there was not as much as a coercive power in the politick or civil Head for correcting punishing or any way restraining the Ringleaders of such fatal dances and where the Clergie themselves both Priests and Bishops and Popes too themselves were these Ringleaders But suppose the Popes had never had a hand in such matters yet if Princes could not at home with themselves and without application to the Pope consequently without too too long delayes while the difference twixt them and their own Clergie were debated at Rome if I say in the mean time the Princes these politick Heads of the civil common-wealth might not in conscience make use of all their strength to coerce the Factious and Rebellious Clergiemen and if such Clergiemen lay under no kind of tye to submit to their coercion how could it be possible in nature that either the one were enabled with a sufficient power of politick Heads or the other had incumbent on them sufficient tyes of Citizens parts or members to attain the ends of their politick common-wealth which they are supposed to compose joyntly Before such debate were ended nay before the beginning of it could be or as much as the news of any such matter could arrive at Rome the evil would often be incurable if it could not be cured at home by the coercive power of the Politick Head and material sword Avant therefore such unsatisfactory answers of Bellarmine answers which himself must have very well known to have been voyd even of all truth and conscience and yet would give them because he could give no better in so bad a cause and that his worldly interest did not suffer him to yield to the victorious cause But although I have so now sufficiently illustrated and abundantly proved my last Minor proposition or that of my last proof and thereby evidently concluded my former whole second argument yet for the satisfaction of the more curious Reader and as an appendix of that either my last proof or of that my former second argument whereof it was the proof I will give here in Bellarmine's own words what he answered to the simile of the natural Head and members of the natural body and to some other particulars objected to him on this occasion by William Barclay You say sayes Bellarmine to Barclay that all the members must be so under the Head and all the Citizens so under the Rector of the Citty that the Head and Rector may correct and punish all the members and Citizens and that Clerks are members of the body politick and as to temporal thing Cittizens of the earthly Citty I answer In the natural body its necessary that all the members be under and obedient to the Head because in such a body exemption hath no place But in the body politick wherein exemption hath place it is unnecessary that all the members that is all the Cittizens be properly under or subject to the power of the Head that is to that of the Rector And therefore it is unnecessary that the Prince may coerce or punish all the Cittizens as it is unnecessary that all the Cittizens pay tribute or that all bear arms or turn souldiers to defend the Republick but it may suffice that by counsel or exhortations or prayers to God they help the temporal common-wealth But the Republick will be troubled or disturbed if Clerks may without fear of coercion or punishment transgress the laws of Princes I answer that they shall not without punishment transgress for they shall be coerced by their own immediate Bishop or by the chief or Great Bishop But Charles the V. called Hermannus the Archbishop of Colen to his own secular tribunal 'T is true but he called him as a Prince of the Empire for the Pope Paul III. called before himself too the same Hermannus as an Archbishop witness the same Surius in the same place which very Surius a little after writes an 1547. that by the Pope's and Emperours command Hermannus was deposed but that the sentence of deposition was given by the Pope But how diligent an observer of Ecclesiastical Immunity Charles the V. was may be hence understood that in the year 1520. a most horrid conspiracy against the said Charles being detected wherein there were some Ecclesiasticks Charles did punish the Laicks but remitted the Clerks to their own Ecclesiastical Situations to be punished Witness Malin â—4 c. 21 de Hispan priâ—og Barclay added that there are some grievous transgressions or crimes which in France go under the name of privilegâ—â—ta priâ—iledged as reserved to the Princes But this argument may be retorted against the Author For such are not called priviledged because the Prince had reserved them to himself or to his own cognizance when he gave the priviledg of exemption to Clerks as Barclay sayes they are but are called such or crimina privilegiâ—â—a because that by the priviledg of the See Apostolick it is indulged to the Kings of the French that they may take cognizance of such crimes when committed by Clerks which Clarusq 36. Parag. finn vâ— sicul ultariâ—◠〈◊〉 and Auâ—â—â—rius in Clementina Vit Clericorum de offic Jâ—d Ord â—iâ—uâ—â— do explicate Bellarmine therefore sayes here the difference in the similed or which to our purpose must be in the similitude twixt the natural body and politick body is that in the politick exemption hath no place and that hence it is unnecessary that all the members politick that is all the Citizens be properly under or subject to the power of the politick Head that is of the Rector and therefore also that it is unnecessary that Princes may coerca or punish all the Cittizens as it as unnecessary that all the Cittizens pay tribute c. But who sees not that there is no exemption can be in the body politick oâ— of the members of it which may not by similitude be applyed to and found in the natural body For the respective members of natural Bâ—dyes may be qualified with those exemptions which are not against the nature or essence of such members in the same body and under the same Head For example the hand may have this exemption bestowed on it that it be not bound to labour daily and the feet this exemption that by a man's lyeing down a bed they may rest from going And yet will it not follow that either the natural hands or natural feet are not under the power of the natural Head Even so in the body politick may it very well be and is it de fact that some part of the Cittizens be exempted from tributs and from Judicial courts or those of subordinate and ordinary Judges and yet be still under the power of the politick Head to witt of the King or Prince or other supream Governour But neither in the politick body nor in the natural body can the members be so exempted that they be no more under the Head because this would be against the definition and essence of members and
