊〉 his owne most holy Divinity and said That as the Sonne of God he was not bound to pay But because the rendring of that reason was too deep and too high a mysterie whereof the public ministers or officers for the exacting and collecting of tribute were altogether uncapable he therefore said further sed ne scandalizentur lest we should cause them to stumble at some offence or scandall Where we may see what speciall account reckoning our Saviour Christ made of not scandalizing the Ministers of Secular Princes the Collectors of Tribute or Poll-money alledging so true and reall an exemption howsoever by the said Toll-gatherers it was not understood