award the said penalties they alwaies intend it of ecclesiasticall offences that such judgements and penalties are to be passed without stâ—p or impeachment by any corporall voices and to reflect or to tend onely to the reformation of delinquents Per Paternam correctionem by a fatherly chastisement or corrâ—ction a kind of ecclesiastâ—c censure and by such like penalties which are not corporall Now Sir for as much as this distinction of delicts faults offences judgements punishments and Courts is not read in written Monuments before Iustinians time upon this ground I have affirmed and am perswaded that herein I have not plaid the blind and unskilfull Cobler in seeing beyond my Last and Latchet that no such distinction of Court for which you fight and contend with so much heat and alacrity had got any the least footing in the primitive Church And because this word Court intends or implyes the civill Court it is very certain that before Iustinian granted this gracious priviledge to the Patriarch Menua no man had recourse in the foresaid cases unto Prelates as unto publique Magistrates but only unto secular Judges It is high time now to lay open your palpable errors Hetrod Well remembred hold you to your method and therein use your best skill to turne my Argent into Subtes my Whites into Blacks Orthod My chiefest aime shall be bent unto none other white Is it not first a grosse error to wrest S. Pauls words written to Timothy with a wrench of wrong and idle supposition For you suppose that godly Timothy Lorded it in some publique Tribunall or solemne seat of judgement sitting upon offences that were not ecclesiasticall and spirituall whereas you cannot chuse but know that Paul there treats not of any judiciary forme but only of ecclesiasticall and paternall correction his words are evident Against an Elder receive no accusation but under the testimony of two or three Againe Them that sinne rebuke openly that others may fear where the word rebuke armes not young Timothy with any authority to attach the body to lay in close prison to send into banishment to condemne either to the Gallies or Gallowes but onely to give private admonition for private offences and public reproofe for public scandals The text is expounded by S. Augustine according to the glosse after this manner Aliquando debes corripere c. sometimes thou shalt rebuke him that sinneth betwix your selves in private sometimes thou shalt not spare to pay his coat as it were and to chastise him with open rebuke that others may be the more affraid to runne or to chop into the like snare S. Paul therefore in that place speakes not of any Tribunal as you very fain would make us believe but of ecclesiasticall correction proper to an Evangelâ—st and to no Judge according to the same Apostles words Improve rebuke exhort with all long suffering and doctrine do the worke of an Evangelist make thy Ministery fully known Howbeit I do not deny that mens qualities degrees and the enormities of their offences being weighed in just and equall scales it is lawfull for those unto whom authority for such purpose is deputed and committed to practise Ecclesiasticall correction cum omni imperio with all Mâ—jesty and power that is without all feare as the same Apostle speakes But whosoever shall so beare himselfe in his lawfull authority hath need to be endowed furnished besides the former qualities with all those abilities conditions complements of a good rightworthy Prelate which are mustered rancked by the same Apostle Oportet autem Episcopum esse irreprehensibilem c. A Bishop therefore must be unreproveable c. For between one that fits upon the seat of justâ—ce as a Judge upon the Bench and one that hath authority to rebuke here lyes the main odds The sentence of the Judge is profitable though the man himselfe be as bad as Barabbas but he that reproves or gives verball correction seldome or never workes any deep impression or good effect in his hearer if he teach that a man shall not steale and yet steales himselfe 2. By witnesses you understand such as are juridically to be sifted by examination deposition and such other juridicall courses of Court whereas to give a fatherly admonition or paternall correction who doth not know that a Bishops bare and simple word for such purpose is held sufficient and will serve the turne to the end he be not induced to passe against a Priest by way of correction but when with great reason his conscience is duely certified and informed that the accusation or presentment hath been materially confirmed and substantially veryfied by the testimony of two or three Thus Ambrose in the glosse to the same purpose Quoniam vero non facile c. And because accusations against Priests are not hand over head to be admitted with easy credence the crime or accusation pretended and objected must clearely be proved or in case the matter be manifest otherwise that a Priests deportment or demeanour in his orders hath been very scandalous and notoriously unreverend the Apostle layes his charge upon Timothy to rebuke the party before the face of others that others may feare to runne the like scandalous and unreverend courses which manner of proceeding is very profitable not onely for such as are in orders but likewise for the common sort of People when they shall see one of the long robe a man of such Priestly marke and ranke so roundly taken up for his misdemeanors by which the holy Father S. Ambrose meanes offeâ—ces of a conversation mis-becoming the estate condition and calling of a religious person all this tends not in any wise to point at any Court much lesse at any distinction of Court but beares a reflecting eye and gives ayme with a kind of nod and bending of the head only to paternall correction 3. You argue upon a vaine supposition that even by Pauls own testimony there it is necessary for Churchmen in all temporall causes and offences to have