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
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
plaintiffs or defendants in criminall cases inhibits Churchmen to runne that course to the end they might avoid the danger of running into the state of irregularity Non permittente Episcopo when the Bishop gives no way to the said course This practise I grant is still in use and to this day goes currant But what force what vigour what sinew is in this moderne practise to prove distinction of Court in the Primitive ages and times Nay it rather inferres the contrary that doubtlesse then there was not any other Court authorized besides that of the secular and temporall Magistrate unto which in as much as Churchmen were to have recourse in criminall cases for feare of incurring irregularity the said Councell hath taken due care and order for the Bishops good care and free consent And this jarres not with my doctrine but jumpes with it hand in hand besides the said ancient Councels were called and held alwaies with consent of the secular Prince and yet all this here spoken is no demonstrative proofe of your pretended distinction 7. The Câ—non of the third Councell held at Carthage speakes not in your language affords no such matter as you insert and inferre makes no distinction of the judiciall Court It layes inhibition upon Bishops and Churchmen after the controversie once is on foot before secular Judges or christian Arbiters at no hand to cast off and relinquish the said Aâ—biters but rather to labour for the deciding and knitting up of such controversie without seeking to any other competent Judge not agreed upon by both parties to rest in their finall determination and arbitrement for the better averting and avoyding of scandall or offence For the better conceiving of this Canon it is to be understood that Christians in the Primitive Church came to agreement in certain controversies growing betwixt parties and with reciprocall or mutuall consent made choise of Infidell or unbelieving Arbiters a fault for which the Apostle Paul somewhat roundly and sharply tooke up the Corinthians in these words Secularia igitur judicia c. If then yee have judgemènts of things pertaining to this life set up such in the Church as are contemptible or at loast esteemed to give judgment I speake this to your shame is it so 1 Cor. 6. that amongst you of the Church there is not one wise man Not one that can judge the causes of Bretheren These words are not very many as all men see and yet do minister diverse matters to be considered As that Paul here speakes of secular busines and temporall causes item of such Judges as by any one might be chosen and appointed of indâ—fferent arbitrators men without any Presidentsh p or commission in tribunals or Courts for he saith Hes constituite set yee up such c. Item the Apostle speakes not of chusing and setting up Bishops in these cases but of such as were of no great ability or sufficiency for the discharging of the said good office men whom there he calls Contemptibiles men of no speciall regard or estimation of which Apostolicall text Chrysostome hath given this excellent exposition Apostoli talibâ—â— non vacabant c. The Apostles themselves never troubled their heads never busied their braines they were at no leisure to deale or to take any paines about litigious occurrents between party and party or about secular judgements their whole Ministery was imployed and spent altogether in travailing through all Nations and teaching in all places where they went but men of the more discreet sort and ranke howsoever otherwise they were men of the meaner condition and lesser merit had the managing or working upon things of that nature And so S. Gregory according to the glosse Terrenas causas examinant c. I advise that men of discretion in outward matters may fift and bolt out causes of worldly nature as for men of endowment with spirituall and heavenly gifts of another element and more transcendent efficacy and power they are not by any meanes to intangle their mindes or to be taken like wild and untame Deere in the strong toyles of terrene matters too farre out of their proper element Item S. Paul what power and authority soever he was armed withall and by some it is thought with Papall power saith not I set up or I appoint but referring such matters to the parties interessed themselves he saith see that yee set up be it your own act and ordinance Nor speakes he of Priests or of priestly orders or of Bishops but in a generall comprehension he speakes of the faithfull who had no exemption from the Princes Tribunals at least seculars according to the opinion of all were not exempted Now this was practised in Africa but whereas many Prelates Bishops and Church men when they first practised this course commenced a new course afterwards by recourse to secular and competent Judges the Councell therefore to meet with so great a mischiefe made that ninth Canon by you cited before in this tenour and stile Item placuit ut quisquis Episcoporum c. Wee moreover appoint and ordaine That whensoever a Bishop Deacon or Cleric charged with any crime and sued in any civill cause shall decline and forsake the Court ecclesiasticall or shall seeke to purge and quit himselfe in any other Court of public judgement he shall then be deprived yea though he carry the cause and winne the day by sentence of his dignity and place if the judgement be criminall but in case it be civill he shall then loose the cause if he mean to preserve and keepe his dignity For he that hath free liberty to make choise of his Judge where he lists himselfe and best likes declares himselfe to be unworthy of the ranck and fellowship of Christian bretheren when he carries a sinister partiall and prejudicate opinion of the Church not forbearing to crave the helpe and favour of secular judgement whereas the Apostle commands the causes of private Christians to be brought to the cognisance of the Church and there to have both full and finall determination which words make evident demonstration of diverse points First of all that you Hetrodox have slily sought to put out mine eye with a text or Canon of this councell which you make but a plain Curtall with a Manâ— undecently shorne with a â—â—it nose and cropt eares as if it had stood upon some Pillory lime and limping besides of the neâ—re lâ—g before Secondly That in this Canon there is no mention at all of any public Court of any competent Judge or of any Prelate but only of Arbiter Judges of seculars and of private judgement Thirdly That by the said Councell it is carefully provided and ordained that whensoever Churchmen shall give any public offence or open scandall then they are to be punished with deprivation and lossâ— of their Free-hold Fourthly and lastly that in the Canon there is couched no expresse precept or direct charge for chusing the said Arbiters when the
other untruth be it heresie or errour howsoever I am directly of this minde it is flat heresie to stand upon termes of contradiction against so cleer a text of the divine Apostle Paul And lastly know this Hetrodox that man is a spider who weaves a spiders web to catch flies and poysons the springs or fountains of wholsome doctrine with venome of his own corrupt and false exposition know you moreover that Orthodox who now like the Bee sucks from the sweet flowers of Saints and chiefe pillars of the Church the most delicious honey of truth will never take pepper in the nose to heare himselfe blamâ—d on this wise sometimes your sweet honie Hetrodox turnes to bitter wormwood yea to deadly poyson to make false and erroneous doctrine burst all her bowels Hetrod Well Sir have you any more gall to spit up any more to say in confirmation of your first Proposition Orthod It is not I that will say the rest but Paul the Apostle who thus proceeds and subjoynes in the sacred text Rom. 13. Whosoever he be that resists the Power the same resists the ordinance of God here is clearly to be seen the authority of secular Princes to make lawes in any matter cause or subject whatsoever lawes obligatory to bind all degrees and sorts of persons Quicunque whosoever he be c. in full conformity to the words of God himselfe speaking thus in his own person By me Kings raign and law-givers or Princes decree justice From hence have sprung as from the prime roote many lawes in the Code made by Iustinian and Theodosius most christian Emperours concerning Ecclesiasticall persons their lands goods c. All which lawes the Apostle commands to be obeyed without resistance for so much as all that resist shall purchase and receive to themselves condemnation they runne and tumble into mortall sinne wherein if they shall finally depart out of the body without repentance in this life they shall be adjudged and condemned to eternall flames of hell Hetrod Where did Paul ever write or witnesse That secular princes have power to make Lawes in all matters and causes Lawes to bind all sorts conditions and qualities of people what shall Princes make Lawes for the manner and forme of saying Masse for binding Laics to say Masse and to make the vow of chastity for binding Priests to marry and instead of a Breviarie and a Portuis to weare a Fauchion a Skaine or a Sword Shall not all these be bound to shew and performe obedience if Princes have authority to make Lawes in all causes and in all matters yea binding Lawes for all persons iâ— when Lawes were enacted by Heathen or unbeleeving Princes that all people Nations Tribes and Kindreds should renounce Christ and offer sacrifice to Idols were they not bound then under the penalty of mortall sinne to obey the said Heathenish Lawes and Ordinances They were doubtlesse to my understanding though all Princes then were Infidels when Paul commanded the said obedience to Princes And yet Orthodox according to your new interpretation from Pauls precept or Apostolicall Canon it is forsooth to be collected That secular Princes have authority from God to make Lawes in all matters and lawes to bind all persons It may seem your wits are gone on wool-gathering that you perceive not how many errours flow from the source of your last speech and passage And yet you stick not here to come in with a strange and uncouth addition That your doctrine hath due and requisite conformity with King Solomons verdict in the Proverbs not discerning that Solomon there nips your new device in the crown or rather strikes it stone dead For he there bringing in the wisdome of God using these words viz. By me Kings raigne and Princes or Law-makers decree justice doth manifestly declare and shew That none but just Lawes doe proceed from the wisdome of God and that other Lawes many times enacted by Princes in matters which nothing at all concerne their dignities and imperiall places or established against persons not subject unto their secular authority