would be not to exempt them but in effect to make them to be no members at all As for that reason of diversity which Bellarmine hath given As it is unnecessary that all the Citizens pay tribute or that all bear arms to defend the Republick who sees not also that it argues no diversity no difference at all in the simile For in the natural body it is not necessary that all the members walke that all see that all hear c. But it is sufficient both in the natural body and in the civil that every member so attend perform that duty unto which it is ordained or applyed that all in common do still in the same body and under the same head what they are enjoyned or destined to Let Bellarmine therefore let his disciples abstain hereafter from such absurd Paradoxes What man of found reason hath ever yet in his own soul inwardly perswaded himself that a King may not de jure King it over that is govern by direction and coercion those of whom he is King nor a head the members of its own body But our Cardinal denye here that from the contrary position and practice any perturbations of the common-wealth should arise because that albeit the King may not coerce transgressing Clerks yet the Bishops may and will To this because I have said enough already I onely saâ— now that to assent this power of coercion of Clerks to Bishops for lay crimes or those committed in meer temporal or civil matters and deny it to King were nothing els in effect but to rayse Bishops from their Office Ministry Episcopal to the power and Dignity Royal of Kings and then consequently to make but meer Ciphers of the Kings themselves For I demand of Bellarmine or of his Schollars why were Kings instituted or to what end their power if it was not to govern the Republick to provide for the peace and safety of all the people of what condition or profession soever Lay or Ecclesiastick and to provide for the security and tranquility of all by punishing and rewarding indifferently according to the respective merits or demerits of every individual But our Cardinal snatches away from Kings this proper function of Kings and gives it to Bishops whereas it is notwithstanding certain that neither can the common-wealth be quiet if Clerks do violate the laws resign themselves over to sedition and yet may not be de jure therefore punished curbed or any way restrained by Kings For who sees not consequently that neither de jure can the King contain his Provinces in peace nor compel his people to live together within the bounds of honesty equity or justice And who sees not consequently also but that the very politick peace nay the very politick being of the common-wealth must depend of the will of the Bishops to whom onely the light of governing of licencing or restraining Clerks our good Cardinal will have to belong that by the severity of their Episcopal censures or other judgments they may as they will coerce the nocent and thereby and in so much pacifie the troubles of the Republick or as they please too permit all wickedness and all the most enormours horrid crimes of Sedition and Rebellion to extinguish quite the face and being of a Republick How farre more piously Christianly and rationally too had Bellarmine taught and writt that by the favour and priviledg given by Kings the Clergie are not subject to any other Judicatory but to one composed of Ecclesiastical judges yet so that as well those very Judges as the criminal Clerks be subject still to and not exempt from the supream Royal power of the King who gave subordinate power to those very Ecclesiastical Judicatories in temporal things nay and in spiritual too for what belongs to corporal or civil coercion and who as the supream temporal Prince may command prohibit and provide that no person of what condition or profession soever breake the peace of his Kingdom and who also may when there is just cause take cognizance of and judg as well what ever delinquent Clerks as the very Ecclesiastical judges of those Clerks To that of Hermannus the Colen Archbishop I will say that Bellarmine writes so of this matter as he may be refuted with that jeer wherewith a certain Boor pleasantly checked a great Bishop as he rode by with a splendid pompous train The story is that a country clown having first admired and said this pomp was very unlike that of the Apostles to whom Bishops did succeed and some of the Bishops train answering that this Bishop was not only a successor of the Apostles but also Heir to a rich Lordship and that moreover he was a Duke and a Prince too the clown replied but if God sayes he condemn the Duke and Prince to eternal fire what will become of the Bishop Even so doth Bellarmine write as that servant spoke that this Hermannus whom Charles the V. summon'd to appear was not only an Archbishop but a Prince also of the Empire And even so do I say and replye with the country swain when the Emperour judged this Prince of the Empire did he not I pray judge the Archbishop too But you will say that though indeed he judged the Archbishop yet not as an Archbishop but as a Prince of the Empire Let it be so For neither do I nor other Catholick Opposers of Bellarmine in this matter intend or mean or at least urge or press now that Clerks as Clerks are subject to the coercion or direction of Kings but as men but as Citizens and politick parts of the body Politick which kind of authority as Bellarmine confesses Charles the V. both acknowledg'd in and vindicated to the Emperour Of whose piety what Bellarmine adds is to no purpose For it is not denyed that it becomes good Princes to leave that is to commit the causes of Clerks how great and weighty or criminal soever to Ecclesiastical Judges if it stand with the safety or good hic nunc of the Commonwealth that such causes be discussed before such Judges And yet I must tell the Defenders of Bellarmine that if they please to consult the Continuator of Baronius the most reverend and most Catholick Bishop Henricus Spondenus ad an Christi 1545. they will find that upon complaint of the Catholick Clergy and University also of Colen to as well the Emperour Charles the V. as the Pope Pavl the III. against the said Archbishop as by the advice of Bueer introducing Heresie and licenceing the Preachers of it in that City and Diocess and that at their instance petitioning for help redress in that matter against the said Hermannus it was that the said Emperour Charles the V. did in the Diet of Wormes the said year and about the end of Iune by his Letters or Warrant signed and sealed summon the said Archbishop to appear before him within thirty dayes either by himself in his own proper person or by
indeed a tye of conscience Though I confess withall it be not altogether improbable that Mauritius about the latter end of his raign was not so acceptable to Gregory For Gregory as greatly joyed writes to Phocas l. 11. indic 6. ep 43. immediat Successor to Mauritius That the yoake of sadness being now removed the Church was come to the dayes of liberty and that in the latter times of Mauritius he kept no Agents in the Imperial Couâ—t because the Ministers of the Roman Church with fear declined and fled from those burdensome and sharper times And writing to Leontia the Empress ibid. ep 44. he gives God thankes that such heavy burdens of so long a tract of time were removed from his shoulders and that now under Phocas he underwent a light easy yoak and such as he was willing to bear and that till now the Church of Peter was layed for in wait or ambushments And yet I say also here that Gregory writing thus to a most impious cruel Parricide oâ— his very own supream Lieg Lord and of his wife children altogether and both to a trayterous rebellious Vsurper of his Crown such as all Histories acknowledg Phocas to have been and praysing and soothing him so as peradventure carrying himself popularly at first and remitting or forgiving to Gregory some of those regalities or of those imperial duties which Mauritius as lawfull Prince found himself have no cause to remit but which Usurping Tyrants do commonly remit and see cause enough to remit to such as at first or last can make opposition to them it cannot be denyed that herein Gregory was