recourse and refuge unto the ecclesiasticall Judge that were doubtlesse to approve a distinction of Court But be not you Hetrodox wilfully blind to close or to seal up your own eyes from beholding the cleare light of truth For Canon by the helpe of your own spectacles and none other You maintain that by the same Canon Church-men are barred from the benefit of recourse unto secular Judges whereas the Councell presupposes the contrary viz. That Clerics may take the benefit of that course howsoever not before they have put in practise the meanes to have the matter taken up and ordered by their Prelate whom the Councell even by the averrement of your own mouth termes the competent Judge of their cause whereas in the text or body of that Canon Point des paroles not one such word 6. The Councell held at Agatha upon your supposition that Clerics for criminall delicts fled for their lawfull reliefe to the secular Tribunals as
parties are once drawn into that course it orders them to steere altogether by that compasse and to stand to the tacklings of their determination Now I would gladly learn of you Hetrodox what makes all this for distinction of Courts or to prove there were two distinct Courts two ordinary and competent Judges one for seculars another for the Civill and criminall causes of Churchmen before Justinians constitution 8. You alleadge the authority of the Milenitane Councell wherein it is commanded according to the Apostles councell that Bishops are to accomodate civill causes between themselves that no Bishop shall by Petition demand of the imperiall Majesty a Judge in public judgements but in case he obtaine of the Emperour some ecclesiasticall Judge then he shall not be impeached or contradicted I will here for the purpose alleadge the Canon it selfe Placuit ut quicunque c. It is decreed that whosoever shall Petiton the imperiall Majesty to have his cause come to cognisance and tryall in public judgements he shall be deprived of his dignity but in case he shall solicite the Emperour for Episcopall judgement that shall be no maime no losse no blot no blemish no diminution to his estate In which words first a Bishop is inhibited and restrained from seeking of public judgement before seculars but is not inhibited to make appearance in case he shall be summoned and served with one of his Majesties writs to that purpose Secondly he is permitted to petition the Emperour that his cause may be tryed and judged by the Bishop as hath been shewed before From whence the plain contrary to your pretence and assertion may aptly be collected that in those times there was no distinction of Court but all causes whether of Churchmen or seculars were to be tryed neither in public nor in private judgement unlesse the Emperour himselfe did give way by speciall permission and most gracious licence Nay the very same Councell ordaines Can. 16. that petition shall be made to the most glorious Emperour to be graciously pleased that certain Judges by their imperiall authority might be commanded to appoint and assigne for Churchmen certain Advocates who might protect defend plead the causes of the Church before the said secular Judges It is therefore very manifest by this Canon that Churchmens causes were then handled before the imperiall Judges 9. You blush not also to babble that Justinian usurped excessive or more then due and lawfull authority to frame penne and publish those his Constitutions But I must here be bold to tell you Hetrodox even to your face the judgement of infinite Councels and pontificiall Fathers more especially and by that name of Adrian 4. as hereafter shall better appeare carries a great over-weight in the scales or ballance of sound judgement in comparison of this your new and late upstart censure of a most christian and learned Emperour They never once dreamt of such a partiall verdict as you like a bold fore-man of a corrupt and frontlesse Jury have now presumptuously blurted forth No Sir no Iustinians Constitutions and those likewise of many other Christian Princes in the Primitive Church and age have been ever most cordially caressed with great and speciall humility even in ecclesiasticall matters and other occurrents of like nature and to what purpose To what end That sacred Canons confirmed by imperiall authority might go forth with flying colours to worke the deeper impression of due observance in the mindes and hearts of all People I passe over many examples and wish men to peruse but one Epistle of Pope Leo wherein he Petitions the Emperour Martianus to confirm the Chalcedon Councell and obtaines his Petition of the most gracious and noble Emperour when the pontificiall BP Church of Rome carried that respect humble observance toward Christian Princes which to their imperiall Crowns and Scepters appertaines in those times the Popes and the Church were held in great veneration and admiration withall But so soone as the Church grew to vilipend the R gall authority of Christian Princes into how great and grievous calamities hath she not fallen tumbled hath she not precipitated her former glorious estate What eclypse of her ancient lustre What spots and staines to her Primitive and Native beauty hâ—th she not suffered and indured Let men peruse the life of Boniface 8. of Alexander 3. of Gregory 7. of Julius 2. of Sixtus 4. of Clement 7. of Paul 4. and they shall see without helpe of spectacle or perspective glasses that by vilifying of Christian Kings and Princes the Church may put all her winnings in her eye like an unfortunate and unthrifty Gamester and see never the worse Thus much I wot well that Iustinian was deeply and excellently studied superlatively learned in the Lawes followed and frequented by men of incomparable knowledge and learning and the whole world hath pitcht his authority at a higher price and rate then the shallow judgement given out against his more then eminent gifts by