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
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
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
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
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
Aâ—bose now say for those Princes who take nothing away from the Church when he grants and yeelds the Prince a power to take away and make appropriate unto himselfe at his pleasure the lands of that Church whereof himselfe was Arch-bishop or chiefe Prelate and grants this obedience is to be yeelded unto the Emperour at his pleasure and without all resistance on his part In a word the Church at all times and in all ages hath been so far sensible of the publique good and tranquility even to the great losse and many times to the excessive expences and exorbitant charges of Ecclesiastics that in the Lateran Councell wee read these words Tamet si Clericus à tributo c. Albeit Clerics are discharged and exempted from all payment of tribute yet in cases of necessity and times urging pressing and inforcing thereunto they shall make no spare of their proper means and private estates to provide for the safety of the present State and Common wealth 3. But what meane you Hetrodox to arme the Pope with a materiall sword yea with a naked and drawn sword was not Peter himselfe reproved by Christ with a Mitte gladium put up thy sword into the sheath Item wherefore would not Almighty God give way that David should build the Temple Was it not because David had been Vir sanguineum one that had spilt much bloud and put many soules to the sword whereas the Lord made choise of Solomon to build the Temple because he was a peaceable Prince or a man of Peace This was to let us understand that certes the drawing exercising of the materiall sword hath no manner of congruity nor holds any due correspondence with ecclesiasticall profession and again that such ecclesiastics as challenge to themselves the swaying or weilding of the same sword re-in state of irregularity and again that for this reason the litle shepherd young David a type of every true Christian might not go in the compleat Armour of Saul on his back to fight against Goliah that mighty Giant and uncircumcised Philistine but with a sling and a few pebble-stones in his hand or scrip which is the word of God And for this purpose makes not a litle not only the common practise of Christians approved by your selfe Hetrodox Tradatur brachiâ— seculari let him be passed over to the secular power but also that Godly speech of S. Ambrose Dolere potero well I may afflict my heavy soul with sorrow well I may utter the voice of lamentation well I may mourn like a Crane or a Pellicane in the wildernesse well I may send forth grievous groanes against goatish soldiers in Armes my weapons are bitter teares a priest hath none other weapons or Armes for defence I neither can resist nor ought in any other manner to make resistance where the word Nec debeo nor ought strikes and payes home as a word of great force and efficacy 4. At last Hetrodox you raise a strong Bulwarke with a suteable Parapet and main flankers for the strengthning of your cause and yet but imaginary Castles and Forces out of S. Bernards text which methinkes is a great disadvantage and weakning to your mock-building That holy Father there speakes of the Church in counter-point straines and tâ—rmes I meane by the Figure Antithesis Namely As the Church is compounded of seculars and priests of soldiers and Clerics or as it hath an opposite composition of imperiall and temporall power with Papall and Spirituall power Now saith S. Bernard Vterque c. both swords materiall and spirituall belong to the Church albeit both swords are not for every one to handle neither do both belong to every one How then Hic quidem the one by name the materiall sword pro ecclesiâ is to be drawn in defence of the Churches priviledges liberties and rights Ille vero the other that is the spirituall sword is to be taken up shaken ab ecclesiâ by the Church it selfe this by the hand of the priest and that by the hand of the soldier So the priest bears not in his hand the materiall sword which neverthelesse is used ad nutum sacerdotis when the Priest hath once given a beck or a signe jussum Imperatoris and when the Emperour hath once given the command These two distinct words here stand in a kind of opposition and serve to shew That he who commands execution or putting to death is not sacerdos the Priest but in very deed the Emperor who therefore hath Potestatem gladii the power of the sword which the Priest may long seek and never finde So that ad nutum when the Priest gives a nod doth not signifie or import ad jussum when the Priest commands How then Forsooth it imports that when the Priest hath once degraded a criminall Delinquent or malefactor by delivering him to the secular power he gives the world to understand what deadly punishment the merit of his cause hath justly brought upon his head according to the Law As for Boniface who as you say hath made Bernards doctrine more authenticall if he teach no more in this article then Saint Bernard himselfe who gave Boniface this light for his hint or quâ—u it shall ever like me well to give him the right hand of fellowship for this matter But whether S. Bernard or S. Ambrose be Heretics whether the Arguments and Scriptures produced before for proof and confirmation of my first Proposition be heresies I leave it howsoever you are more famous for a great grounded Catholic of the right stamp and haire to your own judgement reduced to the termes oâ—â—ight and sound information To be short whereas the LL. Ecclesiâ—sticall stand very st ffe and make a strong head or party for a larger size and greater ex ent of authority then in truth may stand proportionable to their degree and calling in case any such auâ—hority fâ—r the materiall sword by them to be drawn and put in practise were essentiall to their State and rank or therewith compatible doubtlesse they might and would bring the same into common practise and therefore it belongs not of right unto their spirituall function and profession This Argument is framed and taken by seculars and in very deed is full of pith Frustra est potentia c. Vain and idle and of no efficacy is that power which is never nobilitated with any act or practise at all especially by those who boast and pretend themselves to be armed with such authority Now Sir to end this first dayes quarrell I have sufficiently argued for my first Proposition to prove the doctrine thereof Catholic sound oecumenicall and uncontrouleable so that you have not been able to supplant it with all your Engines nor to blow it up with all your Mines and Fire-workes Hetrod I never thought I must confesse that any ranke heretic whom like a Roscius or some othâ—r famous actor you have so cunningly personated in this dayes conference was able to
