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
the honour of Christ as if they were the Kings eldest sonnes that is exempted by the Law of God Who sees not here the great and notable discrepance between the spirit of godly Saints the blanched pretensions of our times But most of all it grieves and afflicts my mind to see and heare how men impose one thing upon the learned Saints and ancient Fathers when they teach another and the cleane contrary Iansenius in this place affirms That Exemption is Privilegium Principum secularium non jure divino the priviledge of Secular Princes and not by Gods Law 9. You run Hetrodox into the same error in citing the words of S. Augustine whose words be these Quod dixit ergo liberi sunt filii in omni regno intelligendum est libeâ—os esse Regis filios non vestigales multò ergo magis liberi esse debent in regno terrenâ— filii illius regis sub quo sunt omnia a regna terrae whereas therefore Christ hath said the children are free it is to be understood that in every Kingdome the Kings own children are no tributaries to pay any Subsidies Rents or Pensions How much more then should the sonnes and children of that King be free in a terrene or earthly Kingdome under whose footstool all the Kingdomes of the earth are couched S. Thomas expounding this passage useth a very direct and perspicuous answer Qui facti sunt Filii Dei per gratiam liberi sunt in quolibet regno secundum mentem à servitute scilicet peccati non autem liberi à servitute corporali In every Kingdome the sonnes of God by grace are free as touching the mind namely from the bondage of sin but not free from service of the body And here three things are to be noted 1. that S. August speaks not of Ecclesiastics as Card. Bellarm. pretends but of all Christians 2. That he speaks not of any liberty or immunity from corporall charges or burthens S. August Tho. in 13. ad Rom but speaks of spirituall liberty and freedome from sinne 3. That from this place Thomas collects wee have no liberty no immunity from God whereby wee are exempted from the dominion of temporall Kings in temporall causes Jansenius brings a better and more literall exposition of S. August words for he saith S. August reasons from the plurall number as Christ himselfe argues from the plurall neverthelesse it is to be understood of the singular number that is of Christ alone As for example suppose a son of the French King should say if in every Kingdome the Kings children be free from tribute much more then in the Kingdome of France ought all the sonnes of the King be free and therefore I ought So saith S. August that Christ spake unto Peter Jn omni regno liberi sunt regis filii c. In every Kingdome the Kings children are no tributaries but free then much more ought all the sonnes and children of that King be free in a terrene Kingdome to whom all the Kingdomes of the earth are in subjection and that is I ought much more to be exempted from paying tribute or Poll-money but lest wee should scandalize these Publicans and toll-gatherers or Collectors c. And this doubtlesse is the true exposition of that place wherein who can be so blind as not to see your ninth most manifest and palpable errour Hetrod No doubt Orthodox if some of your hereticall Sect where here now in place they would bestow upon you a ringing plaudite for acting your part so well in the defence of this dayes Proposition Orthod I confesse Hetrodox that after the way which you call heresie touching this dayes Proposition so worship I the God of my Fathers believing all things concerning this Article which are written in the Law in the Prophets in the Apostles in the holy Fathers writings not blurred nor abused with erroneous expositions and false glosses Errare possum Haereticus esse nolo subject I may be and am to errors as all men are your selfe Hetrodox not excepted with all your deepe Clark-ship but you shall never find me wilfully to persist or stick in any errour as heretics do by the grace of my God as I said before It seemes by your falling to reproachfull termes that you have no more Petarres to blow up the strong gates of my second Proposition or other Engines and Peeces of great Ordnance to batter the Walls and Flankers thereof will your courage and heart serve you to play with your Artillery to morrow morning to give a brave assault upon the Fort of my third Proposition Het In the word of a Generall it shall be done assuring my selfe of honour and victory in the action Orth. The houre Het At Sun-rise Orth. Agreed Sir Het At your service Sir The third daies Conference Orthodox THe houre is jâ—stly kept of both parts Is your gâ—t Ordnaâ—ce placed Then let us heare it â—ay Time you know is precious Hetrodox It shall presently roare and thunder to the raising of the Fort vainly fancied to be impregnable if you dare first give me leavâ— to take some view of your third Proposition Orthod Dare Hetrodox I dare and I doe Here is the true modell or plat-forme to lesse then a haire Take a full view thereof at your good pleasure Hetrod O strange what do â—here set First it purports that our Lord Christ never exercised any authority of a Temporall Prince Orthod I perceive Hetrodox there is neither Beame nor Pin and Web in your eye Indeed it purports no lesse and thereupon it inferres That