whomsoever without exception Canonist or Cardinall Prelate or Pope 10. By Manus legum the hand of the Lawes for so I like to turne it for this turne you understand the secular Judge whereas before it hath bin shewed to be the lawfull execution of a sentence 11. You affirme the lawes imperiall thinke not scorne to second the sacred Canons and this you pronounce in the generall sence comprehension whereas the Emperour speakes of causes meerly ecclesiasticall and spirituall Besides you contend that the due practise of Iustinians Constitution and the practise of sacred Canons cannot concurre and stand together wherein also with your leave your selfe stands not in the right For doubtlesse the sacred Canons as wee hold are to be duely observed howsoever they beare nor sway nor weight of authority Nisi ex priviligio principum but by the force and vertue of Princely priviledge And in case they be grounded upon so stable a foundation and firm authority as you vaunt wherefore have you been so greatly overseen to make no demonstration thereof by some cleere text of holy Scripture For to transcend the walls or to passe the bounds limits of Princely power without consent of parties interessed is neither acceptable to God nor pleasing to man 12. You counter-poise a Frederick one living but yesterday in a manner against a Iustinian a Prince who reigned when piety with Discipline flourished in the Church like a green Bay Tree You parallel an Emperour of ordinary capacity and small knowledge with an Emperour the most compleat legist in all ages of the world a low shrub in such regard with a tall Oake or the goodliest Cedar in Libanon a Frederick with a Iustinian a Frederick who framed his foresaid constitution out of a cunning counterfeit or disgiused humour whereas never any Prince hath more abased the liberty of the Church and hath more brought it down as it were upon the knees then that Frederick hath whom for the same cause Gregory 9. was
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
Boniface Now the last clause or closing up of your discourse is to this purpose That where the Apostle teacheth obedience to Princes he speaketh by way of precept not of counsell Very true he doâ—h so indeed but what is Pauls meaning Doubtlesse that Princes are to be obeyed of such as by lawfull title are in the state of their subjects as also in causes or matters to which the authority of the said Princes doth stretch and extend From whence it followes that Church-men are not bound to honour secular Princes with any such obedience because they are exempted but Laics alone are comprised within the said bond albeit in civill causes onely and such as impugne neither God himselfe nor his Church whereby the Christian world may cleerly and evidently see how deeply highly the Venetian Republic Anno 1606. offended the Divine Mâ—jesty not onely in committing Ecclesiastics in prison but also in using force and violence to compell as well them as Laics to infringe and contemne the holy Fathers interdiction a censure purely spirituall and ecclesiasticâ—ll Orthod I was never yet found a falsarie no coyner no corrupter of holy Scripture it is your selfe that patch up my garments with your owne rags and marre the Text with an Aurelian glosse I have not said before as you now lay to my charge That Princes are Gods Ministers Ad tributa to receive tribute Hetrod But you know and need not dissemble the shop and forge where thâ—se tooles were hammered Orthod You meane the Author of the 8. Propositions Hetrod The very same Orthod They are none of that Authors words but are suppositions or surreptitions foysted into his Text with a false finger of the Printer or of some other and yet are they justifi ble by the most cleere exposition of our great Master Thomas Aquinas whose words be these Pro ipso recipiendo serviente Princes are Gods Ministers to take up and receive tribute the very same with Ad tributa But I rest confident it was an error of the presse for to that Authors purpose it sufficed to say with Paul Princes are Gods Ministers the word Ad tributa neither mars nor mends the Authors meaning or S. Pauls In reason therefore it may not be conceived that ad tributa was of any set purpose added or sowed to the piece by the workmans needle neither need it seeme strange that ad tributa hath crept in there by the window through the oversight or negligence or false play of the Printer or as well may be suspected by a slie trick of cunning and skill Fâ—r the LL. Card. and Commissioners in the Index printed at Rome Anno 1606. have made declaration That many words have been shuffled and crowded in by the Printer through error on his part Cum in Appendice whereas in the Appendix of the second Classis under the letter I these words are found The Demonomania written by Joannes Bodinus borne at Aniou is expresly and totally prohibited for ever but his Book De Republ. and his Methodus are prohibited with a limitation by name untill they shall be purged and put forth by the Author himselfe with approbation by the Master of the sacred Palace it is bâ—leeved that all the said words inclosed here by Parenthesis are crept in through the error of the Printer Now if so long a thred of speech might drop or chop in per errorem Librarii through some error of the Printer it may be thought with more verisimilitude and with greater probability that ad tributa which makes but one poore single stitch was nimbly and slily drawn by the Printers errour into that learned Authors Proposition As for the words Ira vindicta wrath and revenge or vengeance they are in effect all one but because the word vengeance comes neerer to S. Pauls purpose and sense as also because the same Vindicta vengeance is a word used by many holy Fathers I therefore have the more willingly made choice thereof 1. You are also bold to affirm That no tribute is given to God there is one of your errors For