forreigners and not upon those of the City according to Titelmannus You resolutely affirme this tribute whereof we now speak was the tribute of Augustus but you give us no reason of your assertion and yet besides you seeke to put out mine eye with a false text of Iosephus with a reiteration that Augustus his tribute was the tribute of the Temple Again I buckle my selfe to the true exposition that Christ was not bound to pay tribute because he was the sonne of God and sonnes use to pay no tribute required or exacted in the name of the King their Father But you Hetrodox from this my negative against all the rules of Logick will draw the affirmative and charge me to hold that Christ as man was bound to pay the said tribute Now Sir If any affirm the People of Rome ought not to withstand the commands of his Holines as he iâ— Christs Vicar of this will you inferre and conclude the people of Rome ought doubtlesse to withstand his Holines as he is a temporall Prince The very Pesant of mean common capacity would be ready to hisse the conclusion out of the Laic Schooles Qui unum negat alterum non affirmat he that denies one thing doth not forthwith affirme another when the said things are not contrary but only dispared as in our present case but I very well perceive your fetch Hetrodox it was to fetch in Marsilius of Padua and you have fetcht him in with a witnesse for you have pulled him into the Stage by the eares and out of all due time sufficient it is for me to alleadge the reason alleadged by Christ himselfe that as the Son of God he was not bound to pay any tribute to untie the knot of the argument produced to the contrary not by me but by others and neverthelesse I do not affirme that Christ our Lord was bound as man to pay the said tribute 6. Again our Saviour Christ stands upon this reason to prove his exemption from tribute because he was the Son of God But you Hetrodox do take a stride nay more then one stride further and stick not here to affirme that S. Peter also was exempted because he was of Christs own family who was the Son of God but Christ as all mâ—n know there spake not a word of the family but only of the Sonne Christ kept no servants he was only followed by certain Disciples And howsoever the servants of the Kings sonne should be exempted from tribute so long as they are employed in his service yet doubtlesse the Disciples of Christ were not servants of Christ Non dixi vos servos sed amicos non veni ministrari sed ministrare I have not called you servants but friends I came not into the world to be served but rather to serve others And moreover the exposition which you here set down Hetrodox is directly flat against the text For the Publicanes presupposed they tooke it for granted they put it out of all hunger and cold that S. Peter was lyable to tribute for his own Poll and therefore they only asked Peter not whether he himselfe whether his master was in the check-roll of tributaries for his Poll whereupon Christ forthwith gave order that Peter should make present payment on the nayle for them both for himselfe that he might give no cause of scandall to the Publicans and for Peter because he was liable to the law of tribute wherein first I observe that Peter then was neither Priest nor Pope Secondly that in case of necessity even ecclesiasties exempted saith Thomas Aquinas privilegio Principum by Princely priviledge ought in duty to pay tribute because Peter found the Statere or Sicle wherewith he paid tribute in a fishes Belly to notifie that men ought by way of Subsidie and â—id to their Princes to pay tribute of those goods which they have got and received of fishes that is by the almes of charitable and faithfull Christians 7. Againe you are not pleased nor disposed Hetrodox to apprehend the pith and force of my argument For to prove that Christ never exercised any temporall dominion it sufficed to affirm that Christ himselfe said Give unto Cesar the things that are Cesars But because there are some who frame that argument not against the words Give unto Cesar the things that are Cesars but against the whole discourse in generall to prove that Christ was a temporall King because he said that he was not bound to pay tribute I therefore answer that Christ spake not so in regard that he was a temporall King but in regard that he was the Sonne of God For this Hetrodox you forsooth would have me reputed an Heretic such a marvellous desire you and some others doe shew 〈◊〉 Luk. 16. to have us burnt for this heresie Ex abundantiâ cordis â—s loquitur the mouth speaks out of the abundance of the heart Nauseat anima eorum super cibâ— isto lâ—vissimo Num. 21 their soule loatheth such light bread and yet my Religion to me is a heavenly Manna But surely we are not such and by the grace of God we will never be found such as you and some other doe seeme to desire 8. Againe you play false in citing S. Jeroms Text for you shall find his words cleane contrary and thus in true termes Dominus noster secundum carnem secundùm Spiritum filius Regis erat vel ex Davidis stirpe generatus vel omnipotentis verbum patris ergo tributa quasi Regis filius non dababat sed qui humilitatem carnis assumpserat debuit adimplere omnem justitiam nosque infoelices Christi censemur nomine nihil dignum facimus tantâ majestate Ille pro nobis crucem sustinuit tributa reddidit nos pro illius honore tributa non reddimus quasi filii Regis à vectigalibus immunes sumus Our Lord was the Son of a King both according to the flesh and according to the Spirit either as bred of the stock of David or as the Word of the Omnipotent and Almighty Father and therefore as a Son descended borne of Kings he did owe no kind of tribute but he who took the basenesse of our nature was to fulfill all righteousnesse We wretched creatures mark how he reckons himselfe in the number then being a Priest and according to some Authors a Cardinall are inrowled in the censorian tables of Christ and yet we work nothing of so high majesty and honour He for us hath born the Crosse and paid tribute shall not we then for his honor pay tribute but as if we were free born the Kings naturall sons scape altogether Scot-free from all manner of tallage poundage customes tributes aydes and subsidies In this place we see S. Ierome not only doth not affirme that immunities are De jure divino by Gods Law but he also grievously complaines as Iansenius testifies that Ecclesiastics did not pay the required and imposed tributes for
as a Publicane where our Saviour gives Authority to Excommunicate but with a supposition of sin and of obstinate persisting in sinne Hetrodox Verily Orthodox you seeme to paire the nailes of Pontificiall power so near that you give me just cause to suspect you believe that our holy Father the Pope is but simple Priest or Curate without any lawfull Jurisdiction and that hee can doe no more but exhort to the obedient keeping of Gods Law as every ordinary Preacher doth or Baptise and confesse the people as every common Curate doth And so it seems you seek to revoke and to renew the Heresie of the Valdenses or Lionists of Wickliffe Mansilius of Padua and Iohn Huss which blind and pestiferous Heresie is caressed or embraced by all moderne Heretiques But I must come to a more narrow sifting of your words First You say the Popes power is meerly Spirituall To what end serves your meerlie was it not enough to say it is a Spirituall power was it not better to say it is principally Spirituall Navarrus whom you so highly commend Cap. Novit de judiciis and exhort all men to reade with diligence and great attention saith vâ—ry well that surely the Popes power is not meerly Temporall but he never saith it is meerly Spirituall as if the Pope could not in any sort shuffle and cut the Cards of Temporall affaires Nay hee further termes it a most eminent power which in it selfe being Spirituall and by consequence far Superiour to the Temporall both can and ought also to set the Temporall strait when it growes crooked or goes out of the right path And whereas our Saviour Christ said I will give thee the Keyes not of any Terrene Kingdome but of the Celestiall Kingdome or the Church of Christ hath said he that gives the Celestiall Kingdome takes not away Earthly Kingdomes or your selfe Orthodox hath said the Temporall Monarchie was founded of old from the beginning of the World surely none of all this makes either for the fortifying of your Sconce or to the weakening of my Campe For herein you affirme thus much and no more The Kingdome of Christ whereof Peter the Apostle received the keyes is no Temporall Kingdome which one cannot acquire but some other must lose but it is a Kingdome which governes all other Kingdomes without spoyling any man of that Dominion which by good just and lawfull right he holds Otherwise you might say