Quarta Excommunicatio est nulla sive invalida quando continet intolerabilem Errorem quem habet illa quae datur contra aliquem ex quo rectè aliquid fecit Excommunication is none or of no force when it containes an intollerable errour and such is that Excommunicatory Censure which is denounced or given against any man for well-doing or after he hath executed some good Act or done some good work 5 Quinta Excommunicatio invalida seu nulla nihil operatur in foro interiori sive exteriori c. Invalide or no Excommunication workes none effect neither in the inward nor in the outward Court save that it bindes the excommunicate person to the observation thereof untill the people may be really perswaded of the nullity thereof for the avoyding of scandall 6. Sexta Idem dicendum de suspensione interdicto nullo quod dictum est de Excommunicatione nullâ The same is to bee pronounced of invalid suspensions and interdicts that hath been asserted and averred of invalide Excommunications Now the Venetian Prince having commanded an Action of vertue namely the non-observing of a non-interdict quod vergebat in periculum Divini cultus Religionis which tended to the manifest hazzard and danger of Gods Worship and Religion Surely they have not sinned but have observed the Doctrine of Navarrus to a haire 18. None of us deny the Pope or chiefe Bishop to be the Vicar of our Father in Heaven for Spirituall Causes but wee say moreover The Prince is the Father of the People in Temporall Causes and withall That as the Son hath reason to disobey the Father who seekes to deprive him of his own particular goods and portions to him appropiated either by reason of Dowry or otherwise Even so the Prince ought not to obey the Bishop howsoever he goes for the Princes Father in Spirituals when the Bishop pretends to deprive him of his Temporall Goods and Jurisdiction 19. The Lord Cardinall Baronius hath assumed and presumed the Venetian Republic to be decrepit and in that consideration a blind Buzzard or dreaming Dotard And you Hetrod ox from the Lord Cardinall Bellarmine have learned on the contrary to call the Venetian Republic so young a Child as it hath need of Paedagogues I tell you Sir the Republic is not decreipt or an old fool much lesse a child to be taught his Primmer she is the Queen of Cities a Prince of perfect age When this Prince collective determines any matter case or law they do it with great and singular wisdome they alwayes aime at Justice and Piety they have no need of any to teach them lessons in Temporall Affaires or in the Government of their States and Subjects they are over all Christendome not only reputed but also renowned for most wise and prudent Senators What is written by some Authors on their behalfe is written by the said Authors of their own simple and voluntary accord in defence of the truth and the just cause of their Prince 20. You confound the name of Paedagogue with the name of Doctor whereas by Cicero in his Dialogue de Amicitiâ they are distinguished For the name of Paedagogue notes a servile exercise of such as attend and wait upon Children the name oâ— Doctor signifies a liberal and noble exercise in teaching Ex Cathedrâ out of the Doctors Chaire I know not one Paedagogue that hath set pen to paper in the defence of the Republics cause but many famous and eminent Doctors with whole Colledges have taken the paines to write in their favour 21. The example of King Boneslaus is nothing apt nor accommodated to the case King Boneslaus was an impious and most wicked person infamous and notorious for many fowle crimes The Republic is a Pack if I may so speak or an united and uniform knot of pious and Catholic Senators great lovers of Justice and renowned Zelators of Religion 22. If all that have not observed the Interdict and have prohibited the observation thereof should have so miserably ended their dayes as King Boneslaus dyed or should have been so unhappily poysoned as Bavarus was not dying of any sudden death as you pretend I wonder how the most Christian Kings Philip the Faire and Lewis XII could escape the like miserable deaths and unfortunate ends nay how their whole Kingdome did not perish in like manner Now that not falling out in the same unfortunate manner it is a manifest signe That all those by whom the observation of the Interdict is inhibited or not observed in their own persons shall not be taken away by the like miserable and sudden death 23. Now I come to the conclusion of this my Defence with two other Examples of Popes for as much as you Hetrodox have been pleased to gall us as you imagine with two Examples of Temporall Princes what can you say for Iohn XII Hee excommunicated the Bishops by whom his cause had been discussed by Commission from Otho 1. Emperour The Bishops did not obey they declared the Nullity of his Excommunicatory Sentence Have you read at any time that any one of that Councell perished by a miserable death And have you not read how the said Pope came to a death so infamous and so miserable that I think it neither fit nor lawful to story the same first wandring no lesse then Boneslaus for some space of time thorow the wild woods with wild and savage Beasts The other Example is of Pope Boniface VIII He excommunicated the French King Philip the Faire and interdicted his whole Kingdom the King scorned the Popes Bull or Breve of Excommunication The Pope thereat â—o stampt and storm'd so far took pepper in the nose for a medicine that it burnt up and consumed his Entrails as may be supposed his Bowels and his very Heart so that he dyed at last a miserable death of whom Platina thus Moritur hoc modo c. Thus dyed Boniface He whose care and study was to tame and trample upon Emperours Kings Princes Nations and People with terrors rather then to teach them holy Religion He that presumed to give to take away Kingdoms at his discretion He that went to drive men out of their habitations and to bring them back again He that above measure thirsted after gold and treasure ransacking the Coffers and ripping up the Bowels of all Exchequers Let all Princes therefore learn by his example as well secular as religious Princes not proudly and contumeliously as this man of whom now wee speak to rule their Clergy and People but in a holy and modest manner of Government as Christ and his Disciples with all other his true and faithfull followers ruled and chuse to be loved of the people rather then feared which will justly be the down fall and break-neck of all tyrannous Princes So that by these two Examples you may see Hetrodox that your Argument ab exâ—mplâ— drawn by name from the example of Boneslaus and Bavarus is of no force but weak as
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
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