I affirme with confidence that whatsoever is given to his Ministers is given to himselfe of alms here given to the poore our Saviour Christ will pronounce in the day of judgement Quod uni ex minimis meis Mat. 25. whatsoever you have given to any one the least of these my brethren yee have done to my selfe And saith not God himselfe in the same or like manner of almes and sacrifice Misericordiam volo non sacrificum I will have mercy and not sacrifice To the same purpose is it not in Saint Hierome Per hoc quod illis tributa datis Deo servitis In giving tribute unto your Princes you doe service unto God 2. You grant that Aquinas is on our side for this point That Clerics are exempted from payment of tribute by the speciall priviledges of Princes who graciously conferre their said priviledges upon a certain equity and yet you affirm Aquinas to hold that Clerics pay no tribute not because they are exempted by humane priviledge but by divine law To what purpose hath Thomas testified they pay no tribute by the priviledge of Princes if they be exempted from payment by the law of God Was it not sufficient for him to say they pay no tribute because they are freed from all taxations by the law of God But for so much as Thomas there cites the 47. Chapter of Genesis where wee read that King Pharaoh exempted the priest of Egypt from tribute who without question was not exempted by Gods Law because they were Idolaters he concludes à pari that Clerics are now exempted from tribute by the priviledge of Princes and not by the Law of God Iustine Matyr is positive in the same article that payment of tribute is due to the Prince by divine precept Vestigalia tributa c. the customes and tributes imposed by your imperiall Majesty in all places and before all other Subjects wee endeavour to pay as wee are taught and commanded by Christ himselfe for being asked whether tribute should be given to Caesar he made this answer Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesars For this reason S. Ambrose Bishop of Millan writing to the Bishop of Vercelli was moved to make this good and godly profession Si tributum petit c. If our Lord the Emperour be pleased to demand tribute wee will not presume to deny to withstand or to refuse his imposition the Church-lands must bow and stoope if there be no remedy to pay down upon the naile if the imperiall Majesty proceed to require the said lands it lyes in his power to make challenge thereunto let him take them from the Church if his mind and pleasure be absolutely and resolutely bent so to deale For my part with my good will I have no purpose to give them away unto his Majesty yet may I not deny or contradict his prerogative royall pleasure what would S.
Gods Divine-Will who had made known before that he would bring the posterity of Heli to a finall end for so the Scripture hath subjoyned ut impleretur sermo Domini quem locutus est super domum Heli that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled which God had spoken touching the house of Heli in Siloh Besides the Acts or Deeds of Princes goe not for Lawes But now Sir that before Iustinian there was no priviledge of Exemption in the Church that is I would have you know is apparently untrue For the Emperour Constantine who raigned more then 200. yeares before Iustinian and was the first Emperour that cleerely made profession of Christianity presently declared Ecclesiastics to be free from the common burthens of the Common-Wealth as we read in Constantines owne Epistle to Avilinus Eâ—l Histor l. 1. cap. 7. Cod. Theodâ—s cap. 31. Quaest Pract. recorded by Eusebius But besides this Priviledge of Constantine there be many other Priviledges of Emperours more ancient by odds then Iustinianus as your owne Darling and Minion Conarruuias by you cited makes report Orthodox I last alledged certaine Examples which I now perceive have put your learning to some plunge For hitherto your Discourse hath beene onely from Exemption of Tributes and such Exemption you say is taught in Scripture by the example of Pharoh and Artaxerxes But whereas you dare to make good proofe and cleere Demonstration How Clerics are exempted in Criminall Causes from which they are not exempted no not by Iustinian himselfe in the Novell I find you puzzel'd perplexed and as wee say in more then a peck of troubles as appeares by these your particular Errours 1. You tell me you have proved in the first Proposition that Moses was high Priest Surely this I have not denyed But I have affirmed that howsoever Moses did withdraw and retire himselfe from the exercise of the high Priest-hood and setled Aaron in that high Office neverthelesse he still judged the Levites And this argues he did it as a politicall or Civil Prince and not as high Priest because if it had appertained to the high Priest no doubt Moses would have committed that charge to Aaron who was the type of the high Priest of the Church and not Moses 2. He that will read the Text shall cleerely see that Solomon proceeded against Abiathar Viâ ordinariâ by the ordinary way and not by any particular Revelation and yet as the Minister of Gods Justice For every secular Prince is Minister Dei in iram ei qui malè agit the Minister of God to take vengeance on him that doth evill 3. You expound these words after your owne fancie and to serve your owne turne ut impleretur Sermo Domini that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled as if the Lord had bound Salomon by especiall charge and particular precept so to thrust Abiathar out of his pastorall charge But you must not be suffered to dazle mine eyes with any such slubbered Exposition For the wisedome of God reacheth from one end to another VVisd 8.1 and comely doth she order all things that is to say by ordinarie waies and meanes quando de extraordinariâ Revelatione non constat when there is no full assurance and certaintie of extraordinarie Revelation to