as well that God himselfe hath no power over Temporall matters because God himselfe the giver of Heavenly Kingdomes is no robber and spoiler of mens Earthly Inheritances Againe you say Christ gave his Apostles and Peter a power but yet restrained Ioan. 20. and not without limitation that is a power over sinnes because he breathed on them all and said Receive the Holy Ghost c. This you cannot be ignorant is the Heresie of those who rob the Pope and the Church of all Jurisdiction an Heresie condemned by Christ himselfe in the very same place a little before the words now cited For before the words Quorum remiseritis c. whose sinnes ye shall remit shall be remitted he saith Sicut misit me Pater as the Father hath sent me into the World so doe I send you forth in which words he gave them absolute power and without limitation to governe the Church in his owne roome Hereupon Divines teach that in these words he gave the power of Jurisdiction in the other the power of Order And when afterward he said to Peter in the Chapter next following Pasce oves feed my sheepe doubtlesse he restrained not power to Absolution from sinne but hee gave a most ample power to rule and governe the whole Church For the word Pasce Feed is the very same in the Greeke language wherein St. Iohn did write his Gospell which is used in St. Iohns Revelation he shall rule them with a rod of Iron Apoc. 19. Mich. 2. as also in the Prophet as is translated by the Septuagint Ex te mihi erit Dux qui regat populum meum Israel out of thee shall come a Captaine unto me that shall rule my people Israel Mat. 16. So that by the usuall phrase of Scripture to make St. Peter a Shepheard or Feeder was to make him Ruler Governour and Prince of the whole Church So when Christ said to Peter whatsoever thou shalt loose or bind he restrained not the power unto sin nor unto the persons for he said not Quemcuuque but Quodcunque not whomsoever but whatsoever thou shalt binde or loose His meaning was to signifie and expresse an universall power of Binding and Loosing that is of commanding of making Lawes of Dispensing as it should be found needfull for the leading and bringing in of the Faithfull into the Kingdome of Heaven with most full and ample authoritie to enjoyne every man what he should believe and likewise to labour and to remove all the rubs blocks and impediments whereby they might be crossed in the way of Salvation as Cardinall Bellarmine hath declared at great length You give me thirdly to understand that our holy Father the Pope hath power onely over Soules and this you draw from that Prayer of the Church Deus qui Petro animas ligandi c. O God who hast given Peter the power of Pontificiall Dignity to bind and to loose the Soules of men If this Reason hath any force then secular Princes must have no power but over the Soules of their Subjects because Paul saith Let every soule be subject unto the higher powers And so either you make your selfe too simple as one who doth not consider that in Scripture the soule is taken for the whole man or else you seeke to catch the simple with words of holy Church not right understood And therefore perhaps the Divine providence to take away the like deceitfull sleights and flie shifts hath inspired the Reformers of the Breviarie to lib and geld the said Prayer of the word Soules which of old neither was found in the said Prayer nor ought at all there to be read because that Prayer was founded and formed upon the foresaid words in the Gospell whatsoever thou Peter shalt binde and whatsoever thou shalt loose Last of all you contend that power to excommunicate is conditionall presupposing sin and obstinacie in sin This Doctrine is both new and false you are not able to produce any Author that ever so taught Sinne I confesse must be presupposed for Excommunication is a punishment and the most grievous the most dreadfull of all other so that no sinne committed no punishment by Excommunicarion can be inflicted Disobedience also otherwise called contumacie is I confesse againe presupposed a sinne and to Excommunicate every sinne gives not sufficient warrant but only that sinne which is cloathed or clogged rather with Contumacie For Christ saith Si Ecclesiam non audierit If he will not heare the Church The censure therefore of Excommunication cannot be denounced against
can be no seemlie thing to make the Church of God lesse free in the Reigne and Government of Christian Princes then shee was in Pharohs time Let us now see and examine the reasons which you bring for proofe of your first Proposition For you pretend and alledge That Exemption of Ecclesiasticall Persons and their Possessions is onelie established and granted by mans Law and that your opinion in that point is more conformable to sacred Scripture to the holy Doctors and to the Histories of the Church then the contrarie opinion Orthodox You demand the reasons of my Doctrine in verie good time Hâ—trodox For in truth we are now come to the golden Key that opens the Closet and Cabinet of my Catholique Doctrine Howbeit Sir before I shall alleadge proofes of his Doctrine First it will be needfull to declare by certaine Propositions in what points your opinion dâ—ffâ—â—s from theirs who are commonly cited under the name of Heretiques which to be plaine iâ— likewise my opinion 1. There is a great difference betweene these two termes not Subject and exempt For the man is not subject unto any Prince Propositions foreâ—aid for grounds of the defence following over whom the power of the said Prince doth not extend and stretch Take this for Example An English man usually and commonly dwelling in England is not subject unto the French King For the French Kings power extends not over the English who have their common habitation in the Realme of England But in case an English-man dwelling in England shall not obey the King of England and his Lawes and shall not be conformable to the Statutes of England it must not be said that he is a Refractory because he is not subject unto the King of England but because he is exempted either by Almighty God the Lord of all or else by the King of Englands most Royall and gracious Priviledge So that whereas I affirme that Ecclesiastick Exemption and Immunitie is not in force de Jure divino by Gods Law my meaning is not in Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall causes cases or delicts For in cases of that nature and kind we cannot say that Clerics are excempt from the power of their lawfull and naturall Priâ—ce but we onely pronounce they are not subject unto the said Prince Then it remains that my meaning is in such Goods in such Causes in such Delicts as properly fall within the termes of Princely power not only to take due cognisance thereof but also to set and appoint due order in the same and what can such things but meerely Temporall and Politicall matters This hath begot and bred the Errour in some writers and your Error Hetrodox in particular In that whereas I contend that Clerics are not exempt from the power of their Naturall Prince by Gods Law you in all hast inferre thereupon Ergo Princes have power to make Lawes for saying Masse and for the marriage of Priests Certes Hetrodox this consequence hath no weight like a scive that holds no water they are not exempt from Temporall Power Ergo in Spirituall Delicts and causes they are subject Such equivocating Arguments of double sense and construction which are and ever have beene the precipitating of many simple spirits into erroneous conceipts ought by all meanes in so grave and weighty a subject both carefully and curiouslie to be avoided When I therefore speake of Exception Exemption and Immunitie from Secular power I must of necessity be conceived and taken to meane in such Causes in such Goods and in such Delicts wherein without all priviledge both Divine and Humane of God or man a man should