of his words as we find it spun and woven by his owne fingers Credimus Romanum Pontificem quatenus solùm est Rom. Pontifex Vicarius Christi summus nudus ab omnibus Privilegiis donariis humanis nullam habere Potestatem Laicam neque Summam neque Mediam neque infimam neque Actu neque Habitu habere vero Potestatem Ecclesiasticam nonè à Christo Servaâ—ore nostro institutam qualis nunquam ante illius institutionem in orbe fuit quaeque est Species Potestatis distinctae à Laica longè nobilior ea ut Aurum est Species Metalli distincta à Specie plumbi â—â nobilior quaeque directè solùm amplectitur super-naturalia indirectè vero eatenus naturalia quatenus sunt necessaria ad consecutionem finis supernaturalis ob quem sunt instituta In which Text of Navarrus the longer it is the more points are observeable As first of all that where you charge Navarrus to affirme that Papall power is not meerely Temporall hee gives not so much as the least suspition of the said pretended and imputed affirmation he rather stands out and holds out for the cleane contrary assertion Then secondly that what Laick power soever is annexed to the Pope he hath got it by the Priviledges of noble Princes and by the Donaries if I may take up Navarrus his owne word of Magnificent Personages but not as Christs Vicar Then thirdly that as the Vicar of Christ he hath not a hands breadth not an Inch of Laick power neither in the highest degree nor in the middle ranke nor in the lowest region Then fourthly that he hath neither the Act nor the Habit of Laick power whereby he may be so much as enabled to exercise the same though he should never put it in practise but keepe it up close like a Bee in a Box or as men say like a Sword alwaies in the Scabbard Then fiftly that his power is Ecclesiasticall the same that was instituted by Christ our Lord a power never heard of in the world before Christs institution Then Sixtly that his Ecclesiasticall power hath nothing at all to doe with Laick power but is directly distinct from the same in Specie as the Species of Gold is directly distinct from the Species of Lead so that as Gold is not Lead and Lead is not Gold even in like manner Papall power is no way Temporall and Laick power is no way the same with Papall power Then Seventhly that Papall power directly stretcheth out his arms to imbrace things that are Supernaturall as Grace by name given by his Holinesse thorow the meanes of holy Sacraments as Catholiques believe and the same grace is meerely a thing Supernaturall Eightly and lastly that Pontificiall power indirectly makes use of things naturall instituted by Christ for a Supernaturall end as water to baptise oyle for that action which we call Extreame or last unction 1 Cor. 19. and silver for Almes ordaining besides that hee who serves at the Altar should live by the Altar and that no mouth of any Oxe which treads out the corne be at any time muzzeled according to Christs institution for the better obtaining of the Supernaturall end This is the power whereof Navarrus affirmes as you seeke to beare me downe that forsooth it is not meerely Temporall Doth Navarrus there speake of Temporall power Nay doth Navarrus once dreame thereof For albeit he speakes of the use of naturall things yet he cals them neither Secular nor Temporall nor Civill but onely naturall and restraines them to those things which were instituted to a Supernaturall end and not so far forth as they are naturall but as they are Spirituall that is to say as they are clothed and apparelled with goodnesse of the Supernaturall end according to Christs owne institution How then can that be true which you charge Navarrus to affirme that Papall power is Layick and Temporall howsoever not meerly Layick and Temporall and that as Pope hee may intrude himselfe into the exercising of Temporall Dominion and Jurisdiction But with you Hetrodox it is no new or strange thing as oft it hath beene knowne and seene to cite Authors for some opinion who teach a cleare contrary Doctrine 4. You stand for the Popes Kingdome to be a Kingdome that governes all Kingdomes Then belike he steers the huge Argonfie of the grand Signior and of the mighty Tartarian and the most potent Monarch of China too But I believe he dares not once presume to set his foote in any of their powerfull Aâ—kes No no the Pope is no Governour of Kingdomes but Pastor of Christians it is more then high time to pull up by the rootes all such thoughts purposes and projects to sway the Scepter of secular Princes Kings and States Non est Discipulus super Magistrum the Disciple is not above his Master nor the servant above his Lord. 5. Item You make the chiefe Bishop a God as God was tâ—ken of the old Philosophers that is to be causa prima the first cause of things For thus you say As God governes all Kingdomes and takes not away from Kings the Kingdoms ruled and governed by his omnipotentarme so the Pope governs all Kingdomes and takes them not away from the true owners to whom in right and reason they belong so far exorbitant is this your comparison and openeth so great so wide a gate unto Idolatry that I cannot I dare not passe by the gate thereof but with a warie foote What Is the Pope then omnipotent omniscient Vbique per Essentiam praesentiam potentiam Is his Holinesse every where by his Essence by his presence by his power for as much as he immediately governes all Kingdomes as they are governed by God himselfe I know not Hetrodox how it is possible that so vast so exorbitant imaginations have taken roote in the Intellectuall Facultie of any Christian man 6. Againe to give but not to grant you thus much I mean to give it for courtesie sake though not grant it for a veritie that our Popes governe all Temporall and Earthly Kingdomes as they are governed by God himselfe yet all the learned know that God suffers the second causes to work and himselfe is only concurrent with all their operations with all that are good he concurres Positivè by position with all that are evill Permissivè by permission Then for example when the operations of the most Christian King are good wherefore should the Pope not suffer him still to be in such action Here I would have no man step in with a frivolous answer the Pope will not suffâ—r the King so to doe because the Pope is perswaded the Kings operations are wicked and therefore hee will take order for the remedy and reformation thereof For if the Pope should undertake the attempt and enterprise to reforme all wicked men first he should be nothing like unto God who many times permits wicked men to range in the waies of their own will
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