Christ never left any such authority to St. Peter and his successours whom we Catholiques call his Vicar For the Vicar is never advanced to a higher degree of Dignity and Power then the chiefe and principall Commander himselfe even purchased and possessed before Lib. 1 sent De auct Papae Sotus and Cardinall Bellarmine looking into this matter thorow cleer Christalline Spectacles do much wonder to see the boldnesse of our Canonists who have the face to maintain without any reason or authority of the New-Testament That Papa est Dominus totius orbis directè in temporalibus the Pope in all temporall causes is the direct Lord of the whole World a Doctrine for certain full of scandall and built upon a sandâ— foundation Some Authors besides the Canons which will never hold weight in concurrence with Scripture do avouch Thomas of Aquine De Regim Princ. c. 10. and 19. That Papa est Dominus totius orbis in Temporalibus Spiritualibus the Pope is Lord of the whole World as well in Temporals as in Spirituals But by their good leave Thomas never had neither head or hand in the inditing or penning of that work I appeale herein to Card. Bellar. himselfe De potest Papae Bâ—sides divers others of his most certain conjectures this one is of strong sinewes and thereby carries the greater force He sets downe the Emperour Adulphus
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
act play his part or handled his weapons like a skilfull master of defence halfe so well you have indeed to deale plainly and truly puzzâ—ld my wits a litle and put my reading perhaps to some stagger If you can play the man and lay about you as well in the other seven Propositions for the second whereof in token of challenge I here cast downe my glove as the Appellant calling for your personall appearance to answer the challenge in this place to morrow by sun-rising you may perhaps work more with my present opinions beginning to waver then you are aware Orthod I refuse not your challenge but in signe of acceptation I take up your glove and will not faile to be in the field at the houre assigned Interim I wish you good rest for this night and sharper weapons for the next morning The second dayes Conference upon the second Proposition Het A Good morrow to you Orthodox worthy Champion Defendant you come well armed I make no doubt at all pieces Orthod The same salutation to you Hetrodox noble Champion Appellant whose armes I wish to be more pungent in the conflict of this day then I could find them in our late former skirmish Hetrod Be pleased then without further delay and more losse of time to lay forth your second Ground or Proposition Orthod Nothing pleaseth me better Then mark well the words and contents thereof Christ our Saviour as the Sonne of God equall to the Father is King of Kings and Lord of Lords and yet all the time that he was clothed with our mortall spoyles not onely before his bitter death but likewise after his most blessed and glorious resurrection he never exercised the least power of a secular and temporall Prince Hetrod Make that good and you shall win the spurs or carry away my weapons out of the field Orthod Then sure it shall goe very hard but I will here leave you unarmed in the place For Christ our Saviour was never invested or inthronised in any temporall Kingdome Pilate makes the question to Christ Art thou a King Christ gives the answer Thou sayest I am a King But know O Pilate howsoever I am a King yet my Kingdome is not of this world that is not a temporall Kingdome When that multitude of people who had been miraculously fed and sated with five loaves and two fishes were minded and purposed to make him King he stept aside that he might not be taken by them and so made King He never took upon him to sit as Judge or Umpire in any mans cause Tho. Aqui. in ep ad Roman but answered those who required him to give sentence in a certaine litigious matter Who made me a Judge over your persons or your causes Yea he directly acknowledged Pilate Caesars deputy or Governour to be his lawfull Judge Thou couldst not have any power over me if it were not given thee from above Hetrod This your second Proposition seems to shoot and have a fling at matters of State in present question and no meane garboyles But in sooth it doth not so much as touch the same for they treat not of temporall Kingdomes but of Ecclesiasticall affaires so that your Proposition serveth onely to bewray your own bad affection and erroneous conceit I therefore must give you thus much to understand Very certaine it is that Christ as he was Man mortall did never exercise any power of a temporall Prince in this world For his comming into the world it is his owne testimony was to suffer to serve to teach men contempt of worldly wealth and honour as also by his humility and obedience to chalke out and make plaine the way or path which leadeth to the celestiall Paradise before the face and eyes of all proud and rebellious or disobedient people The Sonne of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life for the redemption of many Mar. 20.28 The Sonne of Man hath not whereon to lay his head Learne of mee that I am meek and lowly in heart Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ Luc. 9.58 Mat. 11.29 2 Cor. 8.9 Phil. 2.8 that he being rich for your