of necessitie be subject unto the Secular Prince 2. There be foure opinions laid to the charge of Heretiques and rejected in this Argument as condemned and cursed with Bell Booke and Candle The Fathers of the first opinion are Marsilius of Padua and Jandunus These are charged and challenged by some to teach that Christ paid Tribute Necessitate coactus as one enforced by necessitie The next is Calvins opinion He dreames that Clerics are subject unto the Temporall Prince Ex debito in all Causes except onely such as are meerely Ecclesiasticall The third opinion calls Peter Martyr father He makes no bones to pâ—ofesse that it rests not in the hands it lyes not in the power of Princes to grant any such Priviledge of Exemption unto Clerics and in case they shall grant any such Priviledge they shall run into the snares of sinne because every such Grant is repugnant and contrary to Gods Law The fourth is the opinion of Brentius and Philip Melancthon they contend that Clerics are subject unto the Secular Prince even in causes meerly Ecclesiasticall All this verbatim is taken out of Card. Bellarmine Lib. 1. cap. 28. de Clericis It was therefore either out of affected Ignorance or else out of Supine Malignitie that one hath charged my Doctrine to be sprinkled or dipt in Brentianated Calviniated and Marsilianated holy water For I neither affirme with Marsilius of Padua if neverthelesse Marsilius was culpable of any such condemned opinion that our Lord Christ paid tribute as enforced by necessity but onely to shun the rocke of giving scandall Neither doe I teach with Calvin that in all Causes and Criminall Delicts Clerics are subject and ought so to be but in such onely wherein they have not beene exempted which Exemption stands not in force by Gods Law but by Princes Priviledge Neither doe I contend with Peter Martyr that Princes can grant no such Exemption but rather the contrarie that such Exemption may be granted Neither doe I lastly maintaine with Brentius that Clerics are subject in Spirituall Causes For I distinguish the two Powers the Temporall and the Spirituall And when I speake of Subjection or Exemption of Clerics I speake onely in Temporall matters over which the said power extends and stretches out her mighty arme and not in meere Ecclesiasticall matters and Spirituall save onely by Accident 3. My opinion is this that Clerics are not exempted from the power of Secular Princes by Gods Law but onely by Princely Priviledge either expressed or at least in tacite grant I mean after Canons lawfully published received as also after many laudable and approved Customes for such purpose Now that my Doctrine herein is Catholique it is confest by Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe in the place last cited For in his last Edition he holds that Exemption is by Gods Law forgetting by like what he had taught like a Doctor out of his Chaire in his other Bookes to the contrary of the same subject As where he writes of Medina and Conarruuias two Catholique Authors and both of them resolute in my true opinion for this point For he takes them downe in a round Censure terming them bold and hardy speakers in these words Sed operae pretium erit C de Restit q 15. ad eas objectiones breviter respondere quas Didacus Conarruuias Joannes Medina
qui liberiùs aliis locuti sunt in medium protulerunt objiciunt enim primò nullam extare legem divinam quâ Clerici eximuntur à Jurisdictione Principum laicarum c. It shall not here be amisse to frame some briefe answer unto the Arguments produced by Conarruuias and Medina who have suffered their tongues to walk range more freely then other writers For they first alledge that Exemption of Clerics from the Jurisdiction of Laick Princes is not warranted by any one tittle of Gods Law c. The L. Cardinall answers their Arguments as Arguments of Catholique Doctors and otherwise by his leave he suffers the knots of their Arguments to hold untyed and without any Doctor-like resolution And iâ— is no marvaile that our side is not overshadowed with any great cloud or heap of authenticall witnesses because likewise the Authors who stand for the contrary opinion are very thin sowen Besides this doubt is but new crept into the Schooles and again if any man write with a free and full penne upon that subject he is put unto his Recantation like the Lord Cardinall or that which is written to purpose is cancelled and rased or else he is charged with sore threatnings Sotus indeed had freely delivered his mind of this matter but in the end subjoyning a certaâ—â—â— casâ—le without any foundation which mar'd all that upon a good foundation he had built before being not able otherwise to avoid some blow he concluded the whole with Servum 〈…〉 multa decet sentire pauca loqui men that stand obvious to the lash of the whip may debate of many matters in their judgments but should not be too free of their tongues And for my particular I had never taken the liberty so freely and so faâ— to imbarque my peâ— in the faire ship of these eight Propositions but as Necessitate coactus propter evidens periculum â—â—â—â—iarum as enforced by necessity in a desperate case of most evident danger of many Soules and in the lawfull defence of my most Catholique and lawfull Prince his quarrell In times of peace â—any things are shut up under the hatches of the tongue which in times of contentions and quarrels learned men are enforced to write if they have any spirit or courage to defend the truth And howsoever I have now followed the free'st course both in writing and speaking my mind to the full though I be reproved and hated by such as your selfe Hetrodox who â—â—ve deeply interessed and engaged themselves in the maine yet I shall never by Gods grace repent me of my paines as if in so doing I had committed any evill that of the Comicall Poet will ever stand good and true Obsequium amicos veritas odium pâ—riâ— Obsequious Flattery finds many friends but plain-dealing Truth may go shake her Eares 4. My opinion is the better founded the more true and the more infallible because it is confessed by Cardinall Bellarmine that no Scripture no Councell no Canon and none of the holy Fathers hold the contrary as in the Defence following it shall well appeare and as before hath been shewed out of Thomas Augustine and Jerome cited for the contrary opinion which indeed hath no approbation but only of some few Canonists who howsoever they affirme and maintain that Exemption of Clerics is grounded upon Gods Law doe not understand Gods written Law and lesse the Law of Nature neither by necessary consequence but only by a certaine probability As thus King Pharoh exempted all the Idolatrous Priests of Egypt from all Tribute and Artaxerxes freed the Priests of Israel from the like burthens It may therefore seeme in probability à Simili from the like agreeable to Decency That Christian Princes ought in like manner to exempt Christian Priests from payment of Tributes and other Taxations of like nature This Argument I must confesse is drawn from holy Scripture which is Gods Law But it strongly makes against our Adversaries in their Tenent because it concludes that Secular Princes and not God himselfe ordained the said Exemption the very Assertion which I maintain Besides Arguments drawn from a similitude are of small force or none at all For by the same reason it might be thus argued In the old Law which is Gods Law Priests were permitted to marry Ergo it is by Gods Law that Priests are now married in the Evangelicall Law And that de Jure Divino by Gods Law is understood by the fore-named Authors according to this my Exposition I appeale to the Lord Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe in the place before alledged 5. The new opinion of the Lord Cardinall and newly brought into the Church without any reason or authority concerning this matter hold