subject unto the higher Powers Now higher powers are men placed in high and honourable dignities to whom by law and order of justice we owe subjection Submit your selves to al manner of Ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether it be unto the King as supream or unto Governours as unto them which are sent of God And whereas S. Paul saith To the higher powers it is a kind or manner of speech indefinite meaning that we must be subject unto all such persons Ratione sublimitatâ— officii in regard of their high office and place though the men themselves are evill Servants be subject unto your masters not only to the good and courteous but also to the froward Thus farre Thomas Aquinas a Religious who for all his religious orders made no bones to say Oportet nos c. We must be subject His words doe neither admit nor need any comment or glosse he speakes not with a Barre in his throate but with a clear voice and like himselfe the Prince of scolastick and catholique Doctors And who dares deny S. Chrysostome to be a catholique Doctor His clear verdict upon this passage of S. Paul is extant with generall aprobation and applause Facit hoc ideo c. It is the Apostles purpose here to teach that Christ hath not brought his Lawes into the Church of any intent or purpose to repeale to reverse to annull or abolish the lawes and rules of politick government but rather to reduce the order and frame of civill government unto a better forme of institution S. Paul therefore speaks there of politick or civill power not of all power in generall as you Hetrodox are pleased to avouch comprehending therein the Popes power and I wot not what powers besides but only of secular power And how foule an errour it is to expound holy Scripture according to a mans own private spirit or fancy yea contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers I referre you to the councell of Trent Session 4. And whereas you strive for the Popes power to be immediate from God and not mediate by election of Cardinals but in a certaine correspondence to the immediate power of Moses Aaron from the Lord If you can shew and prove that God at any time hath spoken to the chiefe Bishop elected by the Cardinals face to face in a fiery-bush or in a rod as he hath spoken of old to Moses and Aaron it shall be subscribed and confessed for my part that not only the Popes power but also his election is immediately from God But if God in former times hath spoken and yet speaks to the chiefe Bishops when they are elected as you Hetrod would bear us in hand let me be answered to this one question How then are the Conclaves necessary What need so many ambitious plots and practises What need so many hot and vehement canvases What need mighty Princes by their Agents to intercede to mediate to shuffle and cut with Cardinals for the election of some one or other of their own Subjects Patriots Favourites or Creatures What need many other strange devices and stratagems to be so pragmatically and preposterously coined as instruments to hasten the untimely birth of many partiall and precipitate Elections In a word what an idle and superfluous convocation of Lord Cardinals is that wherein the Popes election is made when his Holinesse is immediately elected of God just to an hayre forsooth as Moses and Aaron were elected What new doctrine is this Almighty God as the prime and supream cause permits the second causes to act and worke in their kind and according to their efficacy And howsoever in the election of Popes and other Princes he is assistant after a more speciall and particular manner for a common and generall good yet he never violents or enforces the liberty of elections Nay rather he expresly shows and makes known I speake of Gods ordinary course Quando de revelatione non constat when there is no manifest and apparent revelation that his divine will and pleasure is to have this or that individuall person to win the spurres and to prevaile in the election before all others as it pleased him to provide and take order in the case of Moses and Aaron yea sometimes for the punishment of our sinners Almighty God suffers a wicked Prince and as wicked a Pope if not much worse and more wicked to be advanced by course and order of election but when the election is once consummate God then gives the Pope as we Catholiques professe a Vicars power of Christs own institution and gives the Prince that power which was instituted by the author of mans nature with nature it selfe nor can I here see any such difference as you Hetrodox do seem to inferre That Princes are elected by men and the Pope is not elected by men but by God as Moses and Aaron were elected And whereas Chrysostome speaks clearly of Princes and politick Magistrates of whom also S. Paul himselfe speakes which I have sufficiently explained before you spare not Hetrodox which is your next grosse errour to affirme that Chrysostome there handles not power of the said Princes and Magistrates in particular but speaks only of power in generall Now Sir can it stand with any probability or possibility that where S. Paul himselfe treats of secular Princes and their power in particular there S. Paul's most faithfull expositor doth make the subject of S. Pauls discourse to be of power in generall Secondly those powers whom S. Paul tearms higher powers Chrysostome thorow his whole Sermon calles by the name of Princes and Magistrates I mean such Princes and Magistrates as enact politick lawes bear the weighty burthen of the Common wealth to whom Tribute is due and by the Apostles precept is to be given upon what ground of reason Forsooth because they are the chief workers and preservers of peace and plenty to the whole land they make and maintain warres in the Subjects defence they see and cause due punishments to be inflicted upon all seditious and disordered breakers of the Kings peace debaucht and wicked persons Tell me Sir who are those by whom thâ—se worthy workes and the like are done but secular Princes and the civill Magistrate Thirdly Doth not Chrysostome directly testify that whereas the Apostles were famed and defamed rather to be seditious to preach disobedience unto Princes and to the common lawes S. Paul therefore by way of precept hath delivered all the dogmaticall points couched in the said Chapter Fourthly Chrysostome affirmes that aswell here as in other places S. Paul commands every subject and servant in the whole State to be subject no lesse unto his lawfull Prince then servants in Families are subject unto their private masters Fiftly what meanes Chrysostome by those words Facit autem hoc ideo c. It is the Apostles purpose and scope to teach That Christ hath not established his lawes in the Church thereby to nullifie civill States
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