surprized with somewhat humane And therefore we must not wonder if perhap if I say at any time though in a different or unlike matter the same Gregory lying under those ordinary weaknesses of men and not seldome of the very best or holiest men expressed some little passion against Mauritius himself without contradiction of any side or person the lawfull Emperour and expressed himself so because Mauritius in defence and for neâ—essary preservation of the Imperial rights looked narrowly to the Bishops kept them to their duty and the very chief Pontiff himself the Roman Patriarch in due subjection to the Empire Be it therefore so and this is a second Answer to Baronius here let us grant those complaints of Gregory were against Mauritius let them be against whomsoever Baronius will of all those Emperours lived in the dayes of Gregory yet whereas they are onely against the either true or pretended Simony of such Emperour as I have shewed before and may be seen at large in the Authors and places quoted by me and whereas they neither contain nor hint any thing as if such Emperour had hindered the Sacerdotal jurisdiction or vsurped or encroached upon it it is also plain enough that all this labour of Barâ—nius is in vain For in the election or confirmation of the Bishop of Rome the Emperours of those times would and did exercise their own Imperial authority That Gregory took extreamly to heart And these Emperours exacted money for such election or confirmation But this seem'd alltogether intollerable to this good Pope as in his opinion implicitly containing or involving the very first heresy sprung up in the Church that I mean which from Simon Magus is called the Simoniacal heresy And this was the very greatest nay all the cause Mauritius gave to the complaints of Gregory And this was the grand nay and sole and whole Simoniacal excess of that Emperour whoever he was of whom Gregory so complains as is manifest out of those very expressions which are most ardent in Gregory where nothing is read of any vsurped or tyrannical dominion over either the Priesthood it self or the Priests Nor was this unknown to Baronius himself For speaking of those Emperours whom those complaints of Gregory might have touch'd thus he sayes Tom. 8. an 590. nu 6. Hac parte tantùm damnandi quòd confirmationem electi in Romanum Pontificem sibi vindicarent Imò adde ita vindicarent ut ex ipsa electione confirmatione pecuniam etiam aliquam vellent acccipere But let us here this learned Annalist making a little further progress Ibid. tom 8. an 593. n. 18. Quibus imprimis sayes he vides sanctum Gregorium definire non solum non esse subditam Regibus aliquo modo Ecclesiam verumetiam firmiter asseverare non habendum esse Mauritium inter Imperatores dum adversus Dei Sacerdotes Regiam potestatem exercet What do you say Baronius Is this indeed your candour will you amuse and abuse your Readers so That the Church as such purely is not subject to secular Princes is very certain but as certain also that Churchmen as men or as parts of the civil common-wealth are in all humane things subject to the Politick Head of the same civil commonwealth And no less certain too that such Politick Heads Kings or Princes have even by the very law of nature a special peculiar and royal but still political interest and right in the election and confirmations of Bishops within their own dominions though it be not hence consequent that they have a power over the Church as a Church or that the Church as a Church is subject to them Nay it is certain and clear enough to any disinteressed and learned person that for the temporalties annexed to a Bishoprick the Prince may at the election or confirmation of the Bishop and may without any kind of Simony require exact and receive such a sum of money as by the written laws or custome is or ought to be paid though it be confessed those laws or customes would be damnable which should set Bishopricks or any Churchlings to sale or should exact even from such as are worthily and canonically elected and confirmed such a sum as in reason should be too grievous a burden to the Church or hinderance to the service of God there unless peradventure the manifest necessities of the Republick either Ecclesiastical or civil or both did require otherwise Now whether or how grievous or how contrary to law or how much hindering the service of God or not that exaction was whereof Gregory complains I know not But I am sure of this that Gregory never said nor dreamed that that Emperour of whom he complains should not be esteemed an Emperour upon this account that he exercised royal power towards over or against the Priests of God but upon this other that he destroyed rather then governd the Empire Therefore Gregory observed some defects in that Emperour as to or concerning the very temporal regiment of his Empire But what this defect was let others enquire as also whether Gregory said well or no that for any such or other defect whatsoever he should not be esteemed Emperour For neither belongs to my purpose here That which is more directly to my purpose is to observe what follows in Baronius Rursum sayes he ejusdem Gregorij sententia reddi
the City and Palace beholds all persons whatsoever Laicks and Ecclesiasticks both Priests and Bishops observing himself with all demonstrations of submissive reverence and with bare heads and bended knees approaching the kisses of his hand should nevertheless presently after being gone to Church lay himself bare headed and bare kneed too at the feet of the Priest in the confessional seat the Priest in the mean time covered still and fitting and as a Judge of another quality and in that holy place and function determining of him as a criminal And as this is not dishonourable nor undecent to be done by the very Pope himself for even the Pope too must behave himself so to an inferiour Priest if he will be forgiven his sins by God notwithstanding that Soto will confess there can be no kind of undecency that the Pope in another quality should before or after judge that very Priest who presently was or shall be his Pastour in that and even judge him in the very external Court and judge him too as a lay criminal or as guilty of lay crimes so it must not be dishonourable nor undecent on the other fide for the Priests to be bound to appear when there is cause though in another Quality then that of Priests before those very Lay penitents of whom they were before Judges or to whom they shall be hereafter Pastors in discharging towards them the office of Priests To the Fourth reason of Soto in reference to the persons which was That whereas the civil power Ecclesiastical are wholly different or distinct it must be necessary that as each of them hath its proper Ministers so the Ministers of either have their own proper superiours The answer is that I grant all Neither do I nor will I at any time deny that Clerks as Clerks have the Pope for their chief Superiour according to that power which the canons of the universal Church do allow him over all Clerks as such But forasmuch as Clerks besides that of their being Clerks have also the being quality essence of Citizens or of natural or politick men or of members of a civil society of other men what is it in point of reason can hinder them from having an other Superiour to wit the King to govern them in this other consideration as men or Cittizens or such members And certainly otherwise it must be said