by three strings 1. That Exemption of Clerics from Secular power is not built upon Gods written Law because it is no where commanded in holy Scripture much lesse upon the law of nature or the law morall which Divines likewise call the Law of God as the Docalogue or ten Commandements c. wherein the Lord Cardinall Medina Conarruuias and my selfe doe all agree 2. By Gods Law again he understands a certain Decencie and Conformity with the examples of K. Pharoh and K. Artexerxes and from their Examples he collects that Christian Princes are t do the same but dares not say they are bound to that strain of Benignitie whereupon he confesseth in a manner that doubtlesse it appertaineth unto Princes to grant such Immunity or Exemption but yet Princes are not bound to shew such Grace by those Texts of Scripture for as much as in the said passages there is not so much as the least umbrage or shadow of any such obligation to be seen or found 3. By Gods Law is as much to say as by the Law of Nations A new device and never heard of before And that his Lordship proves thus The Law of Nations is derived from Gods Law naturall Ergo it is Divine or the Law of God Then again that it is by the Law of Nations he assumes that all Nations have exempted their Priests but shewes not in what matters whether in their Tributes or in other Causes nor proves the universall nor is able to prove the same that all Nations have exempted their Priests for that is false nor alledgeth for his opinion any one Doctor that by Gods Law signifies by the Law of Nations nor finally shewes that Exemption is grounded upon the Law of all Nations Lib. de Cler. cap. 19. Let him be searched This opinion as new and hanging by loose gimmals is ready to nod to totter and to ruine of it owne accord yet shall it not be amisse to touch in briefe divers things concerning the same 1. There is great difference between Gods Law written the Law of Nature and the Law of Nations For howsoever the Law of Nations is a Secondary Law of Nature according to the great Master Thomas Aquinas by reason it is derived from Principles both of Natures Law and of
had put in Protestation that matters were precipitated and hudled and shuffled and cut by the nimble fingers of cunning Gamesters The Acts of the said Councell are not in these daies to be cited with like integrity to those of the ancient Councels which foule Defect by the godly-wise and learned is justly attributed to the disgrace and disaster of our times And for this reason I am perswaded the holy Fathers in that Councell assembled subjoyned the fore-said words That in case any difficulty should grow and arise in future times about the Determinations of that Councell the Pope might have full power to procure and worke sufficient redresse and remedy thereof either by convocating the learned of those Provinces where such difficill and intricate questions did spring and grow or otherwise by calling a Generall Councell or else might by some other meanes provide for the Quiet and Peace of the Christian Common-wealth So that first I say those words of the Councell are cited amisse both by the Lord Cardinall and your selfe For the Councell saith not Ecclesiae personarum Ecclesiaesticarum Immunitas in Temporalibus est instituta ordinatione divinâ That Immunity of the Church and of Ecclesiasticall Persons in their Temporals is appointed by Gods Ordinance but onely saith Princes ought not permit inferior Magistrates to infringe and violate the Immunity of the Church or of Ecclesiasticks howsoever it be appointed by Gods Ordinance whether meerly Ecclesiastick or Temporall as the Glosse runs granted by Princes according to those Examples Registred in holy Scripture But all this while the Councell doth not deny that such Immunity is granted by Princes in Temporals howsoever after the Examples of King Pharoh and King Artaxerxes Then I say againe that for so much as no such Exemption is found in any place of Scripture but rather the contrary written by St. Paul therefore the Sacred Councell is to be expounded as it is expounded by the Glosse Rom. 13. for otherwise the Councell had maintained an Errour which we Catholiques are bound at no hand to admit or acknowledge 2. The Councell of Coleyne which you alledge was not Generall but Provinciall It Decrees nothing by Determination it delivers no more then the Glosse but speakes lesse in the teeth and more cleere then the Councell of Trent For it doth not say that such Immunity is commanded by the Law of God and man but onely rather introduced or brought in by Gods Law after a sort namely because Pâ—inces have been moved and incited by the Examples of Pharoh and Artaxerxes in holy Scripture which is Gods Law to grant Priviledges unto Ecclesiastics or unto some others for not payiâ—g of Tribute not because it is commanded in any Text of Scripture but as taking that good Example in holy Scripture of their owne accord 3. The Lateran Councell which you also produce is not accounted Generall as the Lord Cardinall himselfe hath not sticked to acknowledge in divers places and so it wants weight of Authority Besides that which the said Councell affirmes is not held for indubitable And if the Councâ—ll meane that Princes have no power over Clerics in matters meerly Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall upon the matter per sâ— in it selfe they hold a truth But if they meane that Clerics are exempted in Criminall causes and Temporall matters which Priviledge Clerics enjoy not by Gods Law as hath beene proved then the Councell is not in any wise to be followed Besides the Councell cannot understand it otherwise then according to the Glosse and that is denyed of none 4. You are pleased to cast upon me the reproachfull name of Goliah whom you might better liken to David because I fight Pro castris non contra castra Dei for the Hosts of God and not against his Hosts that is for the Doctrine of the Apostles for the holy Scriptures of Christ our Saviour the highest Priest and for the holie Fathers neither doe I averre anie thing as hath beene declared against any one of the Sacred oecumenicall Councels lib. 1. de Cler. cap. 28. 5. The Canon of Bonifacius is understood according to the Glosse and so much is testified by the Lord Cardinall 6. Pope Iohn VIII and Pope Symmachus are to be understood in Causes meerely Ecclesiasticall after the manner before declared and not otherwise But of these two Popes more shall be spoken to purpose in another place It is very certaine they have not determined any thing against our Tenent as will easily be perceived by him that shall be pleased to take a fight of their Determinations 7. Your owne two Examples doe rather weaken and pull downe then build up and fortifie your Tower in two respects First you alledge that Pharoh and Artaxerxes granted their Priests free Charter of Exemption I can aske no more for I affirme the very same and no more viz. that granting Priviledges of Exemption belongs to the Prerogative of Princes Then againe you say that Princes have learned this lesson immediatly from the light of Nature whereas else-where the Lord Cardinall tels us that Exemption is not immediately taught by the light of nature but by the Law of Nations Et per quandam Similitudinem and by a kind of Resemblance or Similitude 8. Things taught by the light of Nature it is to no purpose for Pâ—inces to gâ—ant by Priviledge And whereas Clerics are exempâ—ed in particular as it is avouched by St. Thomas by the Priviledge of Princes Propter naturalem quandam aequitatem in respect of a certaine naturall Equity his words are to be taken in a sound sense And how That such Priviledge is founded upon the rule of Reason which is called naturall Equitie upon which rule of Reason or naturall Equity all the grounds and rules of the Law Civill are established but hereby St. Thomas doth not conclude they are established by Gods Law naturall but are civiil revokeable c. Hetrodox Now you have tickled my Eight Errors is there yet any more to be said for your Defence Orthodox There is more For beside all that hath beene declared in my first Proposition that under the old Law Priests were subject unto their naturall Prince 1. Reg. 2. and besides that Solomon deprived Abiathar and exauthorised him from the high Priest-hood of the Jewes In the Primitive Church untill the Raigne of the Emperour Iustinian there is not read or found in the whole bodie of the Law any Priviledge of Exemption granted to Ecclesiastics â— Hetrodox And have not I made evident Demonstration when I refuted your first Proposition that under the old Law the Priests and Levites were subject unto the Prince Ecclesiasticall And whereas you have affirmed that Moses was a Politicall or Civill Prince have not I proved by testimonies of Scriptures and holy Fathers that Moses was invested in the Authority of high Ptiest To your Example of Solomon I make this answer that Solomon exercised and exâ—cuted a power against Abiathar as the Minister of
