therefore no lesse then Laics are subject unto the secular Prince Let every soul be subject unto the higher Powers As none is exempted from the obedience that he owes to God so none is exempted from the obedience that he owes to his lawfull Prince For all power is of God as the Apostle there subjoynes This was it which moved the Kingly Prophet and propheticall King David to stile Kings and secular Princes Gods with a Deus stâ—tit God standeth in the assembly of Gods he judgeth among the Gods For as it is truly and religiously avouched by King Jehosaphat secular Judges do not execute the judgements of men but of God himselfe the very same former text of David our Saviour Christ speaking of secular Princes and Judges hath cited in the Gospell and there makes it good that unto them doth belong the name of Gods If he called them Gods unto whom the word of God was given as Cardinall Bellarmine hath learnedly noted and observed Hetrod If you had in this manner drawn your conclusion to a head Ecclesiastics therefore and seculars too are not by Gods Law subjâ—ct unto the secular Prince but seculars by mans law and ecclesiastics by no law at all neither of God nor man then your conclusion had been aptly deduced from your premises For it hath been proved before that Princes attaine to Soveraignty over their people not by divine title but olny humane If it be otherwise I pray let me have it well proved by some plain passage of Scripture that for instance the LL. of Venice are Jure divino the LL. Paramount of Padua Verona with other like Cities and if any question should grow concerning the Kingdome of Cyprus what faire title would the Venetian State alledge for the same Some goodly Charter of sacred Scripture Surely no but either some title of donation or ancient possession or some other like humane title Now then if they shall fall short in proving their title over the Laics of Padua Cyprus c. by divine authority when will they prove their pretended title over Clerics by the same authority I dare passe yet a whole degree further namely to maintain that all degrees and sorts of Laics yea that Soveraign Princes are by Gods Law in the state of subjection to Priests and that by the same Law of God Priests are quitted and freed from subjection to secular Princes My reason because according to Gods holy writ and word the positive law of God priests are pastors or shepheards to feed and Laics though never so great Princes are sheepe to be fed Priests are Fathers and Laics are sonnes Now according to the light of nature the law naturall of God the sheep are under tearmes of subjection to the Shepheard and the Shepherd is bound under no such termes to the sheep as the sonne also lives in state of subjection to the Father whereas the Father owes no duty of that nature to the sonne moreover the comparison made by Gregory Nazianzene between ecclesiasticall and secular is most excellent and usually taken up of holy Divines as in mans nature there is reason and flesh of which two united the whole frame and composition of man doth consist so in the Church their ecclesiasticall or spirituall power and secular or temporall power of which two the mysticall body of the Church is aptly composed and as in man reason hath superiority over the flesh and the flesh is never superior over reason except it be in some fit of rage and fury of Rebellion Againe as reason directs rules commands the flesh and sometime brings her to a kind of rack I meane doth chastise the flesh and puts her to a certain pennance of long fasting watching whereas the flesh never directs rules commands nor layes any hard lawes of punishment upon reason even so the spirituall power hath a superiority over the secular by vertue and force whereof it both may and ought also to give direction to rule to command and punish the secular power whensoever it kicks or spurnes or proves refractory or makes any breach into the inclosures of ecclesiasticall Regiment whereas the secular power is not superior to the spirituall nor can it direct rule command or punish the same De facto in cases of Rebellion and Tyrannie which by Heathen Princes or by Heretics hath been sometimes put in practise true it is that all power is of God but how either immediately or else by meanes And as none is exempted from obedience due to God so none is exempted from obedience due to the Prince provided alwaies that a man be the said Princes vassall or Subject and in cases likewise wherein he owes vassalage or subjection to the said Prince It is no lesse true that Princes as Princes are Gods Lievtenants and therefore to be honoured yea served with due obedience as God himselfe in such causes and matters as lye within their power Servants be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh even as unto Christ And whereas you say Cardinall Bellarmine hath averred in writing that secular Princes in Scripture are called Gods he was you must understand induced so to write of purpose to confound hereticall Anabaptists who teach that neither secular Princes nor tribunals nor judgements nor other like politick and civill regiments are to be tolerated in the Church of God But as that Cardinall hath written and witnessed that secular Princes are Gods in respect of their Subjects even so he hath justified that priests are Gods in respect of secular Princes If you therefore Orthodox like a good Roman Catholique would have trod in the steps of that Cardinall you should have taken up his weapons and should have made use of them against Heretics not against our mother the Church nor should you like the Spider have suckt such poyson from the same flowers out of which the Bee sucks and gathers hony Orthod I am not able to reach the bottome of your deep conceptions would you have your own conclusions to be drawne out of my premises If I had been inspired with a spirit of divination and by the gift of Sooth-saying could have foreseen that your selfe or Cardinall Bellarmine was to be the Champion that would undertake to cudgell my coat I mean so subtilly to trounce me and to play such trumps in my way I would have directly drawn two distinct conclusions the one true and built upon my own true certaine and infallible premises the other false obliquely derived from your premises or those of his illustrious Lordship but for as much as the spirit of divination doth not harbour in my brest or braine I must only shape and lay in this answer for my selfe that from the same premises which I have now framed I would wish none other but mine own conclusion to be inferred and from your premises and those of the Lord Cardinall your own or his own conclusions to be inducted for as my conclusion is true because it