to be necessary that neither Pope nor Church may ever judg of Laicks in any quality or in any cause whereas it is granted of all fides that Laymen have their own proper lay Superiours and are under the civil power which Soto confesses to be wholly altogether distinct from the Ecclesiastical But since we know that cannot be said and that on the contrary the truth is that laymen as they are christians or sons of the Church by Faith and Baptisme are also in that quality subject to the Ecclesiastical Superiours of the Church in matters belonging properly to their cognizance even so we must by consequence of reason assert this also as a truth That Clerks as they are men or cittizens or members of a civil or politick Society are subject also to the civil or politick Head of that Society in all matters belonging to his politick or civil headship and government In which sense or way it is true and it is we say That distinct powers must argue distinct superiours Which yet we have now seen to conclude nothing against us for the necessity of Ecclesiastical exemption or exemption of the persons of Clerks in temporal causes from the secular Magistrats To answer the fift and last argument of Soto we must remember that as it is peculiarly for the exemption of Church mens Goods from the civil Magistrat or which is the same thing from all publick or private assesments contributions taxes oâ— burthens whatsoever to be laid on such goods by the authority of any men civil Magistrat Prince King or Emperour so this Author pleads this exemption also of their goods to be not onely congruent but necessary and therefore concludes it power in the Church as a Church to make a law for it whether Princes will or not And we must know that his ground he borrows from St. Thomas out certainly makes use of it or derives a conclusion from it against the mind of St. Thomas That St. Thomas in his commentary on the 13. of the Romans where he hath it intends no more by it but to prove the natural equity of Clerks being free by the priviledge of Princes from paying tributs but expresly denies a necessity for such freedom That this to be the mind and words of St. Thomas appears plainly out of the testimony of Franciscus Victoria Relect. 1. de Potest Eccles. sect 7. Prop. 2. where he writes thus Clerici sunt exempti a tributis non jure divino sed Priâ—vlegio Principuâ— Hoc expresse dicit D. Thomas super illum locum Roman 13. Ideo enim tributa praestatis Et dicit hanc exemptionem habere equitatem quamâ—â—â— non autem necessitatem That Finally however this be certainly true yet Soto inferrs out of that reason of St. Thomas not a congruency but a necessity For as we have seen before thus he discourseth Whereas tributs customs and other publick taxes are paid to Kings for their maintenance and as a reward or satisfaction for the labours they undergo in the administration of the commonwealth and whereas Clergiemen take no less pains in discharging their own Ecclesiastical duties it is but an equal recompensation of such pains to be exempt from all tributs taxes c. Now to answer this argument where is any thing here to conclude a necessity were it even true that Clergiemen take no less pains for the common-wealth and were it also true that t is onely as a reward of labours that Kings receive tribute For the Commonwealth might as to its temporals very well subsist in this life and even as to its spiritual hopes be saved in the other without any such exemption of the goods of Clergiemen as it could no less without any exemption of their persons But whereas also indeed both the one and the other are absolutely false how can Soto as much as pretend from either to inferre his purpose For the truth is that it is not onely as a reward or satisfaction that publick taxes are paid to Kings but also as necessary enablements to them for the protection of the commonwealth Nor is the care trouble sollicitude pains or vexation of Clerks any way neer that which is of Kings Nor also can the pains of any them be whatever it be of any and we know many or most take but little pains respectively be undertaken commonly and so directly and properly for the commonwealth as the labours of Kings are and ought to be and as natural reason it self requires and shews they must be Besides doth not even St. Thomas himself expresly teach above on the 13. to
in plain tearms deny the Major to wit for the last part of it and for the former distinguish the word Cittizens parts members and again the word Subject For he would say that albeit whoever are Cittizens or parts and members and not the civil or politik heads of the civil or politick common-wealth Empire Kingdom Principality as such or as a civil and politick society are subject to and not exempt from the politick head power and laws which is the first part of the Major yet he would deny that which follows as the second part of the same proposition to wit this nor consequently from the supream coercive power of it And he would in the former part distinguish and say that indeed whoever are Cittizens parts members c. are subject either coercively or directively or both and that lay Cittizens or lay parts or members are both ways subject in all temporal matters but Ecclesiastical members not otherwise but directively and by no means coercively and that such members I mean Ecclesiastical are then onely as much as directively subject when the canons of the Church do not order the same temporal things Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea nodo For what els do you see in the writings of this great Clerk but a perpetual change from one doctrine to an other in this matter and some other such of the Pope and Clergie as of the King also and Layety one doctrine while he was young an other when he was grown old and in his old age it self so many distinctions and evasions or rather confusions and contradictions that we know not where to and him or what to learn from him He would have the Clergie as politick parts or members of the politick common-wealth to be called Subjects to Kings whom he confesses to be the Politick Heads and he would have Kings to be called their Kings too and not onely called Kings in relation to lay subjects and he alleadges and truly too alleadges that Clergiemen as well as laymen pray for them as for their own Kings and we know it must be confessed by him they are so prayed for being the very publick Liturgy in the mass book hath that publick prayer which all Priests and Bishops too mast say and sing publickly at the altar of God wherein they say and pray for the King as their own King Et pro Rege nostro c. nay and he confesses too there in really an obligation whereby they are bound and really a subjection which they owe to Kings and yet after all he renders doth the names unsignificant and things inconsistent For I beseech you how can the King be a King that is a supream politick head and Governour to the Clerks of his Dominions or how can these they be politick Cittizens parts members of his Kingdom or bound to him or be his subjects that is be under him as such if he have no power of and over them or to command them or tye them by laws and precepts or if he have not as much as a directive power to command them or if they be not bound by as much as a directive obligation that is by an obligation arising or proceeding from the directive virtue of the command given or layed upon them To be a King of or over any or