or otherwise unjust lawes are but like puddle waters which run from the corrupt fountaine of their owne braine so not flowing from the spring which riseth in Gods bosome neither are the said lawes approved of Gods divine wisdome To the other addition which you make that Iustinian and Theodosius enacted lawes concerning ecclesiastical persons their goods lands Church-government or discipline it hath been already answered that in such their practise they exceeded the termes and limits of their power and whereas you affirme the Apostle commands obedience to their lawes you affirm a most large and no lesse manifest untruth or falshood for the Apostle there speaks in generall that he would have Subjects obedient to their superiors and whereas a litle after the Apostle brings in the example of secular Princes he speaks of Princes who in his time were Infidels and is not so to be taken or understood as if he did advise and teach Christians to obey such Princes I mean in lawes that concern the service and worship of God or the discipline of his Church but in civill and politick lawes alone and in temporall matters which lawes it was necessary then for christians to obey for the preservation of peace and unity as also to the end the Gentiles might not be carryed away with mis-credence or false beliefe and perswasion that Christian lawes or the lawes of Christ are opposite and repugnant unto the rules and reasons of civill or State government Orthod You thought my wits were gone a gadding and now I think your mouth runs over but I will stop the Fistula or the running issue of your mouth with a tent or two My meaning is this That Princes have power to make Lawes in all causes and matters Temporall but onely for the Public and Civill good and benefit provided alwayes their Lawes be just For it is alwayes presupposed That obedience is never due nisi justa praecipienti but when the Prince or State or other Superiors command things just and lawfull So that your late Consequences grow from a certaine misprision or wrong conception of my project purpose position and proofes For when I teach That a Temporall prince hath power to make Lawes in any or in all cases I meane such Lawes and such cases as are just conformable and agreeable to his power as also after the pattern and practice of his predecessors and other just Princes This was ever my meaning As for your exception taken to Justinians Lawes and those of Theodosius it shall suffice thus to answer in a word Their Lawes are sacred and have ever been reputed irreprehensible they were contrived and penned partly upon temporall grounds and subjects partly for the more strict observance of spirituall Canons and Orders partly for public benefit and yet did never any chiefe Bishop or High priest so kick and spurne against either of their Lawes as you Hetrodox have now
can be no seemlie thing to make the Church of God lesse free in the Reigne and Government of Christian Princes then shee was in Pharohs time Let us now see and examine the reasons which you bring for proofe of your first Proposition For you pretend and alledge That Exemption of Ecclesiasticall Persons and their Possessions is onelie established and granted by mans Law and that your opinion in that point is more conformable to sacred Scripture to the holy Doctors and to the Histories of the Church then the contrarie opinion Orthodox You demand the reasons of my Doctrine in verie good time Hâ—trodox For in truth we are now come to the golden Key that opens the Closet and Cabinet of my Catholique Doctrine Howbeit Sir before I shall alleadge proofes of his Doctrine First it will be needfull to declare by certaine Propositions in what points your opinion dâ—ffâ—â—s from theirs who are commonly cited under the name of Heretiques which to be plaine iâ— likewise my opinion 1. There is a great difference betweene these two termes not Subject and exempt For the man is not subject unto any Prince Propositions foreâ—aid for grounds of the defence following over whom the power of the said Prince doth not extend and stretch Take this for Example An English man usually and commonly dwelling in England is not subject unto the French King For the French Kings power extends not over the English who have their common habitation in the Realme of England But in case an English-man dwelling in England shall not obey the King of England and his Lawes and shall not be conformable to the Statutes of England it must not be said that he is a Refractory because he is not subject unto the King of England but because he is exempted either by Almighty God the Lord of all or else by the King of Englands most Royall and gracious Priviledge So that whereas I affirme that Ecclesiastick Exemption and Immunitie is not in force de Jure divino by Gods Law my meaning is not in Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall causes cases or delicts For in cases of that nature and kind we cannot say that Clerics are excempt from the power of their lawfull and naturall Priâ—ce but we onely pronounce they are not subject unto the said Prince Then it remains that my meaning is in such Goods in such Causes in such Delicts as properly fall within the termes of Princely power not only to take due cognisance thereof but also to set and appoint due order in the same and what can such things but meerely Temporall and Politicall matters This hath begot and bred the Errour in some writers and your Error Hetrodox in particular In that whereas I contend that Clerics are not exempt from the power of their Naturall Prince by Gods Law you in all hast inferre thereupon Ergo Princes have power to make Lawes for saying Masse and for the marriage of Priests Certes Hetrodox this consequence hath no weight like a scive that holds no water they are not exempt from Temporall Power Ergo in Spirituall Delicts and causes they are subject Such equivocating Arguments of double sense and construction which are and ever have beene the precipitating of many simple spirits into erroneous conceipts ought by all meanes in so grave and weighty a subject both carefully and curiouslie to be avoided When I therefore speake of Exception Exemption and Immunitie from Secular power I must of necessity be conceived and taken to meane in such Causes in such Goods and in such Delicts wherein without all priviledge both Divine and Humane of God or man a man should of necessitie be subject unto the Secular Prince 2. There be foure opinions laid to the charge of Heretiques and rejected in this Argument as condemned and cursed with Bell Booke and Candle The Fathers of the first opinion are Marsilius of Padua and Jandunus These are charged and challenged by some to teach that Christ paid Tribute Necessitate coactus as one enforced by necessitie The next is Calvins opinion He dreames that Clerics are subject unto the Temporall Prince Ex debito in all Causes except onely such as are meerely Ecclesiasticall The third opinion calls Peter Martyr father He makes no bones to pâ—ofesse that it rests not in the hands it lyes not in the power of Princes to grant any such Priviledge of Exemption unto Clerics and in case they shall grant any such Priviledge they shall run into the snares of sinne because every such Grant is repugnant and contrary to Gods Law The fourth is the opinion of Brentius and Philip Melancthon they contend that Clerics are subject unto the Secular Prince even in causes meerly Ecclesiasticall All this verbatim is taken out of Card. Bellarmine Lib. 1. cap. 28. de Clericis It was therefore either out of affected Ignorance or else out of Supine Malignitie that one hath charged my Doctrine to be sprinkled or dipt in Brentianated Calviniated and Marsilianated holy water For I neither affirme with Marsilius of Padua if neverthelesse Marsilius was culpable of any such condemned opinion that our Lord Christ paid tribute as enforced by necessity but onely to shun the rocke of giving scandall Neither doe I teach with Calvin that in all Causes and Criminall Delicts Clerics are subject and ought so to be but in such onely wherein they have not beene exempted which Exemption stands not in force by Gods Law but by Princes Priviledge Neither doe I contend with Peter Martyr that Princes can grant no such Exemption but rather the contrarie that such Exemption may be granted Neither doe I lastly maintaine with Brentius that Clerics are subject in Spirituall Causes For I distinguish the two Powers the Temporall and the Spirituall And when I speake of Subjection or Exemption of Clerics I speake onely in Temporall matters over which the said power extends and stretches out her mighty arme and not in meere Ecclesiasticall matters and Spirituall save onely by Accident 3. My opinion is this that Clerics are not exempted from the power of Secular Princes by Gods Law but onely by Princely Priviledge either expressed or at least in tacite grant I mean after Canons lawfully published received as also after many laudable and approved Customes for such purpose Now that my Doctrine herein is Catholique it is confest by Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe in the place last cited For in his last Edition he holds that Exemption is by Gods Law forgetting by like what he had taught like a Doctor out of his Chaire in his other Bookes to the contrary of the same subject As where he writes of Medina and Conarruuias two Catholique Authors and both of them resolute in my true opinion for this point For he takes them downe in a round Censure terming them bold and hardy speakers in these words Sed operae pretium erit C de Restit q 15. ad eas objectiones breviter respondere quas Didacus Conarruuias Joannes Medina
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