Pilate was extended and stretched over Christ it grew out of Pilates ignorance who never knew the super-excellent dignity of Christ and gave sentence against Christ as against a private person of the same Country or Territory whereof then under Cesar he was L. President or chief Governour As if a Priest in these dayes under the name of a Laic and in a Laic habit should be brought by warrant before a Secular Magistrate or Judge he might be judged by the same power whereby he judgeth all other Laics yet doth it not follow that Priests are to come under the judgement of Laics or that Christ was to submit his neck under the yoke of Pilates judgement Orthod You deny that in the present garboyles at which you wrongfully charge me to aime there is any reference to the temperoll Kingdome and yet because you needs will draw me to the scanning of that point I say it is most notorious that in a manner the best Freehold of all temporall Kingdoms is thereby drawn into debatement I let passe your Thesis and will stand upon the Hypothesis Say the Pope now sends forth prohibition to any Christian King or temporall State that he or they shall not meddle with judging Ecclesiasticall persons running into delicts of nature meerly temporall and no way reflecting upon spirituall matters Againe that he or they shall not frame particular Provisoes or Lawes concerning Lands not hitherto acquired or accrued to Ecclesiasticall dominion In quae bonae nondum ipsis est jus quaesitum I now demand By what authority the Pope sends forth any such prohibition I hope not by any authority of Temporall Princes or States for he is not Lord Paramount in Temporalls of their Dominions and Territories By like then he doth it by his authority of universall Pastor Now because that authority of Universall Pastor as we hold he holds as the Vicar of Christ it was not impertinent or superfluous for me to shew but necessary to demonstrate what authority Christ himselfe exercised in temporall causes For Christs authority must be the onely rule of the Popes authority witnesse the words of Christs owne mouth As my Father hath even so doe I send you forth Joan. 20. In which words Christ communicated the authority of jurisdiction to Peter and the rest of his Apostles as by Card. Bellarmine himselfe it is confessed And moreover for so much as the Disciple is not above his Master nor the servant above his Lord Luc. 6. it serveth to draw from those words Paseâ— oves Feed my sheep That as Christ himselfe was no Pastor in Temporals but in Spirituals in like manner the Pope Iure Pontificatus in his right of Popedome hath do authority or dominion in temporall matters and in particular when the lawes temporall Non impedunt cursum ad vitam aeternam are no hinderance in the way to life eternall but establish a civill peace are directed and leveld to the maintaining and preserving of that State of that Liberty of that Dominion wherin particular profession is made of Christian Religion and of Piety as also to the conserving and upholding of publ que justice Now then if I to bring proofe of all this have laboured in the first place to shew what power our Lord Christ himselfe exercised in temporall matters then sure I have spoken home to the point and nothing from the purpose as you cavill Now I will have a bout or a course at your errours not as in a May-game or light skirmish but with Champion-like devoyre 1. You confesse that Christ never exercised any temporall power in this world and it is all that I either have affirmed or can desire to be confessed Neverthelesse you take upon you to teach that I looked not before I leaped because I should have subjoyned that Christ if it had been his good pleasure might by his power have exercised the said temporall power Now as I freely canfesse and acknowledge that in this point you are not our of the right way that if Christ had been so pleased he lawfully might have exercised the said power because he was not only man but also God natures being united in one person and actions according to that rule in philosophy Sunt suppositorum idiomata communicantur according to that rule in divinity neverthelesse whereas you pretend that all I have delivered of this point before is to litle purpose and from the purpose you are to take this for a short but yet for a sufficient and full answer that our present question is de facto a question of the fact non de possibili not a question of what might be or what was possible to be done Forasmuch as the Popes authority being founded upon Christs example the supream Pastor it sufficed to shew what actions Christ himselfe used for the feeding of his little flock and not medle with another new question what actions he was able to do if he had been willing For doubts any man that Christ was able by extraordinary power to worke the conversion of the whole world To sanctify the whole stock and race of mankind in the twinckling of an eye without shedding one drop of his precious blood Is there any thing impossible with God Luc. 1.37 But well assured that arguments drawn from possible to fact are of no force therefore I would not be so idle before to talke of what Christ was able to do in temporall matters but what he hath done in very truth 2. This again you have supponed that our Lord Christ as mortall man had lawfull dominion in temporall matters But Moldonate a learned Jesuite of your own Order in his exposition of these words My Kingdome is not of this world In cap. 27. mat hath learnedly and effectually proved the contrary it may by some perhaps be collected that Christ had the temporall dominion of the world three wayes as he was man 1. By right of inheritance 2. By right of creation 3. By authenticall testimony of Scripture where in many places he is called a King and that as he was man which in effect is thus much That Christ was King of this world either jure naturali by the law of nature that is by the right of inheritance or jure humano by mans law that is by right of election or jure divino by Gods law that is by authority of Scripture But first by right of inheritance I say Christ was no such King for albeit he was descended from the royall stock of Judah yet wee know that Kingdome according to the fore-threatning of Almighty God ended and came to the last period in Jeconiah and was a kind of particular reigning neither was Christ lawfull heire apparant unto any other King Next he was no King by election for it is not known that ever he was chosen King by the People but rather that he gave them the slip and went aside when he knew they intended to make him King It