to be such a Head or such a Governour of any implyes essentially a power to command him or them over whom he is such and a passive tye of obedience in or obligation on him or them who are subjects or truly or in any proper sense named subjects And yet Bellarmine sayes in effect and gives it for his final Resolution though in contradiction to himself elsewhere nay and every where that in order to Clerks there is no such power in the King in any case not even in the very meerest temporal whatsoever nor any such obligation or tye on Clerks For he sayes as you have seen a little before that Clerks are not bound to obey their Kings meer civil laws in meer temporal matters whensoever the canons of the Church order the same matters and sayes too they are not bound as much as by the directive virtue of such laws and therefore sayes they are not bound at all being there is no tye can be but either coercive or directive and consequently must say though again in contradiction to himself the King is not King at all of Clerks nor Clerks subjects at all to the King For as the case hath already been in many even meer civil or temporal things that the canons or commands of the Pope for both are the same and the same too with these of the Church as to Bellarmines purpose have been even contrary to the civil laws of Kings and to their civil commands so the case may soon be and very well be that is whenever the Pope shall please that the canons be contrary in all such things How then can the essence or essential nature of Kingship or of Prefection and Subjection 'twixt the King and the Clerks of his dominions be And for the case that is at present wherein some temporal dispositions or a disposition in some temporal matters is left to the civil laws of Kings or left I mean as yet untouch'd by Papal constitutions who sees not plainly but that according to the above other final doctrine and subtle distinction of Bellarmine I mean his viâ—rationis and vi legis there is not even in such things or in order to the civil laws or civil commands of the King any obligation at all on Clerks to the King or to his even such commands or laws nor consequently any power of Kingship in him even in such things or by such laws over Clerks and as even now at present the case is For he tels you plainly that Clerks are not vi legis sed vi rationis bound not even as much as directively bound by virtue of such law but onely by virtue of reason And yet here also he contradicts again both himself and reason too Being that if they be bound by the virtue of reason to observe such a civil law of the Kings that is by that of natural reason or of a practical dictate of such reason for I can understand nothing els by his vis rationis which tells them they are bound in the case to observe such a law then must it be that they are bound also vi legis or by the at least directive virtue of the law it self For it is plain that no otherwise do we conclude or gather or perswade our selves that Laymen are bound either by the directive or coercive part of such law or that indeed any humane law at all even Ecclesiastical or perhaps too any law that most immediately divine obligeth us obligeth any Laicks or Clerks vi legis but onely hence that natural reason or a practical dictat of our understanding even that light of Gods countenance or that which God himself hath imprinted on
us signatum enim est super nos lumen vultus tui Domine as King David sing tels us we ought to observe such a law If the like or same dictat be in Clerks as Bellarmine here finally confesseth it is or ought to be in Clerks for the observance of such a civil law in the case who sees not the vanley and nullity of this distinction vi rationis and vi legis or who sees not it is not a reasonable distinction but a meer unreasonable evasion of different words or different sounds onely without different things imported or at least possible to be truly imported But having said enough to his vain distinctions and his contradictions too and consequently to his meer non-sense in this matter now and that the Reader may not loose himself nor I my self also in the main purpose of my above see ouer argument or of the Major of it I return to my said Major and as to all â—s parts even that of the coercive power which indeed is my main or rather onely design prove it thus Whoever are politick Cittizens parts or members and not the politick head of the body politick or civil common-wealth as such or as a meer politick or civil Society are so with such obligations politick members parts or Cittizens of it that all the very true natural essential or proper ends of such a politick body or such a common-wealth may be naturally that is humanely and ordinarily without miracle attained unto and subsist But whoever are so and with such obligations politick members parts or Cittizens c that all the very true natural essential or proper ends of such a common-wealth may be naturally c. attained unto and subsist are also and universally too in all kind of meer temporal things and whether the Pope or Church make or not make laws or canons in the same things and whether laws or canons conform or not conform and are I say subject and bound to obey the civil power laws and commands of the politick head and even bound I mean by both kind of obligations or the directive and the coercive Ergo whoever are parts members or Cittizens c. are subject also and bound to obey c. even as to the coercive And consequently Clerks who as men are so and under such obligations Cittizens parts members c are also subject even to the supream civil coercive power And verily for what concerns the conclusion or illation there is no man of so little reason that hath any at all but will saye it is necessary And for the Major it is further hence most clearly evidenced that the end for which any thing is must have proportionable means and consequently a proportionable constitution of the thing it self in its essential being to attain such end And this I am sure needs no other illustration being by all kind of reason and all kind of experience if not ex terminis evident as one of those are called propositiones per se notae or at least as one of those are by all Divines and Philosophers admitted as commons axiomes The Minor then of this proof of my second main argument from reason is all that needs further proof or illustration And this we need not fetch or seek farre of For is it not obvious first that the very true natural essential or proper ends of a civil or politick common-wealth are the safety and peace and quiet and both just and comfortable living of every one member of it with an other and of all members together without fear of fraud or force and violence to be used to any of them by any of the same common-wealth or by any stranger too as farre as the whole common-wealth nay and as farre also as every part or even individual person of it can hinder any such fraud or violence And secondly is it not obvious that these ends can not ever be attained or if once attained can never be long or even for any time and with any certainty preserved unless all the Cittizens parts members which compose this common-wealth and which are as it is hic nunc composed either essential or integral parts of it be bound universally or in all kind of temporal matters to observe the civil laws or commands of the supream politick or civil Head of it whether the Church make or not make laws