THE JESUITE THE CHIEFE If not the onely State-Heretique in the World OR The Venetian Quarrell Digested into a DIALOGVE BY THO SWADLIN D. D. Bernard Epist 256. Quale est hoc Principatum tenere Ministerium declinare Printed in the Yeere 1647. TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFVLL My very munificent Friend Sir GEORGE GRYMES Noble Sir IN the following Papers which are but a Translation of Eight Propositions as they were canvased by two learned Romane Catholiques you will meet with some Primitive Learning under the name of Orthodox and that will delight you you will meet with some Moderne Learning under the name of Hetrodox and that will not displease you In both you will find the businesse of Secular and Ecclesiastique Power at full discussed which will be no great burthen for you to reade and a great happinesse to my selfe that the world may therein see J am neither Popishly affected nor ingratefully infected since these lines walke under your Protection no friend to Popery a great friend to Piety and are Dedicated to you as a Tythe of that Gratitude which is necessarily due from Sir Your most humble Servant T. S. London Nov. 19. 1646. THE FIRST DAYES CONFERENCE UPON The first PROPOSITION HETRODOX IS the wind in that doore Orthodox Are you become so deplorately blinded and yet honoured with the reputation of a wel-founded Roman Catholique Is it possible that any Roman Catholique can swallow the sweet Pill but most deadly poyson of hereticall Pravity to assevere so distinctly as you have now done and to believe withall so confidently as you now pretend the power of secular Princes or of our Holy Father himselfe as a temporall Prince doth clayme a kind of Birth-right by lawfull derivation Immediately as it were from the Almighties throne and without exception Orthodox The wind blowes where it lists Hetrodox But whether I be now transformed into a Baertimeus or turned blind as a Beetle in this Theologicall Argument whether I have taken down a drachme or so much as only a drop of hereticall poyson in this dogmaticall assertion I neither intend to shew my selfe so selfe-conceited neither purpose to looke so big upon the tip-toe of my own private spirit as to deprive your critick faculty of any faire and free liberty to censure the verdict of my Position at parting when the Sun sets Hetrodox Fall then roundly and closely to the main of the first Proposition I barre all manner of byes Orthodox Your will be done Hetrodox Then first I take this for granted that all Dominion and Servitude that all Power in the Prince to command and all obligation of Subjects to performe with promptitude all due and requisite obedience unto the just and lawfull behests of their lawfull Princes by the law of nations is grounded and built upon one of these foure Bases Election Inheritance Donation or Law of Armes I mean Sword-Law and right by valiant Conquest So that all Princes advanced to the glorious Throne of sacred Supreamacy or supreame Principallity by any one or more of these foure Bases of State are condignly to be enrolled and registred in the most noble Canon or Calender of lawfull Princes And all such Princes I religiously professe in my conscience are crowned with Authority and Power immediately from God to command to enact Statute Lawes to exact due Tributes to heare and determine causes to inflict capitall and other corporall punishments to impose Pecuniary Mulcts of penall Statutes upon all their naturall Subjects without exception Hetrodox By these last words without exception whether mean you exception of Subjects or exception of Power or exception of Cause If the first surely your Proposition is erroneous For what Power can secular Princes carry over Clerics exempted as you know right well from temporall power at least by mans law as it is held by all Catholique Authors yea by Gods Law also as before our parting I hope so materially and substantially to verify that you shall be enforced to confesse your error to cry Peccavi and glad withall to deliver me your weapons in this Field If you mean exception of Power your Proposition is Hereticall For no Power of any Christian Prince or Monarch can be free frome subjection in some sort unto the power of Christs Vicar thr universall Pastor and Head of all Christians whether Princes o-private persons If you mean exception of Cause your Propositir on doth smell very strong of like pestilent contagious heresie Fot it is the doctrine of sacred Scripture and holy Councels That spirituall causes are not summonable nor bound or tyed to ther Courts of Layics not compatible of tryals in the Kings-Bench or Court of Common-Pleas but in Consistorian Courts and before Ecclesiasticall Tribunals alone in which point all the Doctors as well Divines as Canonists with unanimous consent do jump and accord Orthodox Not so Hetrodox saving your deep and as well may be avouched your infinite reading D. Medina for one dissents and holds hard for the contrary yet a Doctor Marshaled in the ranke of solid Catholique and Classicall Authors He delivers for positive doctrine that exception or exemption of Ecclesiastics in temporall crimes and causes is not commanded or prescribed of Almighty God in the whole volumne of the Bible Medin de Restitut q. 15. His expresse and formall words be these Videtur oppositum esse verum c. The contrary assertion seemes to go forth and bravely to march with flying Colours of truth for the purpose That after abolishing of the old Law there is not found any one obligatory precept in Gods word for the exempting of Clericks or Ecclesiasticks from the power of the secular arme and sword I rather choose to affirm maintain that in former ages Clericks have obtained and for the times present with great happines do enjoy their exemption by the munificent Grants by the gratious Charters by the indulgent priviledges of their noble Princes again Denique hac ratione unica c. To conclude this one argument hits the Nayl on the head drives it home and hits the Bird like a Bolt in the right Eye wee can professe and justify no point of doctrine to be grounded upon Gods Law or word except it can be warranted by some authenticall testimony of the same divine law or word Exempting of Clericks hath no cleer warrant passable or triuable in the law of God ergo Couar lib. pract q. C. 1â— conclu 2. c. Couaruvias also stands as firme like a Colosse for the same assertion In rebus temporalibus et in criminalibus quae spiritualia non attingunt c. In temporall matters and in criminall causes having no correspondency with spirituall cases the persons of Clericks and their possessions or estates are not by Gods word exempted from the jurisdiction of their secular Princes Hetrodox You know Couaruvias is challenged by Cardinall Bellarmine of partiality for the jurisdiction of the most Catholique King Orthodox And you know Cardinall Bellarmine
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
reason I now presse you Hetrodox to expresse what you mean by force of reason I suppose you understand with Bellarmine and all other Authors the law of reason to be the law of nature This now supposed and granted to be their meaning and yours Thereupon would very fain learn what need so many monitories To what end so many thundering Cannon-shot of excommunication Wherefore some few yeares past have not many Priests and other Ecclesiastics of the Venetian state stooped and yeelded obedience unto the particular demonstrations Lawes and reasons of State published by that most illustrious and renowned Republick which all Christian Princes have judged and approved no lesse reasonable then honourable The law of nature is a farre stronger binder then the lawes of Magistrates and therefore it neither will nor can brooke and admit any kicking or spurning against the due obedience thereof but you say In case the Law be transgressed it is not for secular Princes to rake any cognisance of Clerics faults and to rake in the sink of their facts but all transgressions or delicts of Clerics are punishable only by the power and authority of the Keyes Now I answer This cuâ—s not off the power of Christian Princes and Magistrates to enact and establish Lawes Politick which may bind Ecclesiastics to the good behaviour in the politick and civill Government by the sword For in your verdict Clerics are bound at least by force of reason to keepe and observe the said politick lawes And to wade yet somewhat deeper into these waters what ward have you Hetrodox for this blow He that hath power to give life soul and being to any Law hath no lesse power as the supream and Soveraign Judge to punish every transgressour of the same law how thinke you Hetrodox is it not so Hetrod Very good Orthodox bee it so Orthod And who if not secular Princes have power to make Lawes which may bind Subjects of any calling condition or quality both in temporalls and in conscience besides The secular Prince then is armed with power to judge and with a Sword to cut off or to bring in all sorts of Subjects who like Outlawes and Rebels forsake their assigned Quarter and fly out of the pale of lawfull obedience A Cleric of any Order by the character thereof is made subject unto his Prelate say wee in all duties essentially annexed to his holy Order and Function But for a man born a Princes naturall and lawfull Subject so soon as he hath gotten any degree of holy Orders on his back to be made free exempted from the subjection of his Prince That in my understanding is a very Monster and prodigious creature not in Evangelicall doctrine alone where humility and subjection are prized and valued at a very high rate but also even in the light of nature which were all written Lawes in the world for ever lost and the light of the same totally extinguished would perpetually stand and remain to us a positive law Rom. 2. But suppose your assertion in this point is grounded upon invincible truth tell me now Hetrodox wherefore is it not consonant and agreeable to Gods law that Clerics may not live in wedlock Would you have it rest in the Popes power to slate in these dayes the roof of that old Fabrick or frame which Boniface 8. projected and attempted in the height of his Papacy to erect and raise not sparing nor fearing to remove every Stone for the purpose You know he declared by his Buls and Breeves that all such as had received the first sharing and shaving with all others entered into the foure inferior Orders should stand in subjection to the Church as his vassals though they had assumed the state of wedlock a constitution of such a dangerous exorbitant strain to supream States that all christian Princes by the vigour and rigour of their most holy and wholsome lawes have prudently and politicly laboured to quash and nip it in the crown For as then it might have been to Boniface so now it might be to his Holinesse a fit silver stirrop whereby to mount into the golden Sadle of perpetuall patronage dominion and lordship of all Christendome even in temporall estate How so Forsooth by causing all degrees of People to be sheared or else to undertake some one or other of the foure inferior Orders This liberty Hetrodox is removed and distant all the degrees in the Zodiack from Apostolical subjection I mean from that state of subjection which the Apostle S. Paul hath described and prescribed To make short work Howsoever the Levites in the old Law had their high Priest Aaron by name neverthelesse in temporall matters causes and judgments of Court still they remained under the authority of Moses their temporall Prince as right well is proved by Couaruvias Hetrodox How now Orthodox A fling at Moses too Cap. 31. qq Pract. concil 2. Rob Moses of his right of his honour Was not Moses high Priest even together with Aaron Was he not by Gods own Ordinance and extraordinary disposition greater then Aaron I know Couaruvias descants upon this plain song with unperfect cords yea with flat discords I therefore do esteem his musick not worth a blue point I credit divine Scripture and holy Fathers farre above Couaruvias by great odds who in matter of jurisdiction is caried with full sayles of partiality But heare me a little Psal 98. Exod. 40. Is it not extant in fair and faithfull record that Moses and Aaron were among his Priests even the Lords Priests That Moses offered incense unto the Lord which was the high Priests principall office and chiefe charge That Moses as high Priest and in quality of high Priest consecrated his brother Aaron made the Sonnes of Aaron Priests and offered sacrifice at their consecration That Pen to a most learned Hebrew honours Moses with stile of high Priest King and Prophet That Gregory Nazian stiles Moses Priest of priests and Prince of princes That Augustine avertes how both Moses and Aaron were high Priests That Hierome comes not an ace behind all the forenamed Authors That before all these Fathers and writers Dion Areop leads the dance and sings the same note So that Moses being high Priest it is no marvaile the Levites who were the onely chiefe Ecclesiastics of those times were subject unto Moses as unto their own proper Head and peculiar Judge Orthod You need not Hetrodox to put your selfe in so great a heate when you deal with any well grounded Catholique to prove by the authority of Fathers that Moses was either Priest or high Priest Levit. 