riseth out of true premises even so your concluon or his Lordshrhs which you please is false because it is inferred upon false premises that is drawn from a fufty vessel of unwholsome doctrine which the one of you two hath broached the piercing or at least running whereof I have now as you see endeavoured to stop with a handsome Faucet 1. Will you now be pleased to see your errours to make men subject unto their lawfull Prince by Gods law you hold it needfull that for the right and title of their subjection some text of holy Scripture be produced remember it hath been declared before that power and title to power are two different heads that power is from God and of necessity followes or comes after title The French King rules and governes in France not by law of inheritance but by vertue of authority received from God The Venetian Prince I meane the Republic and body of State howsoever you have learned of Cardinall Bellarmine with great artifice and skill to seale up the eyes of your own knowledge in the matter beares not command and rule over Padua by such meanes as they first attained to the dominion thereof but because being impatronised or made Lords of Padua by humane meanes they have it now in command and ever had from the time of their first occupation possession by vertue of the power and right received from God himselfe And herein what difference can you find to lye between Prince and Pope For if the Pope shall be asked wherefore he is Pope this will be his answer because I have been Canonically elected by the Cardinals to the Popedome and for that purpose he will never study or stand to produce any testimony of Scripture but aske him by what authority he gives or grants his indulgences c. surely he will answer because God hath given him power to forgive sinnes 2. To prove that Princes are subject unto priests by the law of God you cut out and frame a silly sheepish argument from sheepe and shepherds Gods law say you is the law of nature by natures law the sheep is in state of subjection to the Shepherd by Gods law therefore the Laic Prince is in the like state of Subjection to the Priest I answer the Prince is no sheep of the Shepheard priest but of the great Shepherd Christ for Christ said not to Peter Feed thy Sheep but Feed my Sheep So that your Argument if it conclude any thing at all concludes that Princes are subject unto Christ and not unto the Priest Nay the Priest as a sheep in temporall causes and matters is rather subject unto the Prince David gave the terme and nomination of sheep to all his people and Subjects Ego erravi isti qui sunt Oves quid focerunt It is I that have sinned what have these my sheepe done S. Pauls words are pungent and peremptory Let every soule be subject unto the higher Powers If then your argument hath any sinewes to evince that Subjects are bound by Gods law to yeeld obedience unto their Superiors of highest power then all priests likewise who are Subjects no lesse then others are directly bound by Gods law to the due obedience of their temporall Princes penall or Statute Lawes at least in temporall matters 3. The father you say is not subject unto the sonne if Hetrodox his own Father yet living were now elected King or Pope should not Hetrodox his Father as a man and a Christian be subject unto Hetrodox his Sonne whether King or Pope Howsoever young Hetrodox the sonne should beare due respect and reverence to old Hetrodox as to the Father Again the Father a Laic may receive absolution of his own sonne a priest and the son a priest may receive correction by the authority and command of his Father a secular Magistrate if men would not be intrapped in the snares of error they must learn to distinguish between titles and persons a Prince in spirituals being a sonne in temporals may be a Father 4. Touching the similitude of body and soul howsoever I grant it may be true in part as in this point by name that a temporall Prince his power is Per se of it selfe over the body and the spirituall priests power is over mens soules yet your similitude wants weight of truth in some other part and halts down right For temporall power save only as it is exercised by a Christian is not subordinate to spirituall power no not in ecclesiasticall and spirituall causes on the contrary the subjection of priests in temporall causes is plainly subordinate unto the temporall Prince Arguments thus framed are not worth a rush temporall power is over mens bodies and spirituall power is over their soules as the body then is directed and ruled by the soule and the soule not by the Body so he that is armed and authorised with temporall power must be directed and ruled by such as are invested with spirituall power I say again such reasons are not worth a rush for body and soule together do make one whole compound creature which is man whereas corporall power and spirituall power make not one body but rather two bodies and two heads These two powers as both are powers are different in all things and without subordination as either of them is a power neither doth Nazianzen teach the contrary much lesse teach your affirmative as who soever will read Gregory himselfe shall readily finde For thus much Gregory writeth in effect and no more that as the soule is more noble then the body so the spirituall power is more noble then the temporall which for my part so long as I go for a Roman Catholic I dare not deny 5. You are much overseen Hetrodox to charge me with makeing use of this doctrine to the hurt of the Church when I should rather whet and scoure my weapons against hereticks And herein you resemble me to the spider that sucks poyson from the same sweet and oderiferous herbs or flowers out of which the industrious Bee sucks honey Have you not herein much forgot your selfe He that delivers the truth neither fights nor speakes against our mother the Church but against such as harbour settled and secret pretensions in their breasts to usurpe more then appertains to their persons callings or degrees Again the Church is the Kingdome of heaven and you speak in your whole discourse of none but earthly Kingdomes in which without all question the Church can have no share nor interest nisi per accidens ex donatione fidelium but such as comes upon the By as we say that is by casuall meanes or else by franke donation or free gift of the faithfull the grandeur of all which earthly Kingdomes and of all other temporall States the Church doth establish Thirdly the use of this doctrine tendeth and serveth not only for the confuting and extirping of heresies or heretics but likewise of all such as maintain and broach any