civill Court thus farre Iustinian In which first part of the Emperour Iustinians Novel I may not passe diverse points untouched this for one That Menua is glad to come on his knees and to make humble suite for this priviledge then surely his Churchmen had no such exemption before from God himselfe or Iure divino by Gods law for had the good Patriarch had that string to his Bow by Gods holy Ordinance or constitution doubtlesse his humble begging and earnest Petition for this humane priviledge had been by his leave and yes too Hetrodox no better then direct and voluntary rushing into sinne This for another that Iustinian grants not Menua the Court in any absolute straine or terme but only allowes him to give judgement or sentence without any clamorous noyse and without any formall instruments in writing a course clean contrary to modern practise in our Ecclesiasticall Courts where commonly more clamour and noyse more Advocates Proctors Notaries more Offices and Ministers more chargeable Fees are paid for Transcripts breviats Bookes and such like instruments then are in Courts of secular justice This for a third that Iustinian puts down the reason whereby he was induced to grant such priviledge to wit that Clerics not disquieted nor disturbed with clamours and noises of Courts might more diligently and freely attend upon their divine offices and Ministeriall Functions This for the fourth and last Iustinian grants no absolute but only conditionall priviledge The second point observable in the Novell that in criminall causes of civill nature and kind meerely temporall without any smack or rellish of spirituals which Couaruvias expounds in these words Quae spiritualia non attingunt such as touch not the hemne of the spirituall garment Church-men within the City of Constantinople shall be tryed and judged by competent secular Judges and through the whole Empire besides by the Prefects or L. Presidents in their severall Provinces and that moreover with a certain limitation or stint of time namâ—ly that within the tearm and space of two moneths the matter shall be drawn to a head and shall come to a finall issue or end and that sentence being once sped or passed against a Cleric by the L. President of any Province the President shall not proceed to execution before the said Cleric is degraded and quite divested of his priestly or sacerdotall dignity by the Bishop according to the laudable custome and usuall manner in such cases The Emperours own words are thus directly couched in the Novell Si tamen de criminalibus conveniantur c. but if a Church-man be convented or brought Coram nobis upon some criminall cause of a civill nature that is to say such as no way hath dependance or correspondence with Ecclesiastic Regiment or Church-discipline in such a case he shall come to tryall within this imperiall City before competent Judges and in all the Provinces before the most honourable Presidents of the same provided the suite depend or hold not above two months after the Actor hath put in his Declaration and the Reus his Answer or defence that so the suite may have the shorter cut and the more expedite dispatch And in case the President shall find the party impleaded to be guilty in the action and thereupon shall adjudge him to undergo and suffer the punishment ordained and inflicted by Law then the party so judged shall first be deposed from his Priestly Orders and Church dignities by the Bishop beloved of God and after that he shall come under the hand or suffer the penalty of the Lawes In which words likewise divers points are to be observed viz. That some offences criminall are meerely civill meerely politic no way within compasse of spirituall respect or consideration that crimes and offences of such nature are tryable and punishable by temporall Magistrates that Churchmen for the said offences may be sentenced and condemned to death by a temporall Judge that Justinian bindes not himselfe or his LL. the Judges within the City of Constantinople to cause a Priest or Cleric first of all to be degraded and after to be transmitted over into the hands of civil Ministers of justice but in such case he binds only the provinciall Presidents himselfe as the Soveraign and the Judges in Constantinople as his Commissioners Delegates or Subaltern Magistrates remaining exempt and free from such obligation to give order for the degrading of such Delinquents before execution that sentence of the secular Judge must precede and then degradation is to follow before execution for Manus legum the hand of the lawes is the executioner of haut justice from whence it is directly to be deduced that Hetrodox hath drawn but a sinister left handed untoward and perverse construction of Iustinians Novell in bearing us in hand that Churchmen for offeâ—ces and crimes of this nature are first forsooth to be judged and withall to be degraded by the Bâ—shop and after to feel the weight of the secular arme for faith Hetrodox Et tâ—nc sub legum fieri maâ—â— and then to undergo the deadly stroake of the law whereas without all ambiguity the great and learned Emperour speakes in perspicuous tearmes and sayes that a definitive sentence of the secular Judge shall precâ—de degradation by the Bishop shall second execution of the sentence shall follow in the Reare and yet withall that such course of proceeding shall be only held in the Provinces and not in the imperiall City The third point or branch of the said Novell that in case a Clerics offence be of Ecclesiasticall nature namely such as requires and calles for justice by some ecclesiasticall censure or penalty thâ—n the punishment shall be inflicted and the penalty awarded according to the divine and sacred rules or Canons which in such cases the lawes imperiall do not hold it any abatement or disparâ—gement of their honour to follow The Emperours proper words runne precisely thus Si vero Ecclesiasticum siâ— delictum c. But when the offence is meerely Ecclesiastic such as requires the censure and correction of the Church then shall the Bishop beloved of God take due contemplation of the nature quality and merit of the offence the right honourable Judges residing and exercising their charge in the severall Provinces shall beare no hand and strike no stroake in the busines neither as head nor foot for it is not our pleasure or mind at any hand that civill Magistrates take any cognizance at all of such cases because they are to be sifted scanned and tryed by ecclesiasticall proceedings and the faults of delinquents in that kind are corrigible only by Ecclesiastic censures according to the sacred Canons which our lawes imperiall do not disdaine to imitate In which branch or context of the Novell these few heads come in like manner to be observed that some offences are meerly ecclesiasticall and annexed to the clericall order that when the holy Canons and sacred Scripture make it lawfull for Prelates to inflict and