alledge Examples and Anthorities after this manner is to flie unto those answers whereof the Poet saith Nisi Deo dignus vindice nodus inciderit Except some difficultie shall grow and arise which requires not mans wit but Gods Wisedome to unriddle 4. The Acts of Princes you say are no Lawes No more be the Acts of Popes especiallie of such Popes as have come too short of Solomons Wisedome when he judged Abiathar which doubtlesse was before Solomon fell into his Apostacie or Defection But besides it smels verie stronglie of Errour for anie man to affirme as you seeme to doe that Solomon who was endowed with a Spirit not of Angelicall but of Divine Wisedome and in particular to give right Judgement of all matters did stumble by erroneous Judgement in Abiathars case 5. Lastlie Whereas I according to the matter as also from antecedent and consequent examples doe treate of Exemption from the Court and of all Ecclesiastics you turne it into the generall I doe not denie that Constantine and some other Emperours before Iustinian have granted previledges of Exemption unto Ecclesiastics because it appertains unto Princes to grant such priviledges But I speake of Exemption from Courts and publike Judgements with a Distinction of the said Courts by a Law In corpore Iuris in the bodie of the Law as hath beene shewed in the first Proposition which was never acted by anie Emperour before Iustinian And for this point having read the Code not in a sleight or superficiall course I trust I may affirme without ostentation that I cannot be deceived in so cleere a matter But leaving these youâ— Eâ—râ—nâ—s I now proceed St. Paul saith Act. 25.10 11. I stand at Caeâ—aâ—s Judgment Scâ—â—e I â—ppeale unto Caesar And to pâ—ss◠〈…〉 Exampleâ— In the liâ—e of the most Christâ—an Empeâ—our Otho I. We read that Otho Authoritate proprâ—â by his own Au hoâ—iâ—y dâ—posed Pope John XII because he was notoriâ—usly wiâ—â—â—d In Summa sua lib. 2. cap. 96. Hetrodox This Argument ivâ—â—nâ—ed and framed by certaine Heretiques of old iâ— we l â—aken off by the Card. de Turre cremata namely that Sâ— Paul wâ— constrained to appeale unto Caesâ—r and to â—gnâ—zâ— him for his Jâ— gâ— de Fâ—cto non de Jure in Fact but not in Right because â—he power of Peter in those times was neither believed nor knowne And therefore if St. Paul then had answered that hee knew no other Judge but Christs Vicar hee had moved the Jewes bâ— whom he was accused Act. 28.19 and the Gentiles by whom hee was judged to breake forth into some loud laughter Paul himselfe saith coactus sum I was constrained to appeale unto Caesar As touching the Historie of Pope John and the Emperour Otho I observe a double falsity and errour in your briefe relation First of all those two words Authoritate propriâ by his owne Authority are most false both for the Fact and also for the Right In point of the Fact how Because Otho well knowing that himselfe being Laick had no power at all to judge an Ecclesiasticall person he referred the matter to the Councell then assembled in Rome to determine what was therein to be done Sancta Synodus quid decernat edicat let order be set by the Sacred Councels Decree Thus Otho to the Councell so that Otho deposed not Pope Iohn by his owne Authoritie but by the Councels Authoritie and Decree Likewise for point of Right because you find not in any Catholique Author that Popes can be deposed by Emperous but on the contrarie that Emperours may lawfullie be deposed by Popes as Otho IV. by Innocentius III. and Frederick II. by Innocentius IV. In Summa l. 4. p. 3.
forbeare to speake any more presupposing it is most evident as a matter tossed from one to another in every Venetians mouth Howbeit I build not so much upon this foundation because I have this answer of Rome at my fingers ends When the Pope doth any thing against the Canons that is the Pope is Supra Canones he is above the Canons How this can hold water or weight with truth I leave to your consideration For that Canon is grounded upon the order of Brotherly correction prescribed by our Saviour himselfe the alteration of whose Ordinance is too far out of the Popes reach 2. The â—â—â—â—â—ce of our holy Father the Pope you say is not a void 〈◊〉 â—â—nce of nullified by Gods Law and that you have sufficiently proved the Venetian Lords have most grievously sinned I doe not deny that you have in Affirmation charged the noble Lords with I wor not what grievous offences But Sir that you have made any Demonstration of your bold Assertion according to your stout pretence that you must give me leave to deny againe and againe Will you have my Reason It is indemonstrable that such as goe not against any Law doe fall into sin That such as tooth and naile doe stand for defence of their ancient Rights and Possessions doe fall into sinne That such as obey God rather then men fall into sinne That such as resist violence doe fall into sinne Such are the lawfull and laudable Actions of the Venetian Lords and therefore they doe not fall into sinne as to effectuall purpose hath beene declared before Whereas your oppositions against this Doctrine have not one myte of probability no not in appearance much lesse of certainty or Demonstration as you pretend 3. I have confessed the Popes power extends unto Spirituall matters and is over sinne you hereupon doe inferre that the Pope hath power at all times and in all causes to judge what is a sin and what is no sin This your opinion smels of Durandus his Chimnie and smoke an opinion of all men reproved but your opinion is much worse For Durandus doth not professe that in every sin we should stand to the Popes judgement whether it be sin or no for that is not necessary He onely affirmes the Pope hath power to judge all Christian People ratione peccati for sinne at his pleasure and to draw all matters into his Court Whereas you Hetrodox passe a whole degree further For if the Pope shall judge