sakes became poore He humbled himselfe and became ebedient to the death even the death of the crosse But your Proposition should carry this one joynt or branch more That Christ even as man in case he had been so minded might have assumed to himselfe the dominion of all temporall causes or matters and made himselfe a King or an Emperour Jam. 11. Heb. 1.2 which of the two he would The Father hath given all things into his hands and hath made him heyre of all things Againe It should not have been put down in your Proposition that Christ after his Resurrection exercised no power of a temporall Prince without addition of this clause that Christ after his Resurrection even as he is man hath obtained the government of the whole wold not as a temporall Prince but as an Eternall Prince Reve. 1.5 Mat. 28.18 farre superiour to all temporall Princes as the first begotten of the dead and Prince of all earthly Princes and to whom all power is given both in Heaven and in earth Which power is not properly temporall bâ—cause it is eternall and yet is above all things both temporall and eternall But now againe that Christ acknowledged Pilate for his Judge as you affirme I must be bold to tell you Orthodox It smells somwhat ranke of errour For Christ even as man was the High preist with power of excellencie yea he was the head of men and of Angells so that he had no superiour upon the face of the whole earth neither could he be judged of any other I meane de jure by right Philip. 2.8 howsoever perhaps de facto by fact he might be brought coram nobis upon his owne sufferance and permission For it was he that humbled himself viz. because he would be so humbled by the death of the Crosse And as for his words to Pilate Thou couldst have no power over me O Pilate if it were not given thee from above where Christ seems to take Pilate for his Judge this answer I make By power in those words is meant Permission and so the sense of that passage results to this reckoning That Pilate had never been able to stir either one foot or finger if it had not been by Gods permission In the same sense are these other words to be taken Luc. This is your houre and the power of darknesse And this is the answer of the holy Fathers Chrysostom and Cyril in their Expositions upon the 19. of John In 13. ad Rom. But whereas Thomas understands the same place of Iohn of the power that Princes have from God it likes me well to confesse and say that Pilates power as the Minister of Cesar was from God from whom all lawfull power descends Howbeit with your favour that such power in
Manâ—â—cript Lectures and in his first Books the words of Sotus are both found and read If now being of another mind he be not pleased to acknowledge and grant us the same and would have us to belâ—eve that he hath not written what I now avouch and averre the matter is not of any great consequence In his Books we see infinite alterations choppings and changings every day Sotus by him cited hath left it upon Record and that serves my turne And howsoever it imports but little to the principall question whether he will have it so uttered by the tongue and penne of Sotus or no that puts me to no manner of trouble so long as I finde it extant in the writing of Sotus himselfe whose Doctrine whose phrase nay whose verie words the learned take notice to be in great request with his Lordship and not a little pleasing to his appetite 6. You practise no small subteltie of refined wit when you shew that you are so unwilling to have that opinion which is taught by many Canonists called an opinion of the Canonists where is in the same companie a Divine the same opinion and that an opinion of the same may not be called an opinion of Divines when one Canonist is of their side and holds the same Tenet But every Novice in Theologie knowes that Appellatio Donominatio fit a majori parte things have their Appellaâ—ion and Denomination from the greater part yea Bellarmine himselfe works upon this distinction and the title of the question using this Argument Probatur opinio Theologorum ergo contraria opinio est Canonistarum the opinion of the Divines is approved and therefore the contrarie opinion is the Canonists amongst whom albeit in these last impressions he cites Navarrus a Canonist and not a Divine neverthelesse for the reason before alledged it is of no import The opinion of those who affirme the Pope to be Lord in Temporals is called the opinion of Canonists because it is not founded upon any Authoâ—iâ—ie of Scripture but only upon certaine Canons or Lawes Registred in the Decrees and Decretals and the contrarie opinion is that of the Divines because it is built upon Gods Word in the holie Scriptures 7. The Supreame Power Temporall you say is by all Authors except Heretikes granted to the Pope If that be so then doubtlesse Navarrus take him for one amongst many other is a notorious Heretique in this formall conclusion In cap. Novit Quare dicendum est Papam nullam habere potestatem laicam neque supremam neque mediam neque infimam The Pope therefore stands in no degree at all of Laiorck Temporall power neither in the highest nor in the middle nor in the lowest Region of Temporall power For my part I call that opinion Heresie and so I compt it which in explicite and implicite sense fights against