civill Court thus farre Iustinian In which first part of the Emperour Iustinians Novel I may not passe diverse points untouched this for one That Menua is glad to come on his knees and to make humble suite for this priviledge then surely his Churchmen had no such exemption before from God himselfe or Iure divino by Gods law for had the good Patriarch had that string to his Bow by Gods holy Ordinance or constitution doubtlesse his humble begging and earnest Petition for this humane priviledge had been by his leave and yes too Hetrodox no better then direct and voluntary rushing into sinne This for another that Iustinian grants not Menua the Court in any absolute straine or terme but only allowes him to give judgement or sentence without any clamorous noyse and without any formall instruments in writing a course clean contrary to modern practise in our Ecclesiasticall Courts where commonly more clamour and noyse more Advocates Proctors Notaries more Offices and Ministers more chargeable Fees are paid for Transcripts breviats Bookes and such like instruments then are in Courts of secular justice This for a third that Iustinian puts down the reason whereby he was induced to grant such priviledge to wit that Clerics not disquieted nor disturbed with clamours and noises of Courts might more diligently and freely attend upon their divine offices and Ministeriall Functions This for the fourth and last Iustinian grants no absolute but only conditionall priviledge The second point observable in the Novell that in criminall causes of civill nature and kind meerely temporall without any smack or rellish of spirituals which Couaruvias expounds in these words Quae spiritualia non attingunt such as touch not the hemne of the spirituall garment Church-men within the City of Constantinople shall be tryed and judged by competent secular Judges and through the whole Empire besides by the Prefects or L. Presidents in their severall Provinces and that moreover with a certain limitation or stint of time namâ—ly that within the tearm and space of two moneths the matter shall be drawn to a head and shall come to a finall issue or end and that sentence being once sped or passed against a Cleric by the L. President of any Province the President shall not proceed to execution before the said Cleric is degraded and quite divested of his priestly or sacerdotall dignity by the Bishop according to the laudable custome and usuall manner in such cases The Emperours own words are thus directly couched in the Novell Si tamen de criminalibus conveniantur c. but if a Church-man be convented or brought Coram nobis upon some criminall cause of a civill nature that is to say such as no way hath dependance or correspondence with Ecclesiastic Regiment or Church-discipline in such a case he shall come to tryall within this imperiall City before competent Judges and in all the Provinces before the most honourable Presidents of the same provided the suite depend or hold not above two months after the Actor hath put in his Declaration and the Reus his Answer or defence that so the suite may have the shorter cut and the more expedite dispatch And in case the President shall find the party impleaded to be guilty in the action and thereupon shall adjudge him to undergo and suffer the punishment ordained and inflicted by Law then the party so judged shall first be deposed from his Priestly Orders and Church dignities by the Bishop beloved of God and after that he shall come under the hand or suffer the penalty of the Lawes In which words likewise divers points are to be observed viz. That some offences criminall are meerely civill meerely politic no way within compasse of spirituall respect or consideration that crimes and offences of such nature are tryable and punishable by temporall Magistrates that Churchmen for the said offences may be sentenced and condemned to death by a temporall Judge that Justinian bindes not himselfe or his LL. the Judges within the City of Constantinople to cause a Priest or Cleric first of all to be degraded and after to be transmitted over into the hands of civil Ministers of justice but in such case he binds only the provinciall Presidents himselfe as the Soveraign and the Judges in Constantinople as his Commissioners Delegates or Subaltern Magistrates remaining exempt and free from such obligation to give order for the degrading of such Delinquents before execution that sentence of the secular Judge must precede and then degradation is to follow before execution for Manus legum the hand of the lawes is the executioner of haut justice from whence it is directly to be deduced that Hetrodox hath drawn but a sinister left handed untoward and perverse construction of Iustinians Novell in bearing us in hand that Churchmen for offeâ—ces and crimes of this nature are first forsooth to be judged and withall to be degraded by the Bâ—shop and after to feel the weight of the secular arme for faith Hetrodox Et tâ—nc sub legum fieri maâ—â— and then to undergo the deadly stroake of the law whereas without all ambiguity the great and learned Emperour speakes in perspicuous tearmes and sayes that a definitive sentence of the secular Judge shall precâ—de degradation by the Bishop shall second execution of the sentence shall follow in the Reare and yet withall that such course of proceeding shall be only held in the Provinces and not in the imperiall City The third point or branch of the said Novell that in case a Clerics offence be of Ecclesiasticall nature namely such as requires and calles for justice by some ecclesiasticall censure or penalty thâ—n the punishment shall be inflicted and the penalty awarded according to the divine and sacred rules or Canons which in such cases the lawes imperiall do not hold it any abatement or disparâ—gement of their honour to follow The Emperours proper words runne precisely thus Si vero Ecclesiasticum siâ— delictum c. But when the offence is meerely Ecclesiastic such as requires the censure and correction of the Church then shall the Bishop beloved of God take due contemplation of the nature quality and merit of the offence the right honourable Judges residing and exercising their charge in the severall Provinces shall beare no hand and strike no stroake in the busines neither as head nor foot for it is not our pleasure or mind at any hand that civill Magistrates take any cognizance at all of such cases because they are to be sifted scanned and tryed by ecclesiasticall proceedings and the faults of delinquents in that kind are corrigible only by Ecclesiastic censures according to the sacred Canons which our lawes imperiall do not disdaine to imitate In which branch or context of the Novell these few heads come in like manner to be observed that some offences are meerly ecclesiasticall and annexed to the clericall order that when the holy Canons and sacred Scripture make it lawfull for Prelates to inflict and