an action of vertue to be sin though I be never so certain it is no sin you forsooth will have the Popes judgement shall make it sinne This perswasion containes intolerable Errors 1. The first whereof is That in judiciis Facti in judgements of the Fact our holy Fathers judgement is infallible False for in cases of the Fact he may erre and hath oftentimes erred So teach all the Doctors in the Fact of Pope Stephen and Pope Pâ—â—â—osus with other Popes of whom Platina writes This Doctrine is held for most certain in the Church The Pope then may erre in affirming a thing to be sin which is no sin so the Pope can be no infallible Judge 2. The second Howsoever in a doubtfull case whether a thing be sin or no recourse may be had to the Popes Judgment or some other Doctors yet in cases which are certain and certainly known such recourse to the Pope for his Judgement is not necessary For example I know for certaine it is a sin to steale such a rich Jewell or such a piece of Plate again I know for certain it is a vertue to defend my Life my Land my Leases and to serve God Shall I give credit and faith to the Pope â—he should affirme the contrary to that whereof I am so certain and no way doubtfull Those Authors who grant all Authority to the Pope and judgement between Leprosie and Leprosie that is whether it be Leprosie or no Leprosie doe grant it only in doubtfull bâ—â— not in certain cases For in matters cleer evident and certain either the light of Nature or the sacred Scripture or the common estimation and account of all men is unto us a Law vox Populi vox Dei 3. That in the present case and assures of the Venetian Lords to make the world believe they sin it is all sufficient for the Pope to speake the word and to say the Venetian Lords doe grievously offend and transgresse the Lawes of God of the Pope of the Church c. Whereas you know Hetrodox it is the perverse the froward the wicked intention that makes a thing to be fin according to that of Bernard Tolle voluntatem Infernus non erit if a man be cleare from all wicked intention he shall be cleere and free from Hell-fire for ever because according to St. Augustine Peccatum est dictum factum concupitum contra legem sinne must be something spoken or acted or coveted against the Law of God If one therefore hath a good intention he goeth not against Gods Law Howsoever the Pope shall say he sinnes yet he sinnes not which according to all the Doctors as hath been said must be understood in re certâ Now because the Venetian Lords are certainly assured they have not sinned or offended and carry a cleer conscience fâ—â—e from any sinister and evill intention this knowledge is their sufficient warrant without running to the Pope for his judgement in such a cause especially wherein his Holinesse makes himselfe both Judge and Partie 4. The Supreame Judge you say hath judged the Duke of Venice to be covered all over with Leprosie from head to foot the Duke is therefore unclean all over Why good Sir the ancient Priest under the old Testament judged not of any mans Leprosie He onely said thou art an unclean Leper and therefore I will not suffer thee to enter into the Temple Now this judgement belongs to all Physitians and indeed to all other men when the Leprosie is manifestly seen and when every man knowes the partie to be smitten with Leprosie Besides if it be doubtfull whether a man be leprous or no men may runne to the Priest or goe to the Doctor to be certified of the truth But when a man is already assured and certain that he is not rotten but sound not run over with knots and knubs but of a cleer and smooth skin what needs he run or send his Vrine to the Physitian for the matter except his Phantasticon be like unto the immaginative apprehension of one who being Infra limites sanitatis as Physitians use to speake as whole as a Fish when his Physitian told him he had an Ague in his Phantasie so deepely made impressions of the Physitians words that he was in a trice surprised really of an Ague and thereof soone dyed To be short If Christ Jesus the Supreame Judge indeed who cannot erre should say contrary to the judgement and assured knowledge of the Venetian Lords you sin in these
the streame Moreover you affirme that Priests ought not in any wise to make a rent or separation from their Head the Prince What can a Protestant Heretique of England say more Who ever heard that a Secular Prince is the Head of Priests and consequently Head of the Church but since Henrie VIII turned Rebell to the Pope and caused himselfe to be stiled Head of the English Church for all this you Orthodox dare tell us that in these Treatises there is handled no matter of Faith but onely of Manners Besides you highly extoll the Ecclesiastics of Venice in being most ready to lay downe their life for their Prince Surely they must needs be a new and strange kind of Saints that are so willing to spend their life in the cause and quarrell of a Prince by whom they are compelled to commit Sacriledge and to disobey the Vicar of Christ The Saints till now have been commended in the Lyturgie to be Triumphatores qui contemnentes jussa Principum mernorunt praemia aeterna to be valiant and Triumphant Champions who contemning the Precepts of Secular Princes have merited Eternall rewards From henceforth by like the Hymne shall have need to be altered that we may sing Isti sunt Triumphatores qui contempserunt Deum ut servarent justa Principum These are the valiant and Tryumphant Champions who have contemned God to keepe and observe the Precepts of Princes at least if wee shall believe these new Doctors Againe The Lords of Venice you affirme have commanded the Religions upon paine of death to keepe their Churches upon and to celebrate all Divine Offices that vain feare might not cause nor bring them to be intermitted in that City most Catholique in all former Ages and now professing to continue Catholique more