other untruth be it heresie or errour howsoever I am directly of this minde it is flat heresie to stand upon termes of contradiction against so cleer a text of the divine Apostle Paul And lastly know this Hetrodox that man is a spider who weaves a spiders web to catch flies and poysons the springs or fountains of wholsome doctrine with venome of his own corrupt and false exposition know you moreover that Orthodox who now like the Bee sucks from the sweet flowers of Saints and chiefe pillars of the Church the most delicious honey of truth will never take pepper in the nose to heare himselfe blamâ—d on this wise sometimes your sweet honie Hetrodox turnes to bitter wormwood yea to deadly poyson to make false and erroneous doctrine burst all her bowels Hetrod Well Sir have you any more gall to spit up any more to say in confirmation of your first Proposition Orthod It is not I that will say the rest but Paul the Apostle who thus proceeds and subjoynes in the sacred text Rom. 13. Whosoever he be that resists the Power the same resists the ordinance of God here is clearly to be seen the authority of secular Princes to make lawes in any matter cause or subject whatsoever lawes obligatory to bind all degrees and sorts of persons Quicunque whosoever he be c. in full conformity to the words of God himselfe speaking thus in his own person By me Kings raign and law-givers or Princes decree justice From hence have sprung as from the prime roote many lawes in the Code made by Iustinian and Theodosius most christian Emperours concerning Ecclesiasticall persons their lands goods c. All which lawes the Apostle commands to be obeyed without resistance for so much as all that resist shall purchase and receive to themselves condemnation they runne and tumble into mortall sinne wherein if they shall finally depart out of the body without repentance in this life they shall be adjudged and condemned to eternall flames of hell Hetrod Where did Paul ever write or witnesse That secular princes have power to make Lawes in all matters and causes Lawes to bind all sorts conditions and qualities of people what shall Princes make Lawes for the manner and forme of saying Masse for binding Laics to say Masse and to make the vow of chastity for binding Priests to marry and instead of a Breviarie and a Portuis to weare a Fauchion a Skaine or a Sword Shall not all these be bound to shew and performe obedience if Princes have authority to make Lawes in all causes and in all matters yea binding Lawes for all persons iâ— when Lawes were enacted by Heathen or unbeleeving Princes that all people Nations Tribes and Kindreds should renounce Christ and offer sacrifice to Idols were they not bound then under the penalty of mortall sinne to obey the said Heathenish Lawes and Ordinances They were doubtlesse to my understanding though all Princes then were Infidels when Paul commanded the said obedience to Princes And yet Orthodox according to your new interpretation from Pauls precept or Apostolicall Canon it is forsooth to be collected That secular Princes have authority from God to make Lawes in all matters and lawes to bind all persons It may seem your wits are gone on wool-gathering that you perceive not how many errours flow from the source of your last speech and passage And yet you stick not here to come in with a strange and uncouth addition That your doctrine hath due and requisite conformity with King Solomons verdict in the Proverbs not discerning that Solomon there nips your new device in the crown or rather strikes it stone dead For he there bringing in the wisdome of God using these words viz. By me Kings raigne and Princes or Law-makers decree justice doth manifestly declare and shew That none but just Lawes doe proceed from the wisdome of God and that other Lawes many times enacted by Princes in matters which nothing at all concerne their dignities and imperiall places or established against persons not subject unto their secular authority or otherwise unjust lawes are but like puddle waters which run from the corrupt fountaine of their owne braine so not flowing from the spring which riseth in Gods bosome neither are the said lawes approved of Gods divine wisdome To the other addition which you make that Iustinian and Theodosius enacted lawes concerning ecclesiastical persons their goods lands Church-government or discipline it hath been already answered that in such their practise they exceeded the termes and limits of their power and whereas you affirme the Apostle commands obedience to their lawes you affirm a most large and no lesse manifest untruth or falshood for the Apostle there speaks in generall that he would have Subjects obedient to their superiors and whereas a litle after the Apostle brings in the example of secular Princes he speaks of Princes who in his time were Infidels and is not so to be taken or understood as if he did advise and teach Christians to obey such Princes I mean in lawes that concern the service and worship of God or the discipline of his Church but in civill and politick lawes alone and in temporall matters which lawes it was necessary then for christians to obey for the preservation of peace and unity as also to the end the Gentiles might not be carryed away with mis-credence or false beliefe and perswasion that Christian lawes or the lawes of Christ are opposite and repugnant unto the rules and reasons of civill or State government Orthod You thought my wits were gone a gadding and now I think your mouth runs over but I will stop the Fistula or the running issue of your mouth with a tent or two My meaning is this That Princes have power to make Lawes in all causes and matters Temporall but onely for the Public and Civill good and benefit provided alwayes their Lawes be just For it is alwayes presupposed That obedience is never due nisi justa praecipienti but when the Prince or State or other Superiors command things just and lawfull So that your late Consequences grow from a certaine misprision or wrong conception of my project purpose position and proofes For when I teach That a Temporall prince hath power to make Lawes in any or in all cases I meane such Lawes and such cases as are just conformable and agreeable to his power as also after the pattern and practice of his predecessors and other just Princes This was ever my meaning As for your exception taken to Justinians Lawes and those of Theodosius it shall suffice thus to answer in a word Their Lawes are sacred and have ever been reputed irreprehensible they were contrived and penned partly upon temporall grounds and subjects partly for the more strict observance of spirituall Canons and Orders partly for public benefit and yet did never any chiefe Bishop or High priest so kick and spurne against either of their Lawes as you Hetrodox have now
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
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