8. and before himselfe was in the order and calling of high Priest invested Aaron in the office of high Priest viz. That he might the better apply himselfe to the exercise of the civill government surely this point is not denyed neither by Couaruvias himselfe nor by the Author whom I defend whose word is Rimasero the Levites remained subject unto
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
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
therefore no lesse then Laics are subject unto the secular Prince Let every soul be subject unto the higher Powers As none is exempted from the obedience that he owes to God so none is exempted from the obedience that he owes to his lawfull Prince For all power is of God as the Apostle there subjoynes This was it which moved the Kingly Prophet and propheticall King David to stile Kings and secular Princes Gods with a Deus stâ—tit God standeth in the assembly of Gods he judgeth among the Gods For as it is truly and religiously avouched by King Jehosaphat secular Judges do not execute the judgements of men but of God himselfe the very same former text of David our Saviour Christ speaking of secular Princes and Judges hath cited in the Gospell and there makes it good that unto them doth belong the name of Gods If he called them Gods unto whom the word of God was given as Cardinall Bellarmine hath learnedly noted and observed Hetrod If you had in this manner drawn your conclusion to a head Ecclesiastics therefore and seculars too are not by Gods Law subjâ—ct unto the secular Prince but seculars by mans law and ecclesiastics by no law at all neither of God nor man then your conclusion had been aptly deduced from your premises For it hath been proved before that Princes attaine to Soveraignty over their people not by divine title but olny humane If it be otherwise I pray let me have it well proved by some plain passage of Scripture that for instance the LL. of Venice are Jure divino the LL. Paramount of Padua Verona with other like Cities and if any question should grow concerning the Kingdome of Cyprus what faire title would the Venetian State alledge for the same Some goodly Charter of sacred Scripture Surely no but either some title of donation or ancient possession or some other like humane title Now then if they shall fall short in proving their title over the Laics of Padua Cyprus c. by divine authority when will they prove their pretended title over Clerics by the same authority I dare passe yet a whole degree further namely to maintain that all degrees and sorts of Laics yea that Soveraign Princes are by Gods Law in the state of subjection to Priests and that by the same Law of God Priests are quitted and freed from subjection to secular Princes My reason because according to Gods holy writ and word the positive law of God priests are pastors or shepheards to feed and Laics though never so great Princes are sheepe to be fed Priests are Fathers and Laics are sonnes Now according to the light of nature the law naturall of God the sheep are under tearmes of subjection to the Shepheard and the Shepherd is bound under no such termes to the sheep as the sonne also lives in state of subjection to the Father whereas the Father owes no duty of that nature to the sonne moreover the comparison made by Gregory Nazianzene between ecclesiasticall and secular is most excellent and usually taken up of holy Divines as in mans nature there is reason and flesh of which two united the whole frame and composition of man doth consist so in the Church their ecclesiasticall or spirituall power and secular or temporall power of which two the mysticall body of the Church is aptly composed and as in man reason hath superiority over the flesh and the flesh is never superior over reason except it be in some fit of rage and fury of Rebellion Againe as reason directs rules commands the flesh and sometime brings her to a kind of rack I meane doth chastise the flesh and puts her to a certain pennance of long fasting watching whereas the flesh never directs rules commands nor layes any hard lawes of punishment upon reason even so the spirituall power hath a superiority over the secular by vertue and force whereof it both may and ought also to give direction to rule to command and punish the secular power whensoever it kicks or spurnes or proves refractory or makes any breach into the inclosures of ecclesiasticall Regiment whereas the secular power is not superior to the spirituall nor can it direct rule command or punish the same De facto in cases of Rebellion and Tyrannie which by Heathen Princes or by Heretics hath been sometimes put in practise true it is that all power is of God but how either immediately or else by meanes And as none is exempted from obedience due to God so none is exempted from obedience due to the Prince provided alwaies that a man be the said Princes vassall or Subject and in cases likewise wherein he owes vassalage or subjection to the said Prince It is no lesse true that Princes as Princes are Gods Lievtenants and therefore to be honoured yea served with due obedience as God himselfe in such causes and matters as lye within their power Servants be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh even as unto Christ And whereas you say Cardinall Bellarmine hath averred in writing that secular Princes in Scripture are called Gods he was you must understand induced so to write of purpose to confound hereticall Anabaptists who teach that neither secular Princes nor tribunals nor judgements nor other like politick and civill regiments are to be tolerated in the Church of God But as that Cardinall hath written and witnessed that secular Princes are Gods in respect of their Subjects even so he hath justified that priests are Gods in respect of secular Princes If you therefore Orthodox like a good Roman Catholique would have trod in the steps of that Cardinall you should have taken up his weapons and should have made use of them against Heretics not against our mother the Church nor should you like the Spider have suckt such poyson from the same flowers out of which the Bee sucks and gathers hony Orthod I am not able to reach the bottome of your deep conceptions would you have your own conclusions to be drawne out of my premises If I had been inspired with a spirit of divination and by the gift of Sooth-saying could have foreseen that your selfe or Cardinall Bellarmine was to be the Champion that would undertake to cudgell my coat I mean so subtilly to trounce me and to play such trumps in my way I would have directly drawn two distinct conclusions the one true and built upon my own true certaine and infallible premises the other false obliquely derived from your premises or those of his illustrious Lordship but for as much as the spirit of divination doth not harbour in my brest or braine I must only shape and lay in this answer for my selfe that from the same premises which I have now framed I would wish none other but mine own conclusion to be inferred and from your premises and those of the Lord Cardinall your own or his own conclusions to be inducted for as my conclusion is true because it
riseth out of true premises even so your concluon or his Lordshrhs which you please is false because it is inferred upon false premises that is drawn from a fufty vessel of unwholsome doctrine which the one of you two hath broached the piercing or at least running whereof I have now as you see endeavoured to stop with a handsome Faucet 1. Will you now be pleased to see your errours to make men subject unto their lawfull Prince by Gods law you hold it needfull that for the right and title of their subjection some text of holy Scripture be produced remember it hath been declared before that power and title to power are two different heads that power is from God and of necessity followes or comes after title The French King rules and governes in France not by law of inheritance but by vertue of authority received from God The Venetian Prince I meane the Republic and body of State howsoever you have learned of Cardinall Bellarmine with great artifice and skill to seale up the eyes of your own knowledge in the matter beares not command and rule over Padua by such meanes as they first attained to the dominion thereof but because being impatronised or made Lords of Padua by humane meanes they have it now in command and ever had from the time of their first occupation possession by vertue of the power and right received from God himselfe And herein what difference can you find to lye between Prince and Pope For if the Pope shall be asked wherefore he is Pope this will be his answer because I have been Canonically elected by the Cardinals to the Popedome and for that purpose he will never study or stand to produce any testimony of Scripture but aske him by what authority he gives or grants his indulgences c. surely he will answer because God hath given him power to forgive sinnes 2. To prove that Princes are subject unto priests by the law of God you cut out and frame a silly sheepish argument from sheepe and shepherds Gods law say you is the law of nature by natures law the sheep is in state of subjection to the Shepherd by Gods law therefore the Laic Prince is in the like state of Subjection to the Priest I answer the Prince is no sheep of the Shepheard priest but of the great Shepherd Christ for Christ said not to Peter Feed thy Sheep but Feed my Sheep So that your Argument if it conclude any thing at all concludes that Princes are subject unto Christ and not unto the Priest Nay