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
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
forreigners and not upon those of the City according to Titelmannus You resolutely affirme this tribute whereof we now speak was the tribute of Augustus but you give us no reason of your assertion and yet besides you seeke to put out mine eye with a false text of Iosephus with a reiteration that Augustus his tribute was the tribute of the Temple Again I buckle my selfe to the true exposition that Christ was not bound to pay tribute because he was the sonne of God and sonnes use to pay no tribute required or exacted in the name of the King their Father But you Hetrodox from this my negative against all the rules of Logick will draw the affirmative and charge me to hold that Christ as man was bound to pay the said tribute Now Sir If any affirm the People of Rome ought not to withstand the commands of his Holines as he iâ— Christs Vicar of this will you inferre and conclude the people of Rome ought doubtlesse to withstand his Holines as he is a temporall Prince The very Pesant of mean common capacity would be ready to hisse the conclusion out of the Laic Schooles Qui unum negat alterum non affirmat he that denies one thing doth not forthwith affirme another when the said things are not contrary but only dispared as in our present case but I very well perceive your fetch Hetrodox it was to fetch in Marsilius of Padua and you have fetcht him in with a witnesse for you have pulled him into the Stage by the eares and out of all due time sufficient it is for me to alleadge the reason alleadged by Christ himselfe that as the Son of God he was not bound to pay any tribute to untie the knot of the argument produced to the contrary not by me but by others and neverthelesse I do not affirme that Christ our Lord was bound as man to pay the said tribute 6. Again our Saviour Christ stands upon this reason to prove his exemption from tribute because he was the Son of God But you Hetrodox do take a stride nay more then one stride further and stick not here to affirme that S. Peter also was exempted because he was of Christs own family who was the Son of God but Christ as all mâ—n know there spake not a word of the family but only of the Sonne Christ kept no servants he was only followed by certain Disciples And howsoever the servants of the Kings sonne should be exempted from tribute so long as they are employed in his service yet doubtlesse the Disciples of Christ were not servants of Christ Non dixi vos servos sed amicos non veni ministrari sed ministrare I have not called you servants but friends I came not into the world to be served but rather to serve others And moreover the exposition which you here set down Hetrodox is directly flat against the text For the Publicanes presupposed they tooke it for granted they put it out of all hunger and cold that S. Peter was lyable to tribute for his own Poll and therefore they only asked Peter not whether he himselfe whether his master was in the check-roll of tributaries for his Poll whereupon Christ forthwith gave order that Peter should make present payment on the nayle for them both for himselfe that he might give no cause of scandall to the Publicans and for Peter because he was liable to the law of tribute wherein first I observe that Peter then was neither Priest nor Pope Secondly that in case of necessity even ecclesiasties exempted saith Thomas Aquinas privilegio Principum by Princely priviledge ought in duty to pay tribute because Peter found the Statere or Sicle wherewith he paid tribute in a fishes Belly to notifie that men ought by way of Subsidie and â—id to their Princes to pay tribute of those goods which they have got and received of fishes that is by the almes of charitable and faithfull Christians 7. Againe you are not pleased nor disposed Hetrodox to apprehend the pith and force of my argument For to prove that Christ never exercised any temporall dominion it sufficed to affirm that Christ himselfe said Give unto Cesar the things that are Cesars But because there are some who frame that argument not against the words Give unto Cesar the things that are Cesars but against the whole discourse in generall to prove that Christ was a temporall King because he said that he was not bound to pay tribute I therefore answer that Christ spake not so in regard that he was a temporall King but in regard that he was the Sonne of God For this Hetrodox you forsooth would have me reputed an Heretic such a marvellous desire you and some others doe shew 〈◊〉 Luk. 16. to have us burnt for this heresie Ex abundantiâ cordis â—s loquitur the mouth speaks out of the abundance of the heart Nauseat anima eorum super cibâ— isto lâ—vissimo Num. 21 their soule loatheth such light bread and yet my Religion to me is a heavenly Manna But surely we are not such and by the grace of God we will never be found such as you and some other doe seeme to desire 8. Againe you play false in citing S. Jeroms Text for you shall find his words cleane contrary and thus in true termes Dominus noster secundum carnem secundùm Spiritum filius Regis erat vel ex Davidis stirpe generatus vel omnipotentis verbum patris ergo tributa quasi Regis filius non dababat sed qui humilitatem carnis assumpserat debuit adimplere omnem justitiam nosque infoelices Christi censemur nomine nihil dignum facimus tantâ majestate Ille pro nobis crucem sustinuit tributa reddidit nos pro illius honore tributa non reddimus quasi filii Regis à vectigalibus immunes sumus Our Lord was the Son of a King both according to the flesh and according to the Spirit either as bred of the stock of David or as the Word of the Omnipotent and Almighty Father and therefore as a Son descended borne of Kings he did owe no kind of tribute but he who took the basenesse of our nature was to fulfill all righteousnesse We wretched creatures mark how he reckons himselfe in the number then being a Priest and according to some Authors a Cardinall are inrowled in the censorian tables of Christ and yet we work nothing of so high majesty and honour He for us hath born the Crosse and paid tribute shall not we then for his honor pay tribute but as if we were free born the Kings naturall sons scape altogether Scot-free from all manner of tallage poundage customes tributes aydes and subsidies In this place we see S. Ierome not only doth not affirme that immunities are De jure divino by Gods Law but he also grievously complaines as Iansenius testifies that Ecclesiastics did not pay the required and imposed tributes for
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
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
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