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
subject unto the higher Powers Now higher powers are men placed in high and honourable dignities to whom by law and order of justice we owe subjection Submit your selves to al manner of Ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether it be unto the King as supream or unto Governours as unto them which are sent of God And whereas S. Paul saith To the higher powers it is a kind or manner of speech indefinite meaning that we must be subject unto all such persons Ratione sublimitatâ— officii in regard of their high office and place though the men themselves are evill Servants be subject unto your masters not only to the good and courteous but also to the froward Thus farre Thomas Aquinas a Religious who for all his religious orders made no bones to say Oportet nos c. We must be subject His words doe neither admit nor need any comment or glosse he speakes not with a Barre in his throate but with a clear voice and like himselfe the Prince of scolastick and catholique Doctors And who dares deny S. Chrysostome to be a catholique Doctor His clear verdict upon this passage of S. Paul is extant with generall aprobation and applause Facit hoc ideo c. It is the Apostles purpose here to teach that Christ hath not brought his Lawes into the Church of any intent or purpose to repeale to reverse to annull or abolish the lawes and rules of politick government but rather to reduce the order and frame of civill government unto a better forme of institution S. Paul therefore speaks there of politick or civill power not of all power in generall as you Hetrodox are pleased to avouch comprehending therein the Popes power and I wot not what powers besides but only of secular power And how foule an errour it is to expound holy Scripture according to a mans own private spirit or fancy yea contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers I referre you to the councell of Trent Session 4. And whereas you strive for the Popes power to be immediate from God and not mediate by election of Cardinals but in a certaine correspondence to the immediate power of Moses Aaron from the Lord If you can shew and prove that God at any time hath spoken to the chiefe Bishop elected by the Cardinals face to face in a fiery-bush or in a rod as he hath spoken of old to Moses and Aaron it shall be subscribed and confessed for my part that not only the Popes power but also his election is immediately from God But if God in former times hath spoken and yet speaks to the chiefe Bishops when they are elected as you Hetrod would bear us in hand let me be answered to this one question How then are the Conclaves necessary What need so many ambitious plots and practises What need so many hot and vehement canvases What need mighty Princes by their Agents to intercede to mediate to shuffle and cut with Cardinals for the election of some one or other of their own Subjects Patriots Favourites or Creatures What need many other strange devices and stratagems to be so pragmatically and preposterously coined as instruments to hasten the untimely birth of many partiall and precipitate Elections In a word what an idle and superfluous convocation of Lord Cardinals is that wherein the Popes election is made when his Holinesse is immediately elected of God just to an hayre forsooth as Moses and Aaron were elected What new doctrine is this Almighty God as the prime and supream cause permits the second causes to act and worke in their kind and according to their efficacy And howsoever in the election of Popes and other Princes he is assistant after a more speciall and particular manner for a common and generall good yet he never violents or enforces the liberty of elections Nay rather he expresly shows and makes known I speake of Gods ordinary course Quando de revelatione non constat when there is no manifest and apparent revelation that his divine will and pleasure is to have this or that individuall person to win the spurres and to prevaile in the election before all others as it pleased him to provide and take order in the case of Moses and Aaron yea sometimes for the punishment of our sinners Almighty God suffers a wicked Prince and as wicked a Pope if not much worse and more wicked to be advanced by course and order of election but when the election is once consummate God then gives the Pope as we Catholiques professe a Vicars power of Christs own institution and gives the Prince that power which was instituted by the author of mans nature with nature it selfe nor can I here see any such difference as you Hetrodox do seem to inferre That Princes are elected by men and the Pope is not elected by men but by God as Moses and Aaron were elected And whereas Chrysostome speaks clearly of Princes and politick Magistrates of whom also S. Paul himselfe speakes which I have sufficiently explained before you spare not Hetrodox which is your next grosse errour to affirme that Chrysostome there handles not power of the said Princes and Magistrates in particular but speaks only of power in generall Now Sir can it stand with any probability or possibility that where S. Paul himselfe treats of secular Princes and their power in particular there S. Paul's most faithfull expositor doth make the subject of S. Pauls discourse to be of power in generall Secondly those powers whom S. Paul tearms higher powers Chrysostome thorow his whole Sermon calles by the name of Princes and Magistrates I mean such Princes and Magistrates as enact politick lawes bear the weighty burthen of the Common wealth to whom Tribute is due and by the Apostles precept is to be given upon what ground of reason Forsooth because they are the chief workers and preservers of peace and plenty to the whole land they make and maintain warres in the Subjects defence they see and cause due punishments to be inflicted upon all seditious and disordered breakers of the Kings peace debaucht and wicked persons Tell me Sir who are those by whom thâ—se worthy workes and the like are done but secular Princes and the civill Magistrate Thirdly Doth not Chrysostome directly testify that whereas the Apostles were famed and defamed rather to be seditious to preach disobedience unto Princes and to the common lawes S. Paul therefore by way of precept hath delivered all the dogmaticall points couched in the said Chapter Fourthly Chrysostome affirmes that aswell here as in other places S. Paul commands every subject and servant in the whole State to be subject no lesse unto his lawfull Prince then servants in Families are subject unto their private masters Fiftly what meanes Chrysostome by those words Facit autem hoc ideo c. It is the Apostles purpose and scope to teach That Christ hath not established his lawes in the Church thereby to nullifie civill States