the Priest as a sheep in temporall causes and matters is rather subject unto the Prince David gave the terme and nomination of sheep to all his people and Subjects Ego erravi isti qui sunt Oves quid focerunt It is I that have sinned what have these my sheepe done S. Pauls words are pungent and peremptory Let every soule be subject unto the higher Powers If then your argument hath any sinewes to evince that Subjects are bound by Gods law to yeeld obedience unto their Superiors of highest power then all priests likewise who are Subjects no lesse then others are directly bound by Gods law to the due obedience of their temporall Princes penall or Statute Lawes at least in temporall matters 3. The father you say is not subject unto the sonne if Hetrodox his own Father yet living were now elected King or Pope should not Hetrodox his Father as a man and a Christian be subject unto Hetrodox his Sonne whether King or Pope Howsoever young Hetrodox the sonne should beare due respect and reverence to old Hetrodox as to the Father Again the Father a Laic may receive absolution of his own sonne a priest and the son a priest may receive correction by the authority and command of his Father a secular Magistrate if men would not be intrapped in the snares of error they must learn to distinguish between titles and persons a Prince in spirituals being a sonne in temporals may be a Father 4. Touching the similitude of body and soul howsoever I grant it may be true in part as in this point by name that a temporall Prince his power is Per se of it selfe over the body and the spirituall priests power is over mens soules yet your similitude wants weight of truth in some other part and halts down right For temporall power save only as it is exercised by a Christian is not subordinate to spirituall power no not in ecclesiasticall and spirituall causes on the contrary the subjection of priests in temporall causes is plainly subordinate unto the temporall Prince Arguments thus framed are not worth a rush temporall power is over mens bodies and spirituall power is over their soules as the body then is directed and ruled by the soule and the soule not by the Body so he that is armed and authorised with temporall power must be directed and ruled by such as are invested with spirituall power I say again such reasons are not worth a rush for body and soule together do make one whole compound creature which is man whereas corporall power and spirituall power make not one body but rather two bodies and two heads These two powers as both are powers are different in all things and without subordination as either of them is a power neither doth Nazianzen teach the contrary much lesse teach your affirmative as who soever will read Gregory himselfe shall readily finde For thus much Gregory writeth in effect and no more that as the soule is more noble then the body so the spirituall power is more noble then the temporall which for my part so long as I go for a Roman Catholic I dare not deny 5. You are much overseen Hetrodox to charge me with makeing use of this doctrine to the hurt of the Church when I should rather whet and scoure my weapons against hereticks And herein you resemble me to the spider that sucks poyson from the same sweet and oderiferous herbs or flowers out of which the industrious Bee sucks honey Have you not herein much forgot your selfe He that delivers the truth neither fights nor speakes against our mother the Church but against such as harbour settled and secret pretensions in their breasts to usurpe more then appertains to their persons callings or degrees Again the Church is the Kingdome of heaven and you speak in your whole discourse of none but earthly Kingdomes in which without all question the Church can have no share nor interest nisi per accidens ex donatione fidelium but such as comes upon the By as we say that is by casuall meanes or else by franke donation or free gift of the faithfull the grandeur of all which earthly Kingdomes and of all other temporall States the Church doth establish Thirdly the use of this doctrine tendeth and serveth not only for the confuting and extirping of heresies or heretics but likewise of all such as maintain and broach any
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
Boniface Now the last clause or closing up of your discourse is to this purpose That where the Apostle teacheth obedience to Princes he speaketh by way of precept not of counsell Very true he doâ—h so indeed but what is Pauls meaning Doubtlesse that Princes are to be obeyed of such as by lawfull title are in the state of their subjects as also in causes or matters to which the authority of the said Princes doth stretch and extend From whence it followes that Church-men are not bound to honour secular Princes with any such obedience because they are exempted but Laics alone are comprised within the said bond albeit in civill causes onely and such as impugne neither God himselfe nor his Church whereby the Christian world may cleerly and evidently see how deeply highly the Venetian Republic Anno 1606. offended the Divine Mâ—jesty not onely in committing Ecclesiastics in prison but also in using force and violence to compell as well them as Laics to infringe and contemne the holy Fathers interdiction a censure purely spirituall and ecclesiasticâ—ll Orthod I was never yet found a falsarie no coyner no corrupter of holy Scripture it is your selfe that patch up my garments with your owne rags and marre the Text with an Aurelian glosse I have not said before as you now lay to my charge That Princes are Gods Ministers Ad tributa to receive tribute Hetrod But you know and need not dissemble the shop and forge where thâ—se tooles were hammered Orthod You meane the Author of the 8. Propositions Hetrod The very same Orthod They are none of that Authors words but are suppositions or surreptitions foysted into his Text with a false finger of the Printer or of some other and yet are they justifi ble by the most cleere exposition of our great Master Thomas Aquinas whose words be these Pro ipso recipiendo serviente Princes are Gods Ministers to take up and receive tribute the very same with Ad tributa But I rest confident it was an error of the presse for to that Authors purpose it sufficed to say with Paul Princes are Gods Ministers the word Ad tributa neither mars nor mends the Authors meaning or S. Pauls In reason therefore it may not be conceived that ad tributa was of any set purpose added or sowed to the piece by the workmans needle neither need it seeme strange that ad tributa hath crept in there by the window through the oversight or negligence or false play of the Printer or as well may be suspected by a slie trick of cunning and skill Fâ—r the LL. Card. and Commissioners in the Index printed at Rome Anno 1606. have made declaration That many words have been shuffled and crowded in by the Printer through error on his part Cum in Appendice whereas in the Appendix of the second Classis under the letter I these words are found The Demonomania written by Joannes Bodinus borne at Aniou is expresly and totally prohibited for ever but his Book De Republ. and his Methodus are prohibited with a limitation by name untill they shall be purged and put forth by the Author himselfe with approbation by the Master of the sacred Palace it is bâ—leeved that all the said words inclosed here by Parenthesis are crept in through the error of the Printer Now if so long a thred of speech might drop or chop in per errorem Librarii through some error of the Printer it may be thought with more verisimilitude and with greater probability that ad tributa which makes but one poore single stitch was nimbly and slily drawn by the Printers errour into that learned Authors Proposition As for the words Ira vindicta wrath and revenge or vengeance they are in effect all one but because the word vengeance comes neerer to S. Pauls purpose and sense as also because the same Vindicta vengeance is a word used by many holy Fathers I therefore have the more willingly made choice thereof 1. You are also bold to affirm That no tribute is given to God there is one of your errors For I affirme with confidence that whatsoever is given to his Ministers is given to himselfe of alms here given to the poore our Saviour Christ will pronounce in the day of judgement Quod uni ex minimis meis Mat. 25. whatsoever you have given to any one the least of these my brethren yee have done to my selfe And saith not God himselfe in the same or like manner of almes and sacrifice Misericordiam volo non sacrificum I will have mercy and not sacrifice To the same purpose is it not in Saint Hierome Per hoc quod illis tributa datis Deo servitis In giving tribute unto your Princes you doe service unto God 2. You grant that Aquinas is on our side for this point That Clerics are exempted from payment of tribute by the speciall priviledges of Princes who graciously conferre their said priviledges upon a certain equity and yet you affirm Aquinas to hold that Clerics pay no tribute not because they are exempted by humane priviledge but by divine law To what purpose hath Thomas testified they pay no tribute by the priviledge of Princes if they be exempted from payment by the law of God Was it not sufficient for him to say they pay no tribute because they are freed from all taxations by the law of God But for so much as Thomas there cites the 47. Chapter of Genesis where wee read that King Pharaoh exempted the priest of Egypt from tribute who without question was not exempted by Gods Law because they were Idolaters he concludes à pari that Clerics are now exempted from tribute by the priviledge of Princes and not by the Law of God Iustine Matyr is positive in the same article that payment of tribute is due to the Prince by divine precept Vestigalia tributa c. the customes and tributes imposed by your imperiall Majesty in all places and before all other Subjects wee endeavour to pay as wee are taught and commanded by Christ himselfe for being asked whether tribute should be given to Caesar he made this answer Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesars For this reason S. Ambrose Bishop of Millan writing to the Bishop of Vercelli was moved to make this good and godly profession Si tributum petit c. If our Lord the Emperour be pleased to demand tribute wee will not presume to deny to withstand or to refuse his imposition the Church-lands must bow and stoope if there be no remedy to pay down upon the naile if the imperiall Majesty proceed to require the said lands it lyes in his power to make challenge thereunto let him take them from the Church if his mind and pleasure be absolutely and resolutely bent so to deale For my part with my good will I have no purpose to give them away unto his Majesty yet may I not deny or contradict his prerogative royall pleasure what would S.