then at any time heretofore You shall receive no answer to this point from the lips of Hetrodox the Holy Ghost shall give the Answer by the mouth of Samuel 1 Sam. 15.22.23 Hath the Lord as great pleasure in burnt-offerings and Sacrifices as when the voice of the Lord is obeyed Behold to obey is better then Sacrifice and to hearken is better then the Sacrifice of Rammes for Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft and transgression is wickednesse and Idolatry If you shall reply that Samuel there speakes of obedience to God heare what our Lord saith in the Gospell Hee that heareth you heareth me Luke 10. and hee that despiseth you despiseth me The Venetian Republic therefore may be well assured that such Divine Offices and Sacrifices as are offered against obedience to Christs owne Vicar can not be pleasing unto Christ himselfe they cannot appease and pacifie but incense and kindle the wrath of God against all those by whom they are offered and all those by whom the Priests are compelled to present any such oblations Againe you puts us in mind to peruse the Doctrine of Navarrus and are bold to affirme That Navarrus makes for your side in all that before hath beene declared At last you fall upon a course of exhortation that all men would retire themselves unto the secure port of this Doctrine that such Exemption as all Ecclesiastics now enjoy are not enjoyed by Gods Law but by Priviledge of Secular Princes in whom there is full power to retract diminish dilate and amplifie the said priviledges at their pleasure I answer Herein Orthodox doth unjustly defame and undiscreetlie blemish the reputation of Navarrus as one that favours and bolsters Orthodox in so many Errors as Orthodox hitherto hath taught and uttered in this Defence But for so much as Navarrus his workes are extant in print and read of all men I referre my selfe to the Readers judgement But Sir that Secular Princes by any power of their owne may retract or diminish the Priviledges of Exemption granted to Ecclesiasticall persons that 's a Doctrine so false and so new that by Conarruuias himselfe an Author of all other least favourable to Ecclesiasticall Exemption it is in Specie reproved and condemned Thus have I fully satisfied if I be not greatly deceived all your Objections in your owne conceit worthy to be highly prized and had in great Estimation if not Admiration Now comes my turne to advise to exhort and to beseech as with my best heart I doe the most noble Republic and her most excellent Prince deeply to weigh and consider in their most grave and incomparable wisedome in what Doctors and Teachers they repose their trust In Summa cap. 25. nu 16. What Is Navarrus wholly on their side when he pronounceth it is a sin to constraine or command Ecclesiastics not to keepe and observe the Interdict When he pronounceth Clerics and Monkes are exempted from the power of Secular Princes Cap. Novit de judiciu notab 6. nu 30. by Gods Law as touching Criminall Spirituall Causes with others of the like nature annexed to Clericall Order and after when he subjoines this to be the common Sentence of Divines and Canonists So that according to the Doctrine of Navarrus the Prince that casts either Clerics or Monkes in prison or presumes in a Criminall cause to judge either of both sinneth against Gods Law he sinneth likewise against Gods Law when he commands Clerics or Monks to say Masse or Divine Service because these things are Spirituall and lastly he sinneth against Gods Law if he attempt to annull or to diminish Exemption granted to Clerics or Monkes by Almightie God Thus the Lords of Venice may see how falsly they have been instructed by some of their owne Doctors and how under the name of Navarrus they have been deceived The same fraud and imposture hath been put as a trick of cunning upon the said Lords by all such as to this day have given themselves the reines of libertie to put in print certain Librets or small Pamphlets of like matter and stuffe but all farced and stuffed with Novelties and lies Againe I exhort and beseech all Ecclesiastics to thinke that none can beare more ardent sincere and indulgent affection to the Child then the naturall Parents Father and Mother that howsoever they have as Paul speaketh many Paedagogues Teachers or Schoole-masters yet but one Father Their Mother is the holie Romane Church their Father is the High Priest or chiefe Bishop by whom in Christs place they have had their Nursing and Education untill they are now grown great and capable of the Inheritance of the Celestiall Paradise They are therefore to presuppose this Mother and this Father wish and worke for their building up in Faith in Truth in all wholesome Doctrine much more then these Paedagogues who teach them Rules and Lessons backwards by that order commonly called Arsie-varsie Last of all I exhort and beseech not onely the said Lords but all Ecclesiastics in the Venetian Government and Territorie well to consider and thinke upon Gods Judgements which many times he brings the highest and stoutest Princes to feele even in this life Pope Gregorie