holy Scripture and such is the opinion of all those who affirme the Pope to have Supreame Temporall Authority Our Lord Christ saith Mat. 16. Tibi dabo claves Regni coelorum I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven and the Pope saith Regni terrarum of all Earthlie Kingdomes Christ saith Mat. 20. Mark 10. Luke 22. Ioan. 19. Ioan. 20. Reges Gentium dominantur eorum vos autem non sic the Kings of the Earth beare rule over them but so shall not yee and the Pope saith vos autem sic and so shall ye Christ saith my Kingdome is of this World and the Pope saith nay my Kingdome is of this World and over the whole World Christ saith as my Father hath sent me so doe I send you my Disciples and the Pope saith not as the Father hath sent me so doe I send you There be two Supream Powers two Heads of all Christians Professors of Christian Religion Terrena potestas caput Regem Spiritualis potestas habet Summum Pontificem Hug. de Sanct. vict l. 2. de Sacr. p. 2. c. 4. the King is the head of all Earthlie and Temporall power the Pope of all Spirituall power Pope Gelasius in an Epistle to the Emperour Anastasius Duo sunt Imperator Auguste quibus principaliter mundus hic regitur Auctoritas Sacra Pontificum Regalis Potestas This World Decr. dist 96. Caudâ—o sunt most noble Emperour is chiefly governed by two Supreame Powers the Sacred Authoritie of Popes and the Temporall Authoritie of Kings Innocentius III. held this Article for so certaine and indubitable that he made no scruple to affirme Cap. Novit Regem in Temporalibus neminem Superiorem recognoscere that in Temporall causes the Kings of the Earth doe acknowledge and take no mortall creature to have anie Superioritie of Power or any right any reason to crowe over their Crownes How then can there be anie truth in the L. Cardinals affirmative Pontificem recognoscit the King doth acknowledge the Pope for that is to say the Pope is dignified and endowed with Supreame Temporall power with which words I must confesse that I am plunged in a deepe pit of astonishment For those Authors who grant an indirect Authoritie to the Pope break not forth into this unreasonable and exorbitant excesse but use a certaine mitigation of the word indirectlie as that it is Spirituall non per se sed per accidens not in it selfe but by occasion and accessarilie to write in case of necessitie and most of all with consent of the parties interested But for any to affirme the holie Fathers power to be Supreame and Temporall fateor scandalum est mihi to me I must confesse it is a scandall or stumbling block and stone of offence so long as not onely the true doctrine but also the Doctrine of the Lord Cardinall Bellarmine can hold up the head and stand in full force l. 5. de Rom. pont c. 3. and 4. 8. I have not charged the Lord Cardinall to hold the foresaid Booke was never of St. Thomas his penning I have onely alledged that his Lordship hath made so good and so cleare demonstration of that point that never yet anie answer durst peepe abroad to contradâ—ct his Lordships demonstration As for your subterfuge that the said Historie was perhaps afterward primed or popt into the foresa d Booke that carrieâ— no shew of proâ—abilitie seeing you produce not anie one conjâ—cture not any one reason to fortifie the same For to what purpose had any man a mind to patch up the said Historie in so good so faire a Wâ—b as the foresaid Booke to what end how long time since He that dares take upon him to affirme these things shall make the credit of all Histories to shrinke and shake The Lord Cardinall Baronius flies to the same Answers as to his best refuge When he is put hard to his trumpes and shifts how to untie the knot of an Argument drawne from Historicall Authoritie straitwaies he thinkes to take up mens lips and to dazzle their eye-sight with such and such words are
word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but once Hee thereby expounds that one word with two words which without all doubt signifie Pasce Feed Nay the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies to feed and by a Metaphor to rule and governe as in the aforesaid Text as in this Text of St. Johns Revelation All this makes much against you Hetrodox and nothing at all to favour your cause Will you now give mee leave to make good my Exposition of the word Pasce Feed with Authority of the holy Fathers Hetrodox Proceed at your pleasure Orthodox Ter dictum est Pasce c. Three times over the Lord Christ repeated the word Feed to St. Peter And wherefore thrice Forsooth to intimate that all such as are charged with cure of soules are bound to feed their People triplici Pastu with a three-fold Dyet namelie with the Food of Gods heavenly word with Food of good Example in life and with Temporall Aid so far as their meanes are not wanting But alasse this three-fold Feeding is now adaies changed by unconscionable shepheards into a three-fold polling and pelting of their Flocks by pilling and pinching their Subjects with intollerable burthens of exactions without anie due regard at all to the said three-fold Feediâ—g Thus Chrysostome Hom. 87. Perpende verba Pasce agnos meos c. weigh these words of Christ well Feed my Lambes that is Feed my faithfull Flock not thine use them not as thy proper Possession but as mine I therefore asked if thou lovest mee O Peter because I have a purpose to recommend my little Flocke to thy Feeding and to bee kept of thee as mine owne Goods and Cattells that love which thou bearest my selfe in profession I would have thee shew and practise towards my tender Lambes Fat not pamper not up thy selfe like those unfaithfull Shepheards of whom the holy Prophet cryed Ezech. 