in the same temporal things and whether the laws of the Church be conform or not conform to those civil laws of the same politick Head and unless too the same Cittizens parts or members be bound as well coercively as directively nay both wayes bound or which is the same thing by an obligation which binds them and that also non solum propteritum sed etiam propter conscientiam as St. Paul speaks by an obligation of conscience and not by that onely of the fear of the sword both to follow conscientiously the direction of the civil laws or commands of their politick Head where no sin is and patiently without resistance to abide the coerâ—ion of such laws whether in the judgment of transgressors they implye or not implye sin That this second point whereof all the dispute is for I am sure the former will not be denyed by any is obviously true and evident I prove by that reason which Bellarmine himself alleadges as notoriously evident for proof of one part of it For in his often quoted 28. chap. l. de Cleriâ— after he had given his above related second Theâ—â—s or Proposition that Clerks iâ—â—e not exempt from the obligation of the civil laws which are not contrary to the Sacred Canons or Clerical Office and after he had presently in that very place distinguish'd again and said his meaning was that they were not exempt from the obligation which is onely directive or which tyes them onely without coercion to follow the direction of such meer civil laws which are not contrary to the canons he finally proves his said Thesis and meaning thus Because sayes he that besides that Clerks are Cittizens and certain parts of the politick common-wealth great troubles and confusions would arise in the common-wealth if they did not observe the civil laws in civil commerce and humane conversation and as the case is stated there are no other civil laws but those enacted by the civil Magistrate and the laws are concerning civil commerce and humane conversation So that you see his ultimate reason for this kind of obligation though indeed in it self unsignificant obligation is because otherwise great troubles and confusion would arise in the common-wealth Now to make use of this weapon also of Bellarmine against himself and because what he sayes here is a very great and known truth in it self and because moreover it proves all as well as that part of my second point which I wonder Bellarmine did not see when he alleadged it I argue thus Were any person and much more any confiderable part of those are Cittizens
this following now as a distinct one and as in order my third And I frame it thus Whatever natural civil or politick supream right and authority of civil direction and civil coercion of all and every person or persons whatsoever of the politick Commonwealth as such may be necessary for the preservation of the being and peace of the whole is by the law of nature it self to be attributed to and asserted or allowed in the same Commonwealth as such and consequently in the supream politick Head of it as such whether this Head be one single person by nature or an aggregation of many persons together by policy But the natural civil or politick supream right and authority of civil direction and civil coercion of all Clergiemen whatsoever living under or in any politick Commonwealth as such is necessary for the preservation of the being and peace of the whole Ergo the natural civil or politick supream right and authority of civil direction and civil coercion of all Clergiemen whatsoever living under or in any politick Commonwealth as such is by the law of nature it self to be attributed to and asserted or allowed in the same Commonwealth and consequently in the supream politick Head of it whether this head be one single person by nature or an aggregation of many persons together by policy The Major besides that it is proved already by and in the prosecution of my former argument where I alledged that maxime or principle allowed by all men and which in reason must be so allowed by all men viz. That every well or rightly establish'd civil Commonwealth must by the law of nature have in it self as such and consequently in its politick Head as such too that natural or civil authority over all the parts and members which may sufficiently enable the whole to attain the proper natural and civil ends of the whole and of all such parts as parts both joyntly and severally these ends being the civil peace quiet justice and comfortable secure living of all together I say the Major besides its being already proved so is further proved by this other maxime which even Suarez himself l. 3. de Primatu sum Pontif. c. 1. n. 4. allows and alledgeth for certain and for evident in natural reason Quod humana natura non possit esse destituta remediis ad suam conservationem necessariis That humane nature cannot be destitute of sufficient right and authority to do those things which are necessary for its own preservation in a peaceable and just way of living Now it is clear enough that the civil direction and civil coercion of all persons whatsoever living within the Dominions of the Commonwealth while they live there is necessary for its preservation And the Major is further also proved by a third maxime or principle which Morl. hath in Empor jur 1. p. tit 2. de legibus num 20. vers .. Quia cum regnum To wit this Cui regnum conceditur necessario omnia censentur concessa sine quibus regnum gubernari non potest To whom a Kingdom is given all things that is to say all right and authority which are necessary for the well governing of it are supposed to be given And yet who sees not this principle could not be true if that Major also were not true For whatever is necessary for the preservation of the being and peace of the Commonwealth is also necessary for the wel-governing of it As for the Minor I have abundantly proved it also before in the prosecution of my second argument And of the conclusion to follow the premisses necessarily there is no man will doubt It remains therefore that for an appendix of these arguments grounded on pure natural reason for the subjection of Clergiemen to or which is the same thing against their exemption from the supream civil coercive power in temporal causes to conclude this Section I shew by natural reason also that the very temporal Princes themselves how otherwise supream soever could not cannot by any law right authority or power given them by God or Man exempt from themselves that is from their own supream civil and even coercive power the Clergiemen of their own Dominions whiles I mean such Clergiemen remain of or in their Dominions and acknowledge themselves or indeed be inferiours and subjects to the same Princes or otherwise that these Princes be either acknowledged by them or otherwise truly and legally be their natural or proper legal Princes But for as much as Bellarmine hath in the often quoted 35. chap. l. contra Barclaium as being mightily startled by this position roused himself again and laid about him no less mightily to ruine it then he had to ruine that other which denied the Pope himself any such power of exempting Clerks from the same temporal Princes I will to avoid here some labour of repetition first give our learned Cardinals arguments against it and then consequently my own proofs for it in the solution of those arguments Ad quintam propofitionem sayes he quae erat non potuisse Principes supremos eximere Clericos a