partly Excommunicate to reduce and bring them unto the lap of the Church and now behold they departed from the Faithfull unjustly excommunicated and interdicted Fiftly that if all the Religious had followed the example of those few in abandoning their Pastorall charges the Venetian Dominion should have beene left for a Country of Paganisme without any Priests that Woolves at pleasure might have run together on heaps to woorrie and to glut their paunches with the blood of the silly sheepe and Lambs of Christ Last of all the occasion of this great scandall was augmented by some temerarious and over-confident Bravodoes in speech cast out by the said Religious that his Holinesse the Pope is the Monarch of Christendome and ought in all things whether Temporall or Spirituall to be obeyed by whomsoever These are scandals to speake truth inexcusable which in case they doe not spring from the blindnesse of those by whom they are given it may well and truly be averred their Actions are so much the more culpable and the more to be condemned 4. You grant obedience to the Naturall Prince and concurrence in his Defence is by Gods Law and the holy Fathers sentence by mans Law and neverthelesse without any reason you denie the consequence that Subjects have done well and taken the right course in obeying their Prince rather then the Sentence of the Pope The instance which you induce is of no more force or weight then your first Answer For thus you inferre If it be according to Gods Law for Subjects to defend the Liberty of their Naturall Prince on Earth much more it is according to Gods Law to defend the liberty of the Church the Spouse of the Prince in Heaven It is a true Inference I confesse but nothing pertinent or proper to the present case because the Lords of Venice never pretended to rob the Church of any Right or Libertie whatsoever For the Lords leaving all things in their entire strength doe enact most just Lawes and ordinary judgements touching Delicts and Goods which are subject unto their power This they have alwaies done time out of mind and yet never anie of this present Popes predecessors hath taken stomack against our Lords for such their Acts but rather by connivance or tacite silence hath yeelded gracious consent to their just operations So that in Venice there being none that goeth about or seeks to deprive the Church of anie Libertie how can the Ecclesiastics there have anie occasion to defend the said Libertie 5. You againe confound the word Duke and the word Prince The Duke doth not anie thing of him selfe in the Venetian State the Prince that is the Republic sets downe all Orders the Prince makes all the Lawes To what purpose then should you seek to draw the person of the Duke into any odious hatred by putting the Duke to be the Author of those Acts which are to be attributed unto the whole Republic as unto the true Father and Mother of the said Acts. 6. You affirme the Prince of Venice commits to prison such as have ho ranke amongst his owne Subjects The contrary hath been already proved that Clerics in grievous Delicts which touch not so much as the hemme of Spirituals are not exempted so that by consequence they are in the ranke of Subjects as also it hath beene shewed before that the liberty left by Christ our Lord unto the Church is the libertie of the Spirit and from the bondage or slaverie of sinne 7. The Lawes now in question made by the Lords of Venice you say are against Justice and Pietie For this Opposition I will turne you over and referre all indifferent Judges to Antonius Quirinus a most noble Senator of the State in his Aviso and to F. Paulus of Venice in his Considerationi 8. You put us in mind that Ecclesiasticall Sentences as touching power are by Gods Law This will not be denyed or gaine-said so long as they marshall themselves within their own bounds and territories but when they fall to range out of their owne Religion or Limits and to lash those who justly stand upon the practise of their owne Temporall and lawfull power then they are not onelie by Gods Law in respect of their power but directlie opposite unto the Law of God and flat against all reason 9. You grant and confesse the present Controversie stands not in point of Faith but in matter of Manners Then you subjoyne that which neither your selfe nor anie other hath not proved nor shall ever by Gods grace be able to prove that in the Bookes written by such as hold and maintaine the opinion of the Republic there are to be found sundrie Errours in Faith An Error in Faith is when one affirmes a point of Doctrine contrarie either to sacred Scripture or to the definitive judgment of the Church which cannot erre tanquam de Fide This no man living shall be able to prove hath at anie time been taught by such as have defended or now doe maintain the cause of the Republic When matters are debated of so great importance it is not lawfull to hang a Priest in generals If the Disputant seeke or think men should give him Faith and Credit without all hesitation he must come to the particulars In the meane time so long as the parties offended are reproved by others and no just cause at all shewed of the said Reproofe they have reason to believe the said Reproofe will result and turne to their favour 10. You confound the Principles and the Conclusion which is virtually contained in the Principles The Principle from which the opinion of the Republic is derived is touching Faith and in St. Paul Omnis anima c. Let every Soule be subject unto the higher Powers but the Conclusion is a certaine opinion grounded upon all that hath beene said before I have not said the Principle taught by St. Paul is an opinion but have onely said that opinion is most certain which is grounded upon a Principle of Faith taught by the Divine Apostle And so the sharpe subtiltie or subtle sharpnesse of this your opposition vanisheth like smoake in the vast Region of the Aire 11. St. Pauls text Obey them that have the over-fight of you and submit your selves for they watch for your Soules as they that must give account for your Soules you understand to enjoyne obedience unto Spirituall overseers in all things or matters whatsoever whereas the Apostle by whom this lesson had been taught before concerning Temporall Princes Let every Soule be subject unto the higher Powers to the end he might not goe crosse or speake in termes of contradiction that former Principle is understood by all writers on that place to the Hebrewes to treate of Spirituall power and over Soules This appears by the account which the said Prelates must render unto God namely an account for the Soules of the people not for their Goods or other Temporall matters 12. I never speake of the Head in