Gods Divine-Will who had made known before that he would bring the posterity of Heli to a finall end for so the Scripture hath subjoyned ut impleretur sermo Domini quem locutus est super domum Heli that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled which God had spoken touching the house of Heli in Siloh Besides the Acts or Deeds of Princes goe not for Lawes But now Sir that before Iustinian there was no priviledge of Exemption in the Church that is I would have you know is apparently untrue For the Emperour Constantine who raigned more then 200. yeares before Iustinian and was the first Emperour that cleerely made profession of Christianity presently declared Ecclesiastics to be free from the common burthens of the Common-Wealth as we read in Constantines owne Epistle to Avilinus Eâ—l Histor l. 1. cap. 7. Cod. Theodâ—s cap. 31. Quaest Pract. recorded by Eusebius But besides this Priviledge of Constantine there be many other Priviledges of Emperours more ancient by odds then Iustinianus as your owne Darling and Minion Conarruuias by you cited makes report Orthodox I last alledged certaine Examples which I now perceive have put your learning to some plunge For hitherto your Discourse hath beene onely from Exemption of Tributes and such Exemption you say is taught in Scripture by the example of Pharoh and Artaxerxes But whereas you dare to make good proofe and cleere Demonstration How Clerics are exempted in Criminall Causes from which they are not exempted no not by Iustinian himselfe in the Novell I find you puzzel'd perplexed and as wee say in more then a peck of troubles as appeares by these your particular Errours 1. You tell me you have proved in the first Proposition that Moses was high Priest Surely this I have not denyed But I have affirmed that howsoever Moses did withdraw and retire himselfe from the exercise of the high Priest-hood and setled Aaron in that high Office neverthelesse he still judged the Levites And this argues he did it as a politicall or Civil Prince and not as high Priest because if it had appertained to the high Priest no doubt Moses would have committed that charge to Aaron who was the type of the high Priest of the Church and not Moses 2. He that will read the Text shall cleerely see that Solomon proceeded against Abiathar Viâ ordinariâ by the ordinary way and not by any particular Revelation and yet as the Minister of Gods Justice For every secular Prince is Minister Dei in iram ei qui malè agit the Minister of God to take vengeance on him that doth evill 3. You expound these words after your owne fancie and to serve your owne turne ut impleretur Sermo Domini that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled as if the Lord had bound Salomon by especiall charge and particular precept so to thrust Abiathar out of his pastorall charge But you must not be suffered to dazle mine eyes with any such slubbered Exposition For the wisedome of God reacheth from one end to another VVisd 8.1 and comely doth she order all things that is to say by ordinarie waies and meanes quando de extraordinariâ Revelatione non constat when there is no full assurance and certaintie of extraordinarie Revelation to alledge Examples and Anthorities after this manner is to flie unto those answers whereof the Poet saith Nisi Deo dignus vindice nodus inciderit Except some difficultie shall grow and arise which requires not mans wit but Gods Wisedome to unriddle 4. The Acts of Princes you say are no Lawes No more be the Acts of Popes especiallie of such Popes as have come too short of Solomons Wisedome when he judged Abiathar which doubtlesse was before Solomon fell into his Apostacie or Defection But besides it smels verie stronglie of Errour for anie man to affirme as you seeme to doe that Solomon who was endowed with a Spirit not of Angelicall but of Divine Wisedome and in particular to give right Judgement of all matters did stumble by erroneous Judgement in Abiathars case 5. Lastlie Whereas I according to the matter as also from antecedent and consequent examples doe treate of Exemption from the Court and of all Ecclesiastics you turne it into the generall I doe not denie that Constantine and some other Emperours before Iustinian have granted previledges of Exemption unto Ecclesiastics because it appertains unto Princes to grant such priviledges But I speake of Exemption from Courts and publike Judgements with a Distinction of the said Courts by a Law In corpore Iuris in the bodie of the Law as hath beene shewed in the first Proposition which was never acted by anie Emperour before Iustinian And for this point having read the Code not in a sleight or superficiall course I trust I may affirme without ostentation that I cannot be deceived in so cleere a matter But leaving these youâ— Eâ—râ—nâ—s I now proceed St. Paul saith Act. 25.10 11. I stand at Caeâ—aâ—s Judgment Scâ—â—e I â—ppeale unto Caesar And to pâ—ss◠〈…〉 Exampleâ— In the liâ—e of the most Christâ—an Empeâ—our Otho I. We read that Otho Authoritate proprâ—â by his own Au hoâ—iâ—y dâ—posed Pope John XII because he was notoriâ—usly wiâ—â—â—d In Summa sua lib. 2. cap. 96. Hetrodox This Argument ivâ—â—nâ—ed and framed by certaine Heretiques of old iâ— we l â—aken off by the Card. de Turre cremata namely that Sâ— Paul wâ— constrained to appeale unto Caesâ—r and to â—gnâ—zâ— him for his Jâ— gâ— de Fâ—cto non de Jure in Fact but not in Right because â—he power of Peter in those times was neither believed nor knowne And therefore if St. Paul then had answered that hee knew no other Judge but Christs Vicar hee had moved the Jewes bâ— whom he was accused Act. 28.19 and the Gentiles by whom hee was judged to breake forth into some loud laughter Paul himselfe saith coactus sum I was constrained to appeale unto Caesar As touching the Historie of Pope John and the Emperour Otho I observe a double falsity and errour in your briefe relation First of all those two words Authoritate propriâ by his owne Authority are most false both for the Fact and also for the Right In point of the Fact how Because Otho well knowing that himselfe being Laick had no power at all to judge an Ecclesiasticall person he referred the matter to the Councell then assembled in Rome to determine what was therein to be done Sancta Synodus quid decernat edicat let order be set by the Sacred Councels Decree Thus Otho to the Councell so that Otho deposed not Pope Iohn by his owne Authoritie but by the Councels Authoritie and Decree Likewise for point of Right because you find not in any Catholique Author that Popes can be deposed by Emperous but on the contrarie that Emperours may lawfullie be deposed by Popes as Otho IV. by Innocentius III. and Frederick II. by Innocentius IV. In Summa l. 4. p. 3.