34. Vae Paestoaibus woe to the Shepheards of Israel that have fed their owne bellies That man that feeds himselfe who gapes after his owne gaine who hunts after his owne glorie who removes every stone for his owne commodity never sâ—eking for the benefit of the Faithfull over whom hee beares rule never aiming at Gods glorie in exercising the state and office of a Ruler Tract 132. in Ioannâ—m Thus far St. Augustine Qui hoc animo pascunt ones c. Such as feed the Flock with a mind to make the sheep their owne and none of Christs doubtlesse beare no love at all to Christ himselfe St. Augustine againe Ibid. Sicut oves meas Pasce non sicut tuas Feed the Flock as my sheepe and not as thine owne Cattle in them seeke my Glory my gaine and neither thine owne gaine or thine owne glorie This Peter himselfe hath also taught Feed the Flock of God which dependeth upon you 1 Petr. 5. caring for it not by constraint but willingly not for filthy lucre but of a ready mind not as if ye were Lords over Gods heritage but that ye may be examples to the Flock These be the exercises of the true Shepheard and thus the words Feed my Lambes are to be understood and not that the Popes Feeding should be a Temporall reigning over all Temporall Kings The holy Fathers you see Hetrodox teach the contray namely that hee ought carefelly to shun and avoid all filthy Lucre Acquists Glory Dominion c. 13. Againe by Quodcunque solveris whatsoever thou Peter shalt loose you understand every thing And by this means the Pope shall have power to untie all knoâ—s to set open all prisons to transferre all Kingdomes to deliver all the slaves in Turkie at his pleasure nay to solve all difficulties in all matters whatsoever What man doth not perceive the fâ—lsity of this Doctrine Our Lord Christ câ—me to deliver Soules from sinne and as the onely Redeemer So teach all Divines The Pope by like shall worke the same effects hee shall cooperate in this great worke of Redemption he shall bind and loose the sinnes of 〈◊〉 you have no reason Hetrodox to cast such colours on your false opinions whereby to make the Pope Lord and Patrone of every thing with a Quodcunque whatsoever For â—â—ere is no such matter as you conceive in your dreames 14. Againe the word Soule is understood and taken sometimes for the whole man and sometimes for the Spirit of man above according to the matter handled Now your Argument is drawne from one place to another For St. Paul speaks of Temporall Dominion The word Omnis anima every Soule in understood of power over mens bodies and in Temporality But because our Lord Christ gave Spirituall Power to Peter the word Animas Soules which is used in the Prayer of the Church doth signifie the Spirit or Soule of Man and not his Body in Spirituality forsooth and not in Temporality 15. Those who wiped the word Animas out of the Breviâ—rie were inspired as you believe by the Holy Spirit of God I never yet read or heard that Gods owne Spirit is the Author of Dissention strife or Discord But well I wot Peace is one of the Gifts or Fruits of the Holy Spirit The makers of the foresaid Prayer aymed at the Exposition of these words Quodcunque ligvaeris whatsoever thou shalt bind by the word Animas and by that other Text Quorum remiseritis peccata whose sinnes ye remit as a just exposition of the word Animas because all sinnes to speake properly are bred and hatcht up in the Soule not in the Bodie And this they did to a speciall end and purpose namely to drive certaine Opinastres from their Tenent or hold That Popes are Domini in Temporalibus Spiritualibus the absolute Lords over mens goods their Bodies and Soules with a power to bind and loose all things as it seemes your selfe Hetrodox is of the same opinion This Exposition they made by the word Animas and by the same exposition they produced an excellent remedy against all Discords which might grow betweene the Pope and other Princes about Meuâ—â— Tuum about Mine Thine whereas on the other side those who last spung'd the Breviarie by taking away the word Animas have ministred new Tinder and Match to kindle the Coales of great contention discord and litigious quarrels Besides it is not unknowne to the World that in the Bookes of the Councels of the Canons and of other Doctors yea downe so low as to the very Breviaries and Missals many matters recorded and registred in favour of Layick Princes have beene blotted and still are scraped out of the ancient Rolls and all to make experiment if after long travaile and sore labour that huge mountaine of opinion de illimitatâ Potestate Pontificis in Temporalibus touching the unboundable power of the Pope in Temporals might be brought forth reared up and established in the Church of God Conferre the Bookes printed in 30. and 50. with Bookes printed in these daies as well the Bookes of
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
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