had put in Protestation that matters were precipitated and hudled and shuffled and cut by the nimble fingers of cunning Gamesters The Acts of the said Councell are not in these daies to be cited with like integrity to those of the ancient Councels which foule Defect by the godly-wise and learned is justly attributed to the disgrace and disaster of our times And for this reason I am perswaded the holy Fathers in that Councell assembled subjoyned the fore-said words That in case any difficulty should grow and arise in future times about the Determinations of that Councell the Pope might have full power to procure and worke sufficient redresse and remedy thereof either by convocating the learned of those Provinces where such difficill and intricate questions did spring and grow or otherwise by calling a Generall Councell or else might by some other meanes provide for the Quiet and Peace of the Christian Common-wealth So that first I say those words of the Councell are cited amisse both by the Lord Cardinall and your selfe For the Councell saith not Ecclesiae personarum Ecclesiaesticarum Immunitas in Temporalibus est instituta ordinatione divinâ That Immunity of the Church and of Ecclesiasticall Persons in their Temporals is appointed by Gods Ordinance but onely saith Princes ought not permit inferior Magistrates to infringe and violate the Immunity of the Church or of Ecclesiasticks howsoever it be appointed by Gods Ordinance whether meerly Ecclesiastick or Temporall as the Glosse runs granted by Princes according to those Examples Registred in holy Scripture But all this while the Councell doth not deny that such Immunity is granted by Princes in Temporals howsoever after the Examples of King Pharoh and King Artaxerxes Then I say againe that for so much as no such Exemption is found in any place of Scripture but rather the contrary written by St. Paul therefore the Sacred Councell is to be expounded as it is expounded by the Glosse Rom. 13. for otherwise the Councell had maintained an Errour which we Catholiques are bound at no hand to admit or acknowledge 2. The Councell of Coleyne which you alledge was not Generall but Provinciall It Decrees nothing by Determination it delivers no more then the Glosse but speakes lesse in the teeth and more cleere then the Councell of Trent For it doth not say that such Immunity is commanded by the Law of God and man but onely rather introduced or brought in by Gods Law after a sort namely because Pâ—inces have been moved and incited by the Examples of Pharoh and Artaxerxes in holy Scripture which is Gods Law to grant Priviledges unto Ecclesiastics or unto some others for not payiâ—g of Tribute not because it is commanded in any Text of Scripture but as taking that good Example in holy Scripture of their owne accord 3. The Lateran Councell which you also produce is not accounted Generall as the Lord Cardinall himselfe hath not sticked to acknowledge in divers places and so it wants weight of Authority Besides that which the said Councell affirmes is not held for indubitable And if the Councâ—ll meane that Princes have no power over Clerics in matters meerly Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall upon the matter per sâ— in it selfe they hold a truth But if they meane that Clerics are exempted in Criminall causes and Temporall matters which Priviledge Clerics enjoy not by Gods Law as hath beene proved then the Councell is not in any wise to be followed Besides the Councell cannot understand it otherwise then according to the Glosse and that is denyed of none 4. You are pleased to cast upon me the reproachfull name of Goliah whom you might better liken to David because I fight Pro castris non contra castra Dei for the Hosts of God and not against his Hosts that is for the Doctrine of the Apostles for the holy Scriptures of Christ our Saviour the highest Priest and for the holie Fathers neither doe I averre anie thing as hath beene declared against any one of the Sacred oecumenicall Councels lib. 1. de Cler. cap. 28. 5. The Canon of Bonifacius is understood according to the Glosse and so much is testified by the Lord Cardinall 6. Pope Iohn VIII and Pope Symmachus are to be understood in Causes meerely Ecclesiasticall after the manner before declared and not otherwise But of these two Popes more shall be spoken to purpose in another place It is very certaine they have not determined any thing against our Tenent as will easily be perceived by him that shall be pleased to take a fight of their Determinations 7. Your owne two Examples doe rather weaken and pull downe then build up and fortifie your Tower in two respects First you alledge that Pharoh and Artaxerxes granted their Priests free Charter of Exemption I can aske no more for I affirme the very same and no more viz. that granting Priviledges of Exemption belongs to the Prerogative of Princes Then againe you say that Princes have learned this lesson immediatly from the light of Nature whereas else-where the Lord Cardinall tels us that Exemption is not immediately taught by the light of nature but by the Law of Nations Et per quandam Similitudinem and by a kind of Resemblance or Similitude 8. Things taught by the light of Nature it is to no purpose for Pâ—inces to gâ—ant by Priviledge And whereas Clerics are exempâ—ed in particular as it is avouched by St. Thomas by the Priviledge of Princes Propter naturalem quandam aequitatem in respect of a certaine naturall Equity his words are to be taken in a sound sense And how That such Priviledge is founded upon the rule of Reason which is called naturall Equitie upon which rule of Reason or naturall Equity all the grounds and rules of the Law Civill are established but hereby St. Thomas doth not conclude they are established by Gods Law naturall but are civiil revokeable c. Hetrodox Now you have tickled my Eight Errors is there yet any more to be said for your Defence Orthodox There is more For beside all that hath beene declared in my first Proposition that under the old Law Priests were subject unto their naturall Prince 1. Reg. 2. and besides that Solomon deprived Abiathar and exauthorised him from the high Priest-hood of the Jewes In the Primitive Church untill the Raigne of the Emperour Iustinian there is not read or found in the whole bodie of the Law any Priviledge of Exemption granted to Ecclesiastics â— Hetrodox And have not I made evident Demonstration when I refuted your first Proposition that under the old Law the Priests and Levites were subject unto the Prince Ecclesiasticall And whereas you have affirmed that Moses was a Politicall or Civill Prince have not I proved by testimonies of Scriptures and holy Fathers that Moses was invested in the Authority of high Ptiest To your Example of Solomon I make this answer that Solomon exercised and exâ—cuted a power against Abiathar as the Minister of