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
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
Gods Law as in like manner the Law Civill is neverthelesse it is not Divine but only Nationall and Humane Law neither hath any man ever thought it was Divine 2. Every thing done by some Nations cannot be called the Law of Nations and consequently Divine For it is a common and ordinary Custome of Nations to seeke and to exercise Revenge and yet Revenge hath no ground no warrant from Gods Law nay it is directly prohibited by our Lord Jesus Christ himselfe Audistis quia dictum c. you have heard how it hath been said to them of old Mat. 5. thou shalt hate thine enemy but I say unto you love your Enemies 3. Albeit some Princes have granted such Immunity or Priviledge in some particular case as in the exempting of Priests from Tributes neverthelesse the Exemption in all cases is not in force by Law of Nations because most Nations neither have practised nor do this day exercise any such course of Benignity For example In the Law of Nature all the First borne according to the common opinion were Priests shall it hereupon be concluded that all the First-borne in the world were exempt at least from Tribute The Lord Cardinals Argument proves not a haires bredth more which to me seems an answer little beseeming a man of his Lordships incomparable learning 4. If his Lordships Argument had any force at all to prove that Exemption is by the Law of Nations it should only work this conclusion that Princes ought to exempt Priests from Tribute But our question turnes not upon that hindge No the main question consists in this point Whether Ecclesiastics are exempt in all Temporall matters and causes without speciall and gracious priviledge of their Princes 5. That is called Jus Gentium the Law of Nations which ever was from the beginning of the world unchangeable and shall so continue unto the worlds end as that of just Dominion and Servitude That of Marriage for the perpetuall preservation of man-kind That which all Nations indifferently have observed and still observe to this day Turks Pagans Christians Jewes c. But for Christian Priests to be exempted it cannot stand by the Law of Nations because they were instituted by Christ and besides All Nations have not exempted their Priests 6. To conclude Whereas Christ our Lord hath so deepely charged all Christians to practise Humility and Subjection whereas also St. Paul on his part hath absolutely commanded every Soule to be subject unto the higher Powers though Exemption had been by the Law of Nations that is observed of all Nations Wherefore might it not be abrogated or at least derogated by Divine Law Positive As Christ was able to repeale and disanull that Custome of Nations concerning the revenge of Enemies with a new Law Hetrodox If you have now sufficiently fore-layd all your grounds for this present matter it is time that you apply your selfe to your best Defence and to trace out my particular Errours Orthodox Well remembred you shall see mee trace them out one by one in my defence as men use to trace Hares in a Snow Two things I have affirmed before the one that Ecclesiastics and their Possessions or Goods are not exempted from Secular power meaning as hath been said in such Cases and Causes unto which the said Secular power doth properly extend for so much the word Exemption signifies The other that Ecclesiastics enjoy no such Exemption by the Law of God but by mans Law without growing or descending to any particular whether the said mans Law be the Law of Nations or the Civill or the Canon Law Howbeit my opinion is the same that Medina holds and other Authors alledged for this purpose That Exemption goes by Priviledge of Princes Now to your Errours in your late and last opposition which I find to be Eight 1. The sacred Councell of Trent you say hath determined that immunity of Clerics is by Divine Law Sess 25. cap. 20. But in the said Councell and Session which your selfe have cited I can read no such Determination The Councell there treats onely in generall of Ecclesiastick Immunity and Liberty adding this Adjunct or Epithet Divinâ ordinatione constitutam appointed by Gods Ordinance It doth not say whosoever shall affirme that such Immunity in Temporals is not by Gods Law let him be Anathema let him be accursed Nor doth it determine it is by Gods Law but speakes in a generality including that Immunity or Exemption which is in Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall causes And how those words Appointed by Gods Ordinance are to be taken or understood I appeale to the Glosse unto which the Doctors are alwaies referred whensoever Exemption in Temporals is avouched to be appointed by Gods Ordinance or by the Law of God For the Glosse it selfe saith Est de Jure Divino id est deducitur ab exemplo c. It is by Gods Law What is that It is drawne from the example of the Patriarch Joseph and Artaxerxes the Persian King Where the Glosse doth not meane it is from Gods Law as by any way of Precept but rather that by Princes it is granted by reason and occasion of those two Examples read in holy Scripture which is Gods Law But I deny not Hetrodox that by these Examples it is decent for Princes to grant by Patent or or Charter such Exemption from Tributes or that Princes having once granted the same by the said Examples for the Tributes in particular whereof we now intreat and of none other Subject should revoke repeale and nullifie the said Grant of Exemption Extra casum necessitatis except in cases of necessity I onely maintaine there is no precâ—pt neither in Scripture nor in the Divine Law of Nâ—ture Tâ—â—t either the persons of Cleries or their Goodâ— Possessi ns as Free-hold can be exempted except onely the Prince be pleased out of his Royall Grace and Prerogative to seale such priviledge of Exemption Then Sir with your favour the Councell having determined no more then is by the foresaid Canon cited must have and carry this construction That first of all the Councell grounds no Determination Secondly That it provides for Exemption in Spirituall Causes Thirdly that in case it speakes of Exemption in Temporall it speakes onely per quandam decentiam probabilitatem similitudinem by way of Decencie Probability and Similitude as the Glosse and other Doctors avouch whom I neither dare nor purpose to contradict For I speake of Gods Law not by way of Similitude but in propriety of termes This Hetrodox is the reason wherefore neither Medina nor Iansenius nor Conarruuias and others who printed their workes and writings after the Councell of Trent never said they held any opinion against the Councell and yet are directly of my opinion Sess 25. Moreover the said Session was dispatcht in Post-hast and Precipice if I may take up the Diaries own word when the French Prelates were departed from the Councell and the Spanish for their part
your Actions when the Lords are certain and sure their Actions are not sinfull doubtlesse the Lords would stand to his Judgement because it is Divine and infallible Wisedome But for as much as his Vicar may erre and hath actually erred in judiciis Facti in certaine and evident matters who doubts there is no standing to his judgment No man ever affirmed the Popes judgement concerning sin whether a thing is or is not sin should be interposed in certain matters but onely professe that in matters doubtfull men should stand to the judgement of their Superior And who that Superior may be according to the diversity of occurrences I referre myselfe to the judgement of the Doctors 5. The question in controversie betweene the Lords of Veâ—â—â—â— and the Pope you say is dubitable It is not dubitable to the Lords for matter of Fact but certaine And albeit some Doctors should hold the contrary that neverthelesse doth not make the question doubtfull unto the Lords For ita prabent assensum um parti ommino denegons alteri parti they in such wise give their assent unto the one side as they make sure work to keep it back from the other side And this makes the opinion certaine at least probable and not doubtful For every authority or apparent Reason doth not make an opinion doubtfull but â—â—â—ly such Authorities and Reasons as are thought and esteemed marchable to the contrary Reasons and grounded upon 〈◊〉 common Doctrine of Conscience Now because the Reasons produced and brought against the opinion of the most illuâ—â—â—â—s Republic are not able any way to make it a doubtfull opinion it shall be needlesse to runne unto the judgement of any other Superior One pause more Hetrodox for a short rest and so to the third Race The sixt daies Conference upon the Eight Proposition Orthodox HOwsoever it goes for a true Rule or Principle of St. Gregorie the Pope Sententia Pastoris justa sivè injusta timenda the Sentence of the Ecclesiasticall Judge or Pastor be it just or unjust is to be feared yet doth it nothing serve the purpose in this case For there is a great difference betweene the unjust sentence of an Ecclesiasticall Judge and a sentence which is