same So Sotus and so Conarâ—â—â—â—â— as before But suppose Si quis suadente q. 4. we were destitute of all other â—â—â—â—es and Authorities That most famous Canon which excommunicates all such as lay violent hands upon Clerics or 〈◊〉 may be sufficient the Absolution in which case is reserâ—â—d to the Apostolic See without exception of any Princes or 〈◊〉 Lords This Canon was never yet revoked to this day 〈◊〉 when Martin V. in the Councell of Constance was inclined 〈◊〉 pâ—derate the sharpe censures of Excommunications and to 〈◊〉 order that it might be lawfull to have conversation with Excommunicate persons neverthelesse he excepted all such as 〈◊〉 declared Excommunicate by processe of Quorum nomina withall those who notoriously doe lay violent hands upon Ecclesiastics For without all further declaration it was his will and pleasure that conversing with all such persons should be avoided and that his foresaid moderation should not at any hand extend to the benefit of such as by violence had laid up any Ecclesiastic Your third reason drawne from possession time out of mind is refuted by the words of the Venetian Lords themselves For they in Anno 1605. renewed a Law enacted in Anno 1536. That Goods Immoveable might not be given to the Church for none other cause and reason but onely because it had never been observed to that present yeare as by themselves it is confessed Besides against Justice no possession or Custome 〈◊〉 stand in force It is therefore a notorious falsitie to say the Duke of Venice hath not sinned in making the â—â—id Lawes and in 〈◊〉 up Ecclesiasticall persons But whâ—â—soever sees or heares thâ—â— day the most grievous and horrible acts of Excesse done by the Venetian Duke in committing Priests and those of Religious Orders to prison in compelling and forcing Ecclesiastics contrarie to their conscience to violate and breake the Apostolicall Interdict in filling Monasteries with Souldiers and last of all in raising of public persecution against Churches and Religions as in foâ—â—â—er ages Valens an Arrian Emperour and after his â—â—â—s Hiâ—uricus King of the Vandals an other Arrian hath done â—ow can that man professe the Duke doth not sin if he be not â—â—â—ether blinded with passion and given up as the Apostle 〈◊〉 unto a reprobate mind I passe over your words which 〈◊〉 that he sinnes not who doth nothing against the Law 〈◊〉 that keepes the Law nor he that followes the Doctrine of St. Paul These points are too well knowne and fitter for â—â—â—low and light-witted children then for solid and 〈◊〉 vines But your last Censure that such as 〈◊〉 in Ecclesiasticall Exemption to be fixed upon the Pole of Gods Law and 〈◊〉 seeme to you not well founded or ill advised or over 〈◊〉 or grosse flatterers is not a censure given against men 〈◊〉 Blasphemie pronounced against the Holie Spirit For the 〈◊〉 which we maintaine is the expresse sentence of the Laâ—â—â—â— and Tridentine Councels both generall So that if we acknowledge according to the truth that the sacred Councels most of all the Generall Councels are assembled in the name of the Holy Ghost and if we be able to say with that first Councell hâ—ld at Jerusalem Visum est Spiritui Sanctâ— nobis it hath seemed good into the Holie Ghost and unto us then it followes that you make thâ— holy Ghost sometimes not well founded sometimes ill advised sometimes too venturous and sometimes too full of flatterie Orthodox These two positions have beene sufficiently made good before the one that the power of Temporall Princes comes immediately from God howsoever the mâ—â—ne of attaining unto the said power is by the meanes of men and that Almighty God hath not exempted any one Subject from the just Lawes and commandements of the said power the other that the Popes power albeit Spirituall cannot curbe or barre Temporall power from the exercise of their just Dominion over their owne Subjects From these Principles proved point by point in my last passage there is drawne this necessary consequence That when the Pope by his Spirituall power inhibits the Prince of Venice to exercise his Temporall power over his owne Subjects then the Prince of Venice is not bound to obey the Pope therein and that in case of such disobedience the Prince committeth no sin or offence This Hetrodox I trust is no fetching about by the bowe full bent but going to the matter in a strait 〈◊〉 by the string of the bowe Now for so much as you charge 〈◊〉 mine Author to be men who cannot speak without interâ—â—â—ing all kinds of erroneous materials it is necessarie for me to 〈◊〉 off this aspersion of Calumnie reproach and to let you see 〈◊〉 a Christall Glasse the Errours couching in your own oppoâ—â—â—ns Errours without all doubt so much further from excuse as they are so audacious and shamelesse to reprove other mens 〈◊〉 and sound Doctrine for Errour 1. The most illustrious Republic is the naturall Prince of his own 〈◊〉 in all my Authors Propositions he never speaks word of the Duke He names the Duke not so much as once but still speakes of the Signorie or of the Republic or of the Prince Whereupon you Hetrodox do nothing but confound the word Prince and the word Duke and with the word you also confound the power of the persons So that by the Prince of Venice you understand the Duke who is onely Head of the Republic and shee onely the Prince So manifest is this your first Errour that all â—â—n take fight and knowledge thereof This one Errour marres your Market for it â—â—ps the force and authority of all your other oppositions concerning this matter in your head 2. You seeme to have so base a conceit of me and my Author that you presuppose we cannot distinguish the Prince when hee signifies the Republic and when the Duke who is but a particular person though the first and chiefest in the Republic or else that all those by whom the Authors worke was revised were so close muffled as they could not descry so manifest an Error you seeme so desirous to find Thornes amongst flowers that I doe not marvaile you see sometimes one thing for another and call vertue her selfe by the name of Errour 3. Whereas in my Authors answer no mention is made at any time of the Duke but of the Republic of the Signorie and whereas the Author treats not but of her Dominion and power it was your part Hetrodox to understand the word Prince is Generall signifying as well Emperours and Kings as Republics or Common-wealths and that in this place it did not signifie the Duke but the Republic Besides the Authors words admit none other sense For the Prince of Venice as this Author speakes in plaine and expresse termes never knew any Superior in Temporals but God alone will any man understand this to be spoken of the Duke who so long as hee was Procurator of St. Mark acknowledged the Duke for his