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
forbeare to speake any more presupposing it is most evident as a matter tossed from one to another in every Venetians mouth Howbeit I build not so much upon this foundation because I have this answer of Rome at my fingers ends When the Pope doth any thing against the Canons that is the Pope is Supra Canones he is above the Canons How this can hold water or weight with truth I leave to your consideration For that Canon is grounded upon the order of Brotherly correction prescribed by our Saviour himselfe the alteration of whose Ordinance is too far out of the Popes reach 2. The â—â—â—â—â—ce of our holy Father the Pope you say is not a void 〈◊〉 â—â—nce of nullified by Gods Law and that you have sufficiently proved the Venetian Lords have most grievously sinned I doe not deny that you have in Affirmation charged the noble Lords with I wor not what grievous offences But Sir that you have made any Demonstration of your bold Assertion according to your stout pretence that you must give me leave to deny againe and againe Will you have my Reason It is indemonstrable that such as goe not against any Law doe fall into sin That such as tooth and naile doe stand for defence of their ancient Rights and Possessions doe fall into sinne That such as obey God rather then men fall into sinne That such as resist violence doe fall into sinne Such are the lawfull and laudable Actions of the Venetian Lords and therefore they doe not fall into sinne as to effectuall purpose hath beene declared before Whereas your oppositions against this Doctrine have not one myte of probability no not in appearance much lesse of certainty or Demonstration as you pretend 3. I have confessed the Popes power extends unto Spirituall matters and is over sinne you hereupon doe inferre that the Pope hath power at all times and in all causes to judge what is a sin and what is no sin This your opinion smels of Durandus his Chimnie and smoke an opinion of all men reproved but your opinion is much worse For Durandus doth not professe that in every sin we should stand to the Popes judgement whether it be sin or no for that is not necessary He onely affirmes the Pope hath power to judge all Christian People ratione peccati for sinne at his pleasure and to draw all matters into his Court Whereas you Hetrodox passe a whole degree further For if the Pope shall judge an action of vertue to be sin though I be never so certain it is no sin you forsooth will have the Popes judgement shall make it sinne This perswasion containes intolerable Errors 1. The first whereof is That in judiciis Facti in judgements of the Fact our holy Fathers judgement is infallible False for in cases of the Fact he may erre and hath oftentimes erred So teach all the Doctors in the Fact of Pope Stephen and Pope Pâ—â—â—osus with other Popes of whom Platina writes This Doctrine is held for most certain in the Church The Pope then may erre in affirming a thing to be sin which is no sin so the Pope can be no infallible Judge 2. The second Howsoever in a doubtfull case whether a thing be sin or no recourse may be had to the Popes Judgment or some other Doctors yet in cases which are certain and certainly known such recourse to the Pope for his Judgement is not necessary For example I know for certaine it is a sin to steale such a rich Jewell or such a piece of Plate again I know for certain it is a vertue to defend my Life my Land my Leases and to serve God Shall I give credit and faith to the Pope â—he should affirme the contrary to that whereof I am so certain and no way doubtfull Those Authors who grant all Authority to the Pope and judgement between Leprosie and Leprosie that is whether it be Leprosie or no Leprosie doe grant it only in doubtfull bâ—â— not in certain cases For in matters cleer evident and certain either the light of Nature or the sacred Scripture or the common estimation and account of all men is unto us a Law vox Populi vox Dei 3. That in the present case and assures of the Venetian Lords to make the world believe they sin it is all sufficient for the Pope to speake the word and to say the Venetian Lords doe grievously offend and transgresse the Lawes of God of the Pope of the Church c. Whereas you know Hetrodox it is the perverse the froward the wicked intention that makes a thing to be fin according to that of Bernard Tolle voluntatem Infernus non erit if a man be cleare from all wicked intention he shall be cleere and free from Hell-fire for ever because according to St. Augustine Peccatum est dictum factum concupitum contra legem sinne must be something spoken or acted or coveted against the Law of God If one therefore hath a good intention he goeth not against Gods Law Howsoever the Pope shall say he sinnes yet he sinnes not which according to all the Doctors as hath been said must be understood in re certâ Now because the Venetian Lords are certainly assured they have not sinned or offended and carry a cleer conscience fâ—â—e from any sinister and evill intention this knowledge is their sufficient warrant without running to the Pope for his judgement in such a cause especially wherein his Holinesse makes himselfe both Judge and Partie 4. The Supreame Judge you say hath judged the Duke of Venice to be covered all over with Leprosie from head to foot the Duke is therefore unclean all over Why good Sir the ancient Priest under the old Testament judged not of any mans Leprosie He onely said thou art an unclean Leper and therefore I will not suffer thee to enter into the Temple Now this judgement belongs to all Physitians and indeed to all other men when the Leprosie is manifestly seen and when every man knowes the partie to be smitten with Leprosie Besides if it be doubtfull whether a man be leprous or no men may runne to the Priest or goe to the Doctor to be certified of the truth But when a man is already assured and certain that he is not rotten but sound not run over with knots and knubs but of a cleer and smooth skin what needs he run or send his Vrine to the Physitian for the matter except his Phantasticon be like unto the immaginative apprehension of one who being Infra limites sanitatis as Physitians use to speake as whole as a Fish when his Physitian told him he had an Ague in his Phantasie so deepely made impressions of the Physitians words that he was in a trice surprised really of an Ague and thereof soone dyed To be short If Christ Jesus the Supreame Judge indeed who cannot erre should say contrary to the judgement and assured knowledge of the Venetian Lords you sin in these
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 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