no sentence Navar. de censuris Eccl. cap. 27. Sotus 4. Sent. Dist â—2 Thus Navarrus thus Sotus and that an unjust sentence is to be feared but a No-Sentence is not to be observed The Censures therefore published by our Holy Father Paulus V. being of no force or vertue but vaine and void as hath beene declared before because they are like a manâ— writing in the Water or in the Ayre I am in this opinion service that Ecclesiastics in Venice ought not in conscience to 〈◊〉 the same Censures not to innovate any thing in their Church For albeit Navarrus discoursing in the place left 〈◊〉 and alledged of Excommunication which hath no vâ—â—â—â—ty â—â—â—t â—â—pure nullity hath pronounced in these 〈◊〉 Seâ—â—â—â—ti â—â—â—â—lida seâ— nulla nihil aliud operatur in for◠〈…〉 iâ—â— quam quod obligat Excommunis atâ—â—â— ad 〈◊〉 aâ—â—um 〈◊〉 quâ—â—d Populus sibi persuadâ—â—t vel persâ—adâ—re 〈◊〉 cauâ—as nullitatis propter Scandalum the invalid and void sentence he meanes of an Ecclesiasticall Judge is of no force to worke any effect either in the secret Court of Conscience or in the open Court of Judicature but onely to bind the person Excommunicated to the observation of the said Excommunicatorie sentence untill the people be wall perswaded or at least should be perswaded touching the nullitie thereof and that for the avoiding of public scandall yet for certaine this Doctrine of Navarrus â—â—â—es very strongly for our present Cause And wherefore Forsooth because the Reason of the Nullitie hath beene made manifest unto all the Venetian people And suppose it is yet not manifest unto some they ought doubtlesse to have taken it for manifested by that course which the Venetian Prince hath taken for the manifesting thereof unto all men in all their solemne Edicts and publike Proclamations So that in this case there is no publike scandall to be feared I goe further and say more that some Religions by Order can by no meanes be excused who erring perhaps by their little knowledge or perhaps out of some other sinister affection have chosen to leave the City rather then to persevere in ministring the holy Sacraments and celebrating the Divine Service as for the good of Religion and of the Common-Wealth by their Prince his Ordinance they were enjoyned wherein they have offered scandall unto all because Ipsi sibi fuerunt Lex they have been a Law unto themselves and have not followed the example of the Cathedrall Church of all other most holy and most ancient Religions as like wise of all the other parish Churches To which Religious persons in a straine and fit of godly zeale I say with our Saviour Christ it had beene better that a Mill-stone had beene hanged about their necks I forbeare to say the rest and they cast into the bottome of the Sea then to have given so great a scandall unto any of these little ones Besides to defend the liberty of their naturall Prince the maintainer preserver and upholder of Peace Liberty and Religion to all the people is a Principle grounded upon the Law of Nature that is Law Divine or the Law of God whereas all Ecclesiasticall sentences are grounded upon the Law positive which ought alwaies to give place unto the other and most of all when 〈◊〉 have a Constat of the Nullitie Some therefore deceive themselves who take this controversie to be de Fide for it is only a Moribus And if any thing be expresly set downe in holy Scripture which makes this Controversie to stand in matter of Faith it is the opinion of the Signorie which they have grounded on the expresse Doctrine of St. Paul Let me here freely deliver my mind most learned Hetrodox I could wish and would exhort all the Clergie of the Venetian Sâ—â—â— if they were now present not onely to celebrate Divine Service and to communicate or administer the Sacraments but likewise to performe all other Ecclesiasticall Duties which before the publication of these late Censures they have beene accustomed to practise in their Church both for that I am in good hope they are all fixt already upon that Resolution and likewise to avoid scandall not onely because Sententia nulla minimè est observanda cùm constat de nullitate a void Sentence binds none to the observation thereof when the Nullity is apparent but also because they ought at no hand to rend themselves from their Head the Prince without any reason or cause in controversies of Jurisdiction yea I am of opinion for the same reason ther all such as shall not heare Masse at least upon Holie daies during the time of this Interdict shall commit sin because they refute so to doe without any lawfull cause and reason the sentence being void
and the Masse being celebrated in all the rest of the Churches I would not have men to feare where no feare is nor cause to feare nor to give any cause why those who alwaies have beene faithfull to their Prince the most illustrious Republic should draw upon their own heads any such imputation as this Filii matris mea pugnaverunt contra me the Sons of my mother have fought against me but I would wish them rather to fight and strive how they may best obey that Apostolicall Precept let every soule be subject unto the higher Powers Rom. 13.15 not only because of wrath but also for Conscience sake I make no doubt at all of their constancie for I rest well assured they are almost ready to lay downe their life for their Prince The Lords of Venice have ordained on paine of death That all the Religions in the City shall keepe their Churches open and shall celebrate Divine Service as they have done before Have the Lords made this Decree out of any feare least such of the Religions to whom they stand well-affected who both know and follow the true Doctrine as in a manner they doe all would now doe otherwise than they have done or would not goe on to celebrate and exercise all the Offices of their Ministerie No sure wherefore then was that grievous penalty ordained Forsooth onely that none of the said Offices might be intermitted in that Citie which ever hath stood Catholique and now professeth to continue Catholique more then ever Whereupon she will not suffer any change at all to be seene in the exercises of Piety or â—â—e intermission of the said exercises to be unto any an occasion of their Precipitation For which mischiefe the Prince for the Churches behalfe and for her benefit by Gods Law is bound to provide a Remedy by all meanes possible Last of all I commend to the Religions the Doctrine of Navarrus as a most safe haven Cap. Novit de judiciu Notab 3. manu cap. 27. de Censuris wherein they may ride without all danger and this it is That what Exemption soever they enjoy the same they enjoy not by Gods Law but by the Priviledge of their Princes who have power to retract diminish dilate and amplifie the said Priviledges when and how they please according to such new reasons as rise and as good occasion shall be represented for the doing thereof to the common utility and publike benefit or advantage of the Dominions under their Subjection For the same power the Pope exerciseth in the priviledges of Indulgences and other matters depending upon his Spirituall Authority which by him sometimes are annulled sometimes diminished and sometimes augmented Hetrodox From false Principles you inferre a false conclusion That for so much as the sentence of our holy Father is of no validity therefore it ought not in any wise to be feared and that by consequence the Priests of Venice and thorow the whole Venetian Dominion are bound in conscience to celebrate all Divine offices as if they had not beene interdicted at all First you affirme That according to the Doctrine of Navarrus the Sentence of the Pope when it is Nulla is to be feared and observed untill the people shall be thorowly perswaded of the Nullitie to the end there may breed and grow no scandall Then you subjoyne the Venetian people are fully and wholly perswaded of the Nullity of the Popes Excommunication by the Dukes Edict as much to say when the Judge affirmes his Sentence is just and in full force and the Malefactor sales it is unjust and of no force when the Malefactor should be credited and the Judge not believed What Sentence at any time shall goe current for just and in force if the Malefactors word and credit may be taken Next you affirme That certaine Religious persons are inexcuseable for chusing to depart out of the City rather then to celebrate Divine Offices and that very many thereby have beene scandalized Alas good Sir the said Religious have no need of your excuse and if any other have beene scandalized by their obedience to the holy Father the words of our Saviour to the Pharisees will serve well to remove and take away the scandall Sinite illoâ— they are blind leaders of the blind Mat. 15. let them alone Then you affirme it is enjoyned by Gods Law to defend the liberty of their Prince whereas Ecclesiasticall Sentences are enjoyned by mans Law and that ought ever to give place unto the Law of God At every word you take the Divine Law in your mouth no mervaile your Argument runs in this divine forme To defend the