which executes the Jurisdiction of the Prince in Venice and not the Duke 10. You say the Authority of the Republic over his Subjects iâ— derived from men and the Popes Authority from God Rom. 13. Sap. this Errour hath been dasht out of countenance before by the expresse text of St. Paul and other Scripture 11. You affirme the Republic taking his beginning when Ecclesiastics were exempted before she could not be divested of that wherein she was never invested In this point Hetrodox you should have drawn some plain Demonstration that Ecclesiastics were exempted in those times of the Republics birth Whereas you alledge but one priviledge of Frederick II. not worth whistling but a new upstart instance in a manner of two daies old and such as with Ecclesiastics doth not deserve to beare any sway For after the said Priviledge he was excommunicated and deposed from the Empire by Gregorie IX and so by consequence all his Constitutions were annulled But Sir the Lords of Venice have run still at all times by the File and have cut their cloth by the thred of the most holy Emperor Iustinian whose Novell was de-cryed like false and adulterous Coyne and never spoiled Ecclesiastics of any Exemption which they formerly enjoyed but rather endowed them with other new Priviledges 12. You affirme againe that vi characteris by vertue of the Character due to the order of Priests the Prince is deprived of his Authority over his owne Subjects Touching which point I answer thus much and say no more If the Character of Baptisme hath no vertue Quaest 15. de Restitu Cap Novit de judiciu Notab 6. no force or power to free any man from Subjection to his lawfull and naturall Prince much lesse the Character of Clericall Order You know this valide Argument of Medina which you also know Navarrus holds to be insoluble 13. You pretend that Scripture the Law of God Canons and Councels have granted Exemption unto Ecclesiastics I answer it is not commanded in Divine Scripture nor taught in the Law of Nature which is likewise Divine No such matter is defined by the Councels nor by the Canons tanquam de Fide as before hath been declared As touching some other Canons of Exemption made by Popes I acknowledge that where they have been lawfully published and received in those Kingdomes Countries and States they stand yet in their full force and that except in case of extreame necessity to speak in the termes of Sotus and Conarruuias by any ordinary means or for any ordinary cause they are not sufferable of Derogation or thereunto lyable as hath beene defined in matter of Priviledges But Sir this makes nothing to the purpose of our present case touching the Venetian Lords who never yet received any Canon which was contrary to Lawes of their own making in these present daies and times 14. You produce the Canon Si quis suadente c. If any thorow the Devils instigation shall offer violence and lay violent hands on a Cleric and here you presuppose without either grant or thankes for your paines the Venetian Lords by Satanicall perswasion have with violent hands attempted and assaulted the persons of Clerics But you must be answered with a godly resolution to your Diabolicall presupposition The said Lords have not done any such Execution by the suggestion of Satan but by the perswasion of God and of honourable Justice As for your famous Canon that speakes of private wrongs and offences Otherwise the Ecclesiasticall Judges themselves in like manner should be fetcht within the power and penalty thereof So that in the Venetian Territorie the Canon is duly observed For in case a private person by the Devils instigation shall cast violent hands on a Cleric and thereby tumble into the strong Net or Toyle of Excommunication his Absolution is procured 15. The Republic you say is not in the possession of the Judicature that she exerciseth or of the Lawes that she causeth to passe in public The most learned Father Paulus in his Considerations hath most excellently proved this Assertion to be most untrue Two things only will I here annexe The Law named upon this matter was first made in Anno. 1333. and not in Anno 1536. as you have alleadged Secondly the Prince hath Authority to enact Lawes to renew Lawes or to dilate Lawes but not because Lawes are sometimes not observed For the same authority whereby a Law was made at first gives the Prince sufficient power to renew to dilate c. the said Law 16. You attribute unto the Duke that which is the Order of the whole Republic For only the Republic hath such power ad vim vi repellendam to resist force by force and to provide that by Heresie the State be not infected And therefore both because the Republic stands upon a sure ground of certaine knowledge that the Popes present Censures are in the condition of meer Nullity whereof she makes not so much as the least doubt as also because it pleads possession time out of mind she justly pretends the interdict hath never been observed in her Dominion 17. It fills not Monasteries with Souldiers as you object That 's but an old wifes tale whosoever is the Reporter much more a meer fable that she exerciseth public persecution of the Church No surely What she doth is done in favour of the Church If it be not so Hetrodox tell us what one Heresie by name is protected or so much as never so little countenanced by the Republic which pretends none other matter but only to defend and maintain her owne 18. Moreover you have matched the Republic with Arrian Princes Even so doe the Cardinals Bellarmine and Baronius I cannot forbeare to tell them and you once for all you thinke to scarre us like little Children with I wot not what Bugs I mean with Epithets of Heretiques Schismaticks The World knowes what Heresie what Schisme is well enough And might we once be so happy to have a generall Councell called of the whole Church which cannot erre it should soone manifestly appeare who is an Heretique who is a Schismatick In the mean time the Republic is neither the one nor the other and that for this time shall suffice 19. Againe you confesse the Lateran Councell is not generall and the Tridentine treats not of that Exemption which is maintained by the Authors of the contrary opinion and neither the one Councell nor the other hath come in this case to any Definitive Sentence de Fide with what face then have you affirmed the said Councell are of equall Authority to that Canon whereof it is written visum est it hath seemed good unto the Holy Ghost and unto us c. 20. I have not given the former Epithets to such as hold Exemption in large manner of Construction that is by way of comparison and similitude to be by Gods Law But onely to such as affirme it is by Gods Law as commanded in holy Scripture
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
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