sua Regia potestate respondemus id manifestè falsum esse Nam etiamsi non possit summus Princeps c. To the fift proposition sayes Bellarmine which was that supream Princes could not exempt Clerks from their own Royal power I answer that it is manifestly false For albeit the supream Prince may not exempt all that live in his Kingdom from his own power unless he resign his Principality yet he may exempt some part of his people from some part of his power or even from all parts of his power and at the same time be both truly said and remain still a Prince For it is proper to a supream Prince to exact tribute from the people subject to him as the Apostle teaches Rom. 13. For it is therefore sayes he you pay tributes for they are the Ministers of God serving unto this purpose And yet the King may free such as he please from tributs For it is said 1. of Kings or of Samuel cap. 17. whoever shall kill the Philisthine the King shall enrich him with great riches and shall make his Father's house free from tributes in Israel Even so if some great King do free some one Citty amidst his Kingdom or bestow it absolutely on some body it will not be therefore consequent that he may not be said to be King of his whole Kingdom especially if he still protect and defend that Citty and that the Cittizens thereof do freely observe the laws of his Kingdom So therefore too might Kings exempt from their own Royal power the Clerks living in their Kingdom and yet be said to be and truly be kings not onely of Laicks but also of Clerks who freely observe their politick laws and who being Actors referre or deferre the causes they have with Laicks to their Royal tribunals and acquiesce to their judgment or sentence in such causes And because
this to do or wherein doth this condemnation or judgment reflect on the doctrine which teacheth not of Christ but of the Disciples of Christ and only teacheth that all men who are only men and not Gods or that all mortal and sinful men whether Laymen or Clergiemen who are members of any commonwealth and not the heads thereof do lye under a proper and strict obligation not only of charity for the avoiding of scandal but of justice also to be humbly subject in criminal causes to the supream coercive power of the supream politick head Nay and under an obligation of justice also even to pay him tribute if he himself exempt them not from tribute I mean were it necessary for me to urge that of tribute as it is not And only teacheth moreover that such obligation of Justice ariseth from the very law divine it self both natural and positive or which is the same thing is evidently commanded by reason and by revelation by plain Scripture and Catholick Tradition by the doctrine and practice of the Christian Bishops themselves and of even their very best Christian Princes and people all along from the beginning of Christianity until this present day Certainly there is no man so blind as not to see that that first article of Marsilius and Iandunus or condemnation of it hath nothing to do with this doctrine Nor yet so blind as not to see that my elucidation of this doctrine all along or any where in this Tract hath nothing to do with that first Article taken I mean in that sense wherein as I have declared already and in no other the said Iohn the XXII condemn'd it I confess I have before that is in the 239. page of this first Part by occasion too of speaking somewhat against Bellarmine concerning the doctrine of Marsilius and Iandunus or that part of their doctrine which is in this first article said That our Saviour himself by his non scandalizemus eos in Mat. 17. sufficiently proves that not even himself was altogether to free but that as the fulfiller of the old Law and Prophets and as the giver of yet a more perfect law for the salvation of mortals and as a pure man he was bound videlicet by the rules of not giving just cause of scandal and ruine to others in that circumstance to pay the didrachma And that Marsilius de Padua or Ioannes de Ianduno were not condem'd nor censur'd at all for saying that any pure man who was not together both God and man as our Saviour Christ was by the wonderful union of both natures or that any other besides our Lord or even for saying that Peter himself was not exempt from the supream temporal power in temporal matters I have said so there I confess But what then or doth it follow that by such answer to Bellarmine I maintain this first article of Marsilius and Iandunus or that I fall under the condemnation of this first article nothing less This first article is as the Pope himself relates it in these words and only in these words Illud quod de Christo legitur in Evangelio B. Matthei quod ipse soluit tributum Caesari quando staterem sumptum ex ore piscis illis qui petebant didrachma jussit dari hoc fecit non condescensive liberalitate suae pietatis sed necessitate coactus And the condemnation of this article or the sense wherein this article was condemned is that which imposes a constraint of necessity on our Saviour for paying the didrachma and which denyes that he paid it not condescensively that is not out of his meer condescension and out of the liberality of his piety Now who sees not first that I do not by any means deny it was out of his meer condescension to the infirmities of weak men and of his liberality and piety that our Saviour commanded the didrachma to be paid nay who sees not that I do rather expresly enough say it was meerly out of his liberality piety and condescension he commanded it to be paid so for himself Do not I say most expresly or at least insinuat most sufficiently that he paid it only to avoid scandal and that he was bound by no other law to pay it but by the law of love and charity or which is the same thing and to repeat here again my own former determinate words that as the fulfiller of the old law and Prophets and as the giver of a more perfect law for the salvation of mortals and as a pure man he was bound videlicet by the rules of not giving just cause of scandal and ruine to others in that circumstance to pay the didrachma And secondly and indeed consequently who sees not that in that discourse of mine or whole passage quoted above out of my 239. page I have not a word importing any constraint of necessity or any either constraint or necessity for in effect they are both the same or import the same thing taking these words properly or absolutely and simply that is without any dimunitive adjection addition restriction or taking them not any way at all for that which is secundum quid tale as they ought not to be taken but for that which is simpliciter tale as they ought to be taken where other words or the subject restrains them not For to aver such constraint or such necessity incumbent on our Saviour in paying the didrachma were as much as to aver that either he had an inward constraint or necessity on his will or soul for want of that inward essential indifferency which makes the will and soul free in it self inwardly to volitions and nollitions or had an outward compulsion or coaction of his executive faculty for want of outward means as for example twelve legions of Angels at his command to free him from the power of those that would force him to payment whether he would or no if he had denyed it or certainly had the constraint or necessity of an obligation or tye of justice and obedience on him arising from the tribute law it self obliging him as other men under the guilt of sin and other penalties of such law to pay tribute Which last kind of necessity is that which the arguments of Iohn the XXII against the first article of Marsilius do seem to fasten upon it and condemns in it and the whole article for seeming to say that out of such necessity our Saviour paid the didrachma But whether so or no I am not concern'd because I remove all three kinds of necessity from our Saviour and all other kinds too of necessity if there be any other simply such For though I say in the beginning of the said passage page 239. that our Saviour himself by his own non scandalizemus eos Mat 17. sufficiently proves that not even himself was altogether so free c but that he was bound c and consequently say that our Saviour wanted some kind of freedom