Princes liberty is by the Law of God Ecclesiastical Sentences are by the Law of man the Law of man gives place unto the Law of God Ergo the Priests ought to despise the Popes Excommunication and Interdict and to defend the Liberty of the Venetian Duke But heare you Sir my answer If it be by Gods Law to defend the Liberty of an Earthly Prince much more it is by Gods Law to defend the liberty of the Church the Spouse of the Heavenlie Prince I say moreover The liberty which the Duke of Venice pretends now a daies is a liberty to clap up such in prison as are none of his Subjects and to make Lawes against Justice and Piety and therefore it is according to Gods Law not to defend but rather to impugne such a Liberty And I yet subjoyn that Ecclesiasticall Sentences as touching Power are by Gods Law established Mat. 10. and founded on the Gospell And againe you affirme That some are deceived in thinking this present controversie to be de Fide when it is onely de Moribus and that if any thing be expressed in Scripture which makes this businesse to be de Fide it is the Republics opinion expressely taught by St. Paul I answer The Principall controversie is not de Fide Neverthelesse those who have undertaken the defence of the Venetian Cause have in their discourses mingled certain Errors in matter of Faith And whereas in your accustomed way of Wisedome no doubt you tell us the opinion of the Signorie is expresly taught by St. Paul your wisedome doth not marke That such things as are expressely taught by St. Paul cannot be called opinions For then it should follow that some doubt might be made of St. Pauls Doctrine because opinions are ever doubtfull and uncertaine The truth is Hetrodox the opinion of the Signorie is not found in St. Pauls Epistle to the Hebrewes Obey them that have the oversight of you Hebr. 13.17 and submit your selves for they watch for your soules as they that must give account for your Soules Now against this Doctrine which goes not in the Church for an opinion but for a most certaine Article of Catholique Faith your Lords of Venice deceived by such as your selfe no DD. but Seducers are precipitated in these daies and carried headlong as it were downe
the streame Moreover you affirme that Priests ought not in any wise to make a rent or separation from their Head the Prince What can a Protestant Heretique of England say more Who ever heard that a Secular Prince is the Head of Priests and consequently Head of the Church but since Henrie VIII turned Rebell to the Pope and caused himselfe to be stiled Head of the English Church for all this you Orthodox dare tell us that in these Treatises there is handled no matter of Faith but onely of Manners Besides you highly extoll the Ecclesiastics of Venice in being most ready to lay downe their life for their Prince Surely they must needs be a new and strange kind of Saints that are so willing to spend their life in the cause and quarrell of a Prince by whom they are compelled to commit Sacriledge and to disobey the Vicar of Christ The Saints till now have been commended in the Lyturgie to be Triumphatores qui contemnentes jussa Principum mernorunt praemia aeterna to be valiant and Triumphant Champions who contemning the Precepts of Secular Princes have merited Eternall rewards From henceforth by like the Hymne shall have need to be altered that we may sing Isti sunt Triumphatores qui contempserunt Deum ut servarent justa Principum These are the valiant and Tryumphant Champions who have contemned God to keepe and observe the Precepts of Princes at least if wee shall believe these new Doctors Againe The Lords of Venice you affirme have commanded the Religions upon paine of death to keepe their Churches upon and to celebrate all Divine Offices that vain feare might not cause nor bring them to be intermitted in that City most Catholique in all former Ages and now professing to continue Catholique more then at any time heretofore You shall receive no answer to this point from the lips of Hetrodox the Holy Ghost shall give the Answer by the mouth of Samuel 1 Sam. 15.22.23 Hath the Lord as great pleasure in burnt-offerings and Sacrifices as when the voice of the Lord is obeyed Behold to obey is better then Sacrifice and to hearken is better then the Sacrifice of Rammes for Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft and transgression is wickednesse and Idolatry If you shall reply that Samuel there speakes of obedience to God heare what our Lord saith in the Gospell Hee that heareth you heareth me Luke 10. and hee that despiseth you despiseth me The Venetian Republic therefore may be well assured that such Divine Offices and Sacrifices as are offered against obedience to Christs owne Vicar can not be pleasing unto Christ himselfe they cannot appease and pacifie but incense and kindle the wrath of God against all those by whom they are offered and all those by whom the Priests are compelled to present any such oblations Againe you puts us in mind to peruse the Doctrine of Navarrus and are bold to affirme That Navarrus makes for your side in all that before hath beene declared At last you fall upon a course of exhortation that all men would retire themselves unto the secure port of this Doctrine that such Exemption as all Ecclesiastics now enjoy are not enjoyed by Gods Law but by Priviledge of Secular Princes in whom there is full power to retract diminish dilate and amplifie the said priviledges at their pleasure I answer Herein Orthodox doth unjustly defame and undiscreetlie blemish the reputation of Navarrus as one that favours and bolsters Orthodox in so many Errors as Orthodox hitherto hath taught and uttered in this Defence But for so much as Navarrus his workes are extant in print and read of all men I referre my selfe to the Readers judgement But Sir that Secular Princes by any power of their owne may retract or diminish the Priviledges of Exemption granted to Ecclesiasticall persons that 's a Doctrine so false and so new that by Conarruuias himselfe an Author of all other least favourable to Ecclesiasticall Exemption it is in Specie reproved and condemned Thus have I fully satisfied if I be not greatly deceived all your Objections in your owne conceit worthy to be highly prized and had in great Estimation if not Admiration Now comes my turne to advise to exhort and to beseech as with my best heart I doe the most noble Republic and her most excellent Prince deeply to weigh and consider in their most grave and incomparable wisedome in what Doctors and Teachers they repose their trust In Summa cap. 25. nu 16. What Is Navarrus wholly on their side when he pronounceth it is a sin to constraine or command Ecclesiastics not to keepe and observe the Interdict When he pronounceth Clerics and Monkes are exempted from the power of Secular Princes Cap. Novit de judiciu notab 6. nu 30. by Gods Law as touching Criminall Spirituall Causes with others of the like nature annexed to Clericall Order and after when he subjoines this to be the common Sentence of Divines and Canonists So that according to the Doctrine of Navarrus the Prince that casts either Clerics or Monkes in prison or presumes in a Criminall cause to judge either of both sinneth against Gods Law he sinneth likewise against Gods Law when he commands Clerics or Monks to say Masse or Divine Service because these things are Spirituall and lastly he sinneth against Gods Law if he attempt to annull or to diminish Exemption granted to Clerics or Monkes by Almightie God Thus the Lords of Venice may see how falsly they have been instructed by some of their owne Doctors and how under the name of Navarrus they have been deceived The same fraud and imposture hath been put as a trick of cunning upon the said Lords by all such as to this day have given themselves the reines of libertie to put in print certain Librets or small Pamphlets of like matter and stuffe but all farced and stuffed with Novelties and lies Againe I exhort and beseech all Ecclesiastics to thinke that none can beare more ardent sincere and indulgent affection to the Child then the naturall Parents Father and Mother that howsoever they have as Paul speaketh many Paedagogues Teachers or Schoole-masters yet but one Father Their Mother is the holie Romane Church their Father is the High Priest or chiefe Bishop by whom in Christs place they have had their Nursing and Education untill they are now grown great and capable of the Inheritance of the Celestiall Paradise They are therefore to presuppose this Mother and this Father wish and worke for their building up in Faith in Truth in all wholesome Doctrine much more then these Paedagogues who teach them Rules and Lessons backwards by that order commonly called Arsie-varsie Last of all I exhort and beseech not onely the said Lords but all Ecclesiastics in the Venetian Government and Territorie well to consider and thinke upon Gods Judgements which many times he brings the highest and stoutest Princes to feele even in this life Pope Gregorie
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