riseth out of true premises even so your concluon or his Lordshrhs which you please is false because it is inferred upon false premises that is drawn from a fufty vessel of unwholsome doctrine which the one of you two hath broached the piercing or at least running whereof I have now as you see endeavoured to stop with a handsome Faucet 1. Will you now be pleased to see your errours to make men subject unto their lawfull Prince by Gods law you hold it needfull that for the right and title of their subjection some text of holy Scripture be produced remember it hath been declared before that power and title to power are two different heads that power is from God and of necessity followes or comes after title The French King rules and governes in France not by law of inheritance but by vertue of authority received from God The Venetian Prince I meane the Republic and body of State howsoever you have learned of Cardinall Bellarmine with great artifice and skill to seale up the eyes of your own knowledge in the matter beares not command and rule over Padua by such meanes as they first attained to the dominion thereof but because being impatronised or made Lords of Padua by humane meanes they have it now in command and ever had from the time of their first occupation possession by vertue of the power and right received from God himselfe And herein what difference can you find to lye between Prince and Pope For if the Pope shall be asked wherefore he is Pope this will be his answer because I have been Canonically elected by the Cardinals to the Popedome and for that purpose he will never study or stand to produce any testimony of Scripture but aske him by what authority he gives or grants his indulgences c. surely he will answer because God hath given him power to forgive sinnes 2. To prove that Princes are subject unto priests by the law of God you cut out and frame a silly sheepish argument from sheepe and shepherds Gods law say you is the law of nature by natures law the sheep is in state of subjection to the Shepherd by Gods law therefore the Laic Prince is in the like state of Subjection to the Priest I answer the Prince is no sheep of the Shepheard priest but of the great Shepherd Christ for Christ said not to Peter Feed thy Sheep but Feed my Sheep So that your Argument if it conclude any thing at all concludes that Princes are subject unto Christ and not unto the Priest Nay the Priest as a sheep in temporall causes and matters is rather subject unto the Prince David gave the terme and nomination of sheep to all his people and Subjects Ego erravi isti qui sunt Oves quid focerunt It is I that have sinned what have these my sheepe done S. Pauls words are pungent and peremptory Let every soule be subject unto the higher Powers If then your argument hath any sinewes to evince that Subjects are bound by Gods law to yeeld obedience unto their Superiors of highest power then all priests likewise who are Subjects no lesse then others are directly bound by Gods law to the due obedience of their temporall Princes penall or Statute Lawes at least in temporall matters 3. The father you say is not subject unto the sonne if Hetrodox his own Father yet living were now elected King or Pope should not Hetrodox his Father as a man and a Christian be subject unto Hetrodox his Sonne whether King or Pope Howsoever young Hetrodox the sonne should beare due respect and reverence to old Hetrodox as to the Father Again the Father a Laic may receive absolution of his own sonne a priest and the son a priest may receive correction by the authority and command of his Father a secular Magistrate if men would not be intrapped in the snares of error they must learn to distinguish between titles and persons a Prince in spirituals being a sonne in temporals may be a Father 4. Touching the similitude of body and soul howsoever I grant it may be true in part as in this point by name that a temporall Prince his power is Per se of it selfe over the body and the spirituall priests power is over mens soules yet your similitude wants weight of truth in some other part and halts down right For temporall power save only as it is exercised by a Christian is not subordinate to spirituall power no not in ecclesiasticall and spirituall causes on the contrary the subjection of priests in temporall causes is plainly subordinate unto the temporall Prince Arguments thus framed are not worth a rush temporall power is over mens bodies and spirituall power is over their soules as the body then is directed and ruled by the soule and the soule not by the Body so he that is armed and authorised with temporall power must be directed and ruled by such as are invested with spirituall power I say again such reasons are not worth a rush for body and soule together do make one whole compound creature which is man whereas corporall power and spirituall power make not one body but rather two bodies and two heads These two powers as both are powers are different in all things and without subordination as either of them is a power neither doth Nazianzen teach the contrary much lesse teach your affirmative as who soever will read Gregory himselfe shall readily finde For thus much Gregory writeth in effect and no more that as the soule is more noble then the body so the spirituall power is more noble then the temporall which for my part so long as I go for a Roman Catholic I dare not deny 5. You are much overseen Hetrodox to charge me with makeing use of this doctrine to the hurt of the Church when I should rather whet and scoure my weapons against hereticks And herein you resemble me to the spider that sucks poyson from the same sweet and oderiferous herbs or flowers out of which the industrious Bee sucks honey Have you not herein much forgot your selfe He that delivers the truth neither fights nor speakes against our mother the Church but against such as harbour settled and secret pretensions in their breasts to usurpe more then appertains to their persons callings or degrees Again the Church is the Kingdome of heaven and you speak in your whole discourse of none but earthly Kingdomes in which without all question the Church can have no share nor interest nisi per accidens ex donatione fidelium but such as comes upon the By as we say that is by casuall meanes or else by franke donation or free gift of the faithfull the grandeur of all which earthly Kingdomes and of all other temporall States the Church doth establish Thirdly the use of this doctrine tendeth and serveth not only for the confuting and extirping of heresies or heretics but likewise of all such as maintain and broach any