municipal or civil laws of the land wherein they live or the approved customs thereof do give them until the same exemptions be legally repealed by an equal authority to that which gave them nor said nor do say nor intend to say but it is as lawfull for them to maintayn in all just and legal ways their own such immunities as it is for lay subjects in such ways to maintayn their own against the encroachments or usurpations of the Princes themselves or of their Ministers and consequently did not say nor do nor intend to say that they are bound to obey the pleasure of the Prince by subjecting themselves to his lay Judges in such criminal causes or any other wherein the law of the land doth free and exempt them from such judges But say and averre still the quite contrary of all these three sayings because the sublimer civil power which is in the law of the land for them in such case doth warrant them from transgressing in so much that Praecept of Paul 13. to the Romans Those eight observations being so premised and considered it will now be easy enough for me to answer fully and satisfactorily the before given fourth and last of all the remaining objections viz that so specious grand objection built as t is pretended on the contrary judgment or opinion c. of S. Thomas of Canterbury and it will be as easy for my Reader to understand that my answers which I now give are full and satisfactory Therefore My first answer is in general by denying positively plainly and flatly that there is any as much as the least truth in the pretence or supposition or in that I mean which pretends or supposeth that St. Thomas of Canterbury was of a contrary judgment or opinion to my doctrine or to any part or proposion of my doctrine hitherto of the subjection of Clergiemen to the supream coercive power of secular Princes in criminal causes or which pretends or supposeth that because he was so of a contrary opinion in theory or practice or both to any part of my said doctrine he opposed his King fell into his disfavour was exiled by him at first suffered death at last was accounted a Martyr canonized as such and invoked too ever since by the universal Church All which and every particular of which I deny both positively and plainly and flatly Neither do I doubt at all but that in my several observations hitherto taken altogether or if the seven first out of History be compared exactly to or taken together with what is given in my eight and last out of this very book of the particular heads of my doctrine in it concerning ecclesiastical exemption I have given sufficient proofs that I do upon very good very justifyable and unanswerable grounds deny so positively plainly and flatly this whole pretence or supposition and every part thereof For I have shewed what the immediat cause of his death or why he was so cruelly murthered was and that this was no other but for having answered that he would not absolve the excommunicated Bishops unless they had first promised to make satsfaction for the injury done by them to his Church or at least abide or submit to the judgment of the Pope in that case and that his Clerks who came with him from beyond the Seas should not take any oath but such an oath as were just And I have shewed also what the intermediat cause the grand long contest indeed 'twixt him and his King was and that this was no other but of the 16. Heads of customes of Henry the First or of his Grandfather as Henry the Second called them avitas which heads also I have given at length And the judicious Reader may himself clearly see that amongst all those causes or occasions either immediate or intermediat final or original proximate or remote there is nothing at all concerns or which may well or ill be said to concern our dispute or my doctrince but only the second head of those 16. customes as they were called and that of the Saints not delivering up to the secular justice the two criminal Clerks or the Priest and Chanon And the Reader also may clearly see that my doctrine no where teacheth formally or virtually or consequentially any thing contrary to what St. Thomas did either practice or must have held in theory as to either his not assenting to that second Head as neither indeed to any other of all the 16. or as to his not delivering up to secular justice those criminal Clerks For any rational man may very well understand that St. Thomas of Canterbury might without any contradiction inconsequence or contrariety to himself or to these two actions of his nay indeed or to any other opposition made by him to Henry the Second might I say have held or have been at the same time of the very self same judgment or opinion with me hitherto concerning the exemption or subjection of Clergiemen or which is the same thing that he might at the same time have held even positively formally and expresly that by no law of God or Nature or Nations or of the Catholick Church or of Roman Emperours or Pontiffs Clergiemen were or are exempted from the supream civil even coercive power in criminal causes but on the contrary that by Reason Scripture Tradition of the Fathers practice of both Fathers and Princes and even also by the very Canons of as well Popes as Councils they were and are subject to the supream civil coercive power nay and to the subordinate civil or lay inferiour Judges also in all criminal causes whatsoever as far as the civil or municipal laws of the land do subject them or wherein the said temporal or municipal laws of the land exempt them not from the coercion of lay Courts I say that any rational man may very well understand how St. Thomas might have held all this and yet at the same time and without any change in his judgment or opinion or any contradiction inconsequence or contrariety have practised justly conscientiously and holily all that he did in opposition to Henry the Second and particularly that of not delivering up to secular justice the two criminal Clerks and that also of not assenting to the second head of those 16. which were pretended by by the said Henry to be his Grandfathers customes St. Thomas of Canterbury had the very municipal and politick laws of the land or of England for himself in both these Instances as indeed he had them for himself in all other particulars wherein he opposed that King albeit his own proper undoubted Soveraign And that he had them so for himself in all his differences and particularly in these two I have clearly shewed and proved at length in my former seventh observation wherein the Reader may see that by the municipal laws of England still in being or in force as not legally repealed by a contrary law not even till after