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
done with much disgrace and contempt As to that which you say touching the cause for which Christian subjects were bound to obey Infidel and unbeleeving Princes I will content my selfe to make use of Saint Pauls words for a sufficient and full answer thereunto You must be subject and obedient not onely because of wrath but also for conscience sake Rom. 13. Item Whosoever resists the power he resists the ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves condemnation In so cleere Texts and passages of Scripture what need you or any other fly to the shifts of any new expositions with danger to fall into infidelity or mis-creance and notorious Heresie especially when Chrysostome hath decided the matter before by so strong an argument from the lesse to the greater in this forme If the Apostle enjoyneth obedience to Heathen and miscreant Magistrates how much more ought we to performe and yeeld all due obedience unto beleeving and godly princes Thus Chrysostome Hetrod The Sunne is now declined many degrees and now ready to depart out of our Horizon Are you Orthodox as neere to the period of your first dayes labour and taske as the Sunne is to the full end of his Journall or Diurnall motion Orthod I am indeed as you shall presently perceive Saint Paul commands all men to pay Tribute unto their lawfull Soveraigne because he that dischargeth such duty makes good payment unto God himselfe Give Tribute unto whom you owe Tribute Custome unto whom Custome fâ—r they are the Ministers of God This passage is expounded by the Angelicall Doctor the great Master of Divines and onely Sunne of the Catholic School This great Clark saith you know full well That in case Clerics be free and exempt from payment of Tribute doubtlesse they are endowed with such freedome and exemption not by Gods Law as by divers it is thought and taught but by speciall grace and priviledge of secular princes who beare not Gladium the sword for nought seeing they are Gods Ministers to take vengeance c. See you not here the authority of Secular Princes to punish poena sanguinâ—â— with losse of blood or with corporall death Now the same authority Ecclesiasticall Prelats have not from God and therefore when they have once degraded a Cleric for some capitall crime or scandalous and notorious offence whereby they declare the party criminall to be devested of his Clericall degree and holy orders they take no course nor care at all for any further proceeding to his execution but for punishment by death tradunt brachio saeculari they refer and poast him over to the secular power And to the end it might not be conceived that Pauls words are not uttered by way of precept but onely of counsell Behold to make good his assertion he strengthens the same words with a very substantiall sinew Ideo necessitate c. Wherefore ye must be subject not onely because of wrath but also for conscience sake So then we are bound by Saint Pauls holy doctrine as it were with a forcible chaine of necessity O portet ye must to serve and obey the secular Prince in all such matters and cases as have been discussed and insisted on before Hetrod How now Orthodox play the lazie Poet Faile flag and faint in the last Act of your first dayes Conference Coyne or at least corrupt Scripture at your pleasure and for your purpose where find you this word in S. Paul For they are the Ministers of God Ad tributa to receive tribute or this word For he is the Minister of God Ad vindictam to take vengeance The sense of the latter words I grant is found in the Apostles Text but whensoever men cite the words of Scripture which indeed are Gods owne words it is but a sacrilegious trick to chop and change the right words especially when the genuine sense proclaimes it selfe to every meane capacity For example in the first sentence For they are the Ministers of God to receive tribute Paul doth not say That Princes are Gods Ministers to receive tribute but rather by all meanes to provide for and to procure the tranquility of the whole body So the words are expounded by Chrysostome and other holy Fathers Ministri Dei sunt in hoc ipsum servientes For they are the Ministers of God to the very same purpose that is to provide for and to procure the tranquillity of Gods people Yea the same Thomas also whom you so highly magnifie and upon whose testimony as you think and suppose you build so sure is of the very same judgement or mind For he reckons and ranks Tributes in the nature of Salaries given to Princes for the laborious taske surmounting the twelve labours of Hercules which they daily undertake for the good and happy government of their Subjects And who doth not know that no salarie can be given to God Princes therefore are not Gods Ministers Ad tributa to receive tribute but rather to bring their subjects unto a statâ— of blessednesse under a good and happy government Againe touching Thomas Aquinas whom you quote for another purpose namely to prove That Ecclesiasticks have been freed from payment of tribute by the most gracious charters and speciall priviledges of Princes it is in good sooth the assertion of Thomas and conformable to Historicall Truth But you impose and father upon Thomas more then he sets downe to wit That Ecclesiasticks are not so endowed and priviledged by Gods Law whereas Thomas affirmâ— the cleane contrary For thus he saith Princes by gracious priviledges have exempted Ecclesiastics from tribute because it stands and agrees well with naturall equity He means that Princes in so doing confirme the law of nature which doubtlesse is the Law of God To be short whereas in your last point you deny the power of the Church to punish by death I know not where you have pulled that wild and sowre grape except it be in the Desarts of certaine Hereticks as the Valdâ—nses Hussites Marsilius of Padua or the like who denyed the Church to have any right unto the power of both swords True it is the Church never strikes with any materiall sword nor doth punish criminall malefactors by death But wherefore what is it because the Church wants power in that case No verily but because it seems neither convenient nor suitable to Ecclesiasticall meeknesse in regard whereof the Church is well contented and apayed to leave all such criminall offenders in the hand of secular justice Vterque igitur Ecclesia c. Both swords therefore the spirituâ—ll and the maâ—eriall of right belong to the Church the materiall to be unsheathed in the Churches defence the spirituall to be drawn by the Churches arme the spirituall to be used by the Priest the materiall by the Soldier but yet when the Priest holds up his finger and the Emperour commands or sends out warrant for the purpose This doctrine of S. Bernard was afterward made authenticall by Pope