qui liberiùs aliis locuti sunt in medium protulerunt objiciunt enim primò nullam extare legem divinam quâ Clerici eximuntur à Jurisdictione Principum laicarum c. It shall not here be amisse to frame some briefe answer unto the Arguments produced by Conarruuias and Medina who have suffered their tongues to walk range more freely then other writers For they first alledge that Exemption of Clerics from the Jurisdiction of Laick Princes is not warranted by any one tittle of Gods Law c. The L. Cardinall answers their Arguments as Arguments of Catholique Doctors and otherwise by his leave he suffers the knots of their Arguments to hold untyed and without any Doctor-like resolution And iâ— is no marvaile that our side is not overshadowed with any great cloud or heap of authenticall witnesses because likewise the Authors who stand for the contrary opinion are very thin sowen Besides this doubt is but new crept into the Schooles and again if any man write with a free and full penne upon that subject he is put unto his Recantation like the Lord Cardinall or that which is written to purpose is cancelled and rased or else he is charged with sore threatnings Sotus indeed had freely delivered his mind of this matter but in the end subjoyning a certaâ—â—â— casâ—le without any foundation which mar'd all that upon a good foundation he had built before being not able otherwise to avoid some blow he concluded the whole with Servum 〈…〉 multa decet sentire pauca loqui men that stand obvious to the lash of the whip may debate of many matters in their judgments but should not be too free of their tongues And for my particular I had never taken the liberty so freely and so faâ— to imbarque my peâ— in the faire ship of these eight Propositions but as Necessitate coactus propter evidens periculum â—â—â—â—iarum as enforced by necessity in a desperate case of most evident danger of many Soules and in the lawfull defence of my most Catholique and lawfull Prince his quarrell In times of peace â—any things are shut up under the hatches of the tongue which in times of contentions and quarrels learned men are enforced to write if they have any spirit or courage to defend the truth And howsoever I have now followed the free'st course both in writing and speaking my mind to the full though I be reproved and hated by such as your selfe Hetrodox who â—â—ve deeply interessed and engaged themselves in the maine yet I shall never by Gods grace repent me of my paines as if in so doing I had committed any evill that of the Comicall Poet will ever stand good and true Obsequium amicos veritas odium pâ—riâ— Obsequious Flattery finds many friends but plain-dealing Truth may go shake her Eares 4. My opinion is the better founded the more true and the more infallible because it is confessed by Cardinall Bellarmine that no Scripture no Councell no Canon and none of the holy Fathers hold the contrary as in the Defence following it shall well appeare and as before hath been shewed out of Thomas Augustine and Jerome cited for the contrary opinion which indeed hath no approbation but only of some few Canonists who howsoever they affirme and maintain that Exemption of Clerics is grounded upon Gods Law doe not understand Gods written Law and lesse the Law of Nature neither by necessary consequence but only by a certaine probability As thus King Pharoh exempted all the Idolatrous Priests of Egypt from all Tribute and Artaxerxes freed the Priests of Israel from the like burthens It may therefore seeme in probability à Simili from the like agreeable to Decency That Christian Princes ought in like manner to exempt Christian Priests from payment of Tributes and other Taxations of like nature This Argument I must confesse is drawn from holy Scripture which is Gods Law But it strongly makes against our Adversaries in their Tenent because it concludes that Secular Princes and not God himselfe ordained the said Exemption the very Assertion which I maintain Besides Arguments drawn from a similitude are of small force or none at all For by the same reason it might be thus argued In the old Law which is Gods Law Priests were permitted to marry Ergo it is by Gods Law that Priests are now married in the Evangelicall Law And that de Jure Divino by Gods Law is understood by the fore-named Authors according to this my Exposition I appeale to the Lord Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe in the place before alledged 5. The new opinion of the Lord Cardinall and newly brought into the Church without any reason or authority concerning this matter hold by three strings 1. That Exemption of Clerics from Secular power is not built upon Gods written Law because it is no where commanded in holy Scripture much lesse upon the law of nature or the law morall which Divines likewise call the Law of God as the Docalogue or ten Commandements c. wherein the Lord Cardinall Medina Conarruuias and my selfe doe all agree 2. By Gods Law again he understands a certain Decencie and Conformity with the examples of K. Pharoh and K. Artexerxes and from their Examples he collects that Christian Princes are t do the same but dares not say they are bound to that strain of Benignitie whereupon he confesseth in a manner that doubtlesse it appertaineth unto Princes to grant such Immunity or Exemption but yet Princes are not bound to shew such Grace by those Texts of Scripture for as much as in the said passages there is not so much as the least umbrage or shadow of any such obligation to be seen or found 3. By Gods Law is as much to say as by the Law of Nations A new device and never heard of before And that his Lordship proves thus The Law of Nations is derived from Gods Law naturall Ergo it is Divine or the Law of God Then again that it is by the Law of Nations he assumes that all Nations have exempted their Priests but shewes not in what matters whether in their Tributes or in other Causes nor proves the universall nor is able to prove the same that all Nations have exempted their Priests for that is false nor alledgeth for his opinion any one Doctor that by Gods Law signifies by the Law of Nations nor finally shewes that Exemption is grounded upon the Law of all Nations Lib. de Cler. cap. 19. Let him be searched This opinion as new and hanging by loose gimmals is ready to nod to totter and to ruine of it owne accord yet shall it not be amisse to touch in briefe divers things concerning the same 1. There is great difference between Gods Law written the Law of Nature and the Law of Nations For howsoever the Law of Nations is a Secondary Law of Nature according to the great Master Thomas Aquinas by reason it is derived from Principles both of Natures Law and of
purpose without all question the foresaid Authors had beene prohibited by Authoritie But I must now tell you plainly Hetrodox they shew verie good and great Cards for their game I mean their Demonstrations are not fectlesse but full of efficacie For besides the affirmative authority of St. Paul of St. Chrysostome and of St. Thomas besides the common use and custome of the Primitive Church they produce likewise two negative Arguments most effectuall The first If Clerics themselves and the Goods of Ecclesiastics be exempted by Gods Law where is that Law recorded and read In what Gospell in what Apostolicall Epistle in what Booke of the New Testament or of the old The Second That no Secular Prince Christian carrying a watchfull eye to the tranquillity and honourable government of the State doth stand upon this point but onely permits Ecclesiastics to enjoy such Exemption as to himselfe seemes best and such as he dislikes he will not suffer them to reape any fruit or benefit from the same And howsoever by the Law of man some understand the Canon yet by so much as may be gathered from the Doctrine of the first Proposition we are to understand the Priviledge of Princes and the Custome dissembled by the said Princes or the Canon received which Canon cannot be above Gods Law so that if Secular Princes have lawfull power over their Subjects by Gods Law I cannot see how this their Power can be diminished or taken away by the Canon which is but a Law of man it is a common rule of the Legists Quotiescuâ—que concurrunt duo jura minus debet cedere majori when two Lawes are in termes or in point of concurrence the rest ought ever to stoope and give place unto the greater Hetrodox The Affirmative Arguments have beene answered before what need you make so many repetitions of one and the same matter Now to your first negative Argument This point hath beene discussed at large by many Catholique Authors both Divines and Canonists The grounds of their opinion are to be sought in their writings and my selfe have briefly before pointed to certaine passages as well of the old Testament as of the New and this for one Ergo liberi sunt filii therefore the Children are free Gen. 47. 1 Esdr 7. Mat. 17. where by Children are meant Ecclesiastics it St. Ierome's and St. Augustines Expositions be not rejected of Divines Againe you are not ignorant Orthodox that by Gods Law is understood not onely the holy Scripture but also the light of Nature or to speake in other termes Reason and Natures Law lib 1. de libert Christ cap. 9. Thus Iohn Driedo Exemption of Ecclesiastics holds by the Law of God for so much as it is dictated and taught by Reason and by the Law of Nature because all men by the light of Reason and Nature understand that persons and goods or things consecrated to God are proper to God himselfe and therefore no Reason that Secular Princâ—â— should exercise any power over the said persons or things And that this point is a light of Nature it is easie to be knowne because in all Religion Exod. 30. Numb 1. Gen. 47. Arist l. 2. Caesar l. 6. de bello Gall. Plut. in vitá Camilli whether true or false this Law of Exemption is observed Among the Hebrewes the Levites were exempted and among the Egyptians the Priests were exempted and among the Grecians the Priests were exempted The same is recorded of other Gentiles in Caesar in Plutarch and in other Authors for brevitie sake here pretermitted To the second Negative Argument I returne this Answer We find it not in Sotus nor yet in Conarruuias It is doubtlesse a Fiction of your owne braine and besides it is no Argument no Reason but a meere Cavill and Calumniation invented against all Princes as if all Princes were Machiavials Disciples and granted or tooke away Exemption from Clerics as they find it profitable or unprofitable to Reason of State But wee know that in the Church of God there be many Religious and pious Princes who feare God as they ought But in case it were so in truth which must not be granted that many Princes give neither place nor way to Exemption any further then it is profitable to Reason of State what art what skill of Reasoning shall I call this Many Princes permit not Exemption Ergo Exemption is not by Gods Law As much in effect for forme of Argument great skuls whole troopes of Christians give themselves to robbing by the high-way side or to luxurious uncleannesse in darke corners or to beare false witnesse in open Courts Ergo these Precepts of the Diâ—alogue thou shalt not steale thou shalt not commit Adulterie thou shalt not beare false witnesse are not by Gods Law It should have beene proved that such Princes as permit not Exemption otherwise then to their own liking doe well or doe not ill and then the Consequent would not have come in amisse Ergo Exemption is not by Gods Law But from the simple Fact or to say better from the simple prevarication of a Law it cannot be concluded that the said Law is contrary to Gods Law Your next discourse after about mans Law as whether it be Canon Law or Priviledge of Princes or Custome is idle and altogether in vaine for besides that Exemption of Ecclesiastics is by Gods Law it is every way by mans Law because there be many Canons many Civill Lawes and a must long continued Custome which make all for this Exemption This neither will nor can be denyed of any but such as are of no reading at all Finally that conclusion which you make of Secular Princes power over Ecclesiastics that it can be neither taken away nor diminished by any Canon because the Canon is by Mans Law and the power of Princes by Gods Law is a false Conclusion drawne from a false Principle and repugnant unto all Catholique Doctors as well Divines as Canonists False because it is contrary to many Decrees of Councels Popes the Lawes Imperiall and the light of Nature Drawne from a false Principle because the power of Princes over Laics is not grounded upon Gods Word Against all Catholique Doctors as well Divines as Canonists because both Sotus and Conarruuias compted the chiefe Pillars of those who maintaine that Exemption is not warrantable to Ecclesiastics by Gods Law have not stucke to testifie by their learned pens that Popes have plenary power to exempt Ecclesiastics that all Princes are bound to uphold and maintaine the Popes Exemption as also that no Prince no not all Princes together hath one dram of power to annihilate or disanull or in the least measure to diminish the said Papall Exemption Thus much is affirmed and witnessed by Sotus and Conarruuias in the very same passeges by your selfe Orthodox produced and alleadged It hereupon followes that you have now broached a new an erroneous a scandalous a schismaticall and a seditious Doctrine If this notwithstanding
Superior and now being Duke doth acknowledge his Republic for his Superiour 4. Whereas againe in the Answer no mention is made neither of the Word Duke nor of his person nor of the least matter to him or his Dignitie appertaining you not onely make use of the word Duke for your turne but besides albeit against all reason you draw the Dâ—â—es person into your Discourse and so doth Cardinall Bellarmine This hath moved some of our contemplative Spirits to argue and not without good ground that his Lordship rashed not into his Errour by chance but of set purpose partly that he might have the fitter opportunity to draw the Author of these Propositions into hatred with a Republic right jealous of her liberty in saying that he made the Duke her Lord and partly so to triâ— or to tâ—â—â—ice rather the person of the Duke that hee might breed and stirre up in the minds of the whole Republic some sinister conceit either of Potencie affected or of Religion corrupted This the Lord Cardinall â—ppâ—â—ently shewes in his Discourse who hath none other time or scope but onely to sow Discord Evill will and Sedition 5. You lay to our charge that wee affirme the Duke hath made Lawes of the State we have delivered neither by word nor writing any such wicked assertion It is the Prince of Venice that is the Republic which makes Lawes we never made any mention of the Duke 6. You say moreover that in the State of Venice divers Lawes have been passed prejudiciall to the Church Bring but one Text or Scripture produce but one definitive sentence of the Church tanquam de Fide to prove the Lawes enacted by the Venetian Republic that Ecclesiastics may not be committed to Ward for Secular Delicts or the Pope in right of Pontificiall Dignitie may thrust his hand into matters and affaires of such nature and then you shall have us ready to confesse the said Lawes are contrary to the Law of God But for so much as the Prince is invested with Temporall Authority from God and the same an absolute Authority according to St. Peter St. Paul the holy Fathers the Definitive Sentence de Fide of Pope Nicholas I. which Authority cannot be restrained by the Pope in matter of Temporall Delicts as hath been proved In Epist ad Mâ—chaelem and of which Authority the said Prince hath never been bared or deprived his Actions are not prejudiciall to the Church whiles he walkes within the Circle of his owne Confines and goes not out of his own Bounds It might rather be conceived and alleadged that his Holinesse ranging and roving farre from the Terrier of Spirituall power may perturbe the peace and quiet of Temporall Princes Nay more It would be requisite for his Holinesse oftentimes to beare in mind the words of the devout and godly Father St. Bernard Apostolis interdicitur Dominatio indicitur Ministratio Petrus quod non habuit dare non potuit the Apostles are bar'd from all the Degrees of Lordship and commanded to walke in the state and calling of Servants What Peter himselfe never had Peter could never give to any other The same Peter who said Gold and Silver have I none but I give thee what I have to give Likewise to remember that other of St. Bernard Quid alienos fines invaditis Si voles utrumque perdes utrumque Wherefore do you rush into the severall inclosures of other men if you presume to be Lord both of Spirituals and Temporals thou shalt be saluted neither Lord Spirituall nor Temporall And when men discourse to his Holinesse of this immunity it were also requisite for them to look unto the Root whereon it growes whether it be grounded on the Scripture on the Fathers on the Priviledge of Princes or on use and Custome and to remember the Customes and priviledges of Countries are much different And finally seeing the proper end of the Venetian Lords is excellent good not only not contrary to life eternall but rather conformable thereunto for the better maintaining of a Christian and Catholique Republic in her entire strength and power as also for the better execution of Justice and for the better brideling of Clerics when they know the Lawes have provided for the mature and severe punishment of their Civill Delicts to approve the Actions and Lawes of the said Venetian Lords with silence For even the very same Authors who give the Pope Authority to intrude himselfe sometimes indirectly in Temporals do give him the said Authority in case of extreame necessity and when the people are stopped in the right course to life eternall Now for so much as the Actions and Lawes of the Venetian Lords are not only no hinderance to their Subjects in the course to eternall life but rather make the way more facile and bring the same as it were to a shorter cut what necessity can his Holinesse have whereby he should be moved to restrain those publike Lawes which are out of his owne Element and not under the Lee of his Jurisdiction 7. It is your manner and a slie trick of your cunning to make shew that you do not see the force of our Argument we draw not our Argument from that power which the Prince hath from God in the generall but from that power the lawfull exercise whereof the Prince never lost neither by Priviledge granted nor by Canon received nor by long Custome which is a Law to prove that his Acts done conformeable to his power are good and lawfull Now you Hetrodox from these particular Acts of the Pr nce would prove the Prince hath none other power from God at all The Prince hath power from God over all Temporall matters but his power is exercised in some and not in other because he hath exempted some from his power by Priviledge and not some other Now this doth imply or signifie that his power is not granted from God with a certaine limitation as you contend but rather that he himselfe limits his own power by his Priviledges granted For the Temporall Princes power in Temporals no arme of flesh can limit provided it be not a Tyrannicall power neither hath it any Superiour but God alone much lesse when it is exercised ad optimum finem to the best end 8. You make us to affirme the Duke hath power to punish power to dispose power to make Lawes we neither take up the word Duke nor the word power for this matter we only speake of the Prince that is of the Republic that he the Prince or she the Republic doth punish doth dispose doth make Lawes there is great difference you know between Act Power betweene power to enact Lawes and enacting of Lawes 9. You harpe much upon this one string that we sp ak still of the Duke it is nothing so we tell you again we speak only of the Republic which only hath the Authority and the same in Temporals which the Duke hath not For it is the Republic