black coal yet by the just judgement of God you leave it neither stamped nor smeared in face or front with any kind of odious impression and stigmaticall reprehension but rather give it a kind of stronger back and more pithie with your own approbation As for the long parallel or to give it a better title the large comparison which you frame between the Layic and Ecclesiastic power it is altogether extravagant needlesse and from the purpose for whosoever contends for the Layic power to be immediately of God and without exception in temporalibus doth neither directly nor by consequence deny Ecclesiastic power to proceed immediately from God and to be without exception in spiritualibus which we Roman Catholiques must affirme and are bound to uphold Hetrod Whatsoever you dream of my approbation you shall never draw me to the bent of your Bow nor worke me to any good perswasion of your doctrine with all your perswasions uttered as before by whole-sale and in grosse except you shall deal with me now also by retayle and shall nick up some error keeping a kind of tallie in the severall joynts and branches of my last passage making my said Errors in particular not onely visible but also palpable Orthod I refuse not the Exception and therefore will presently nick up to use your own term or point out your errors one by one 1. Whereas two contradictories are not possible to be true both at once in one and the same respect you have given and granted the honour of truth to both For first you affirm that Princes as higher powers and superiors are invested with power immediately from God to command their Subjects Then as one presently even in the turning of a hand repenting himselfe and falling from his Tenent you sing out and warble these notes of a contrary ayre If the power of secular Princes over Laics be not immediately from God much lesse over Clerics and a little after The Proposition therefore would stand more firm it would go more straight and bolt upright in these tearmes Secular Princes have no power over their Layic Subjects immediately from God Now either the one of your two Propositions must be true and the other false or else Hetrodox who holds them both for true must needs be tainted with a visible and palpable errour 2. You confound title of power with power it selfe which are directly distinct both for matter and word Title is Conditio sine quâ non acquiritur Potestas It is the condition without which power is not setled in the Prince Power is that authority and jurisdiction wherewith Princes are invested immediately of God so soon as they are entitled thereunto by man This was manifestly declared before by a similitude taken from the reasonable soule and your selfe Hetrodox have been forced to grant it against your will for you passe it currant and uncontrouleable in the Popes case and affirm that howsoever his Holines is elected and advanced to the Papacy by the votes of men yet he receives power to sit in Peters Chayre and to govern the Ship of the Church immediately of God 3. You condemne it as hereticall to hold that secular and temporall power is not ordained and made subject by God himselfe to spirituall power But heare me good Sir with patience you can alleadge no text of holy Scripture you can produce no definitive Sentence or determination of the Church which may stand for a cleare and indubitable Oracle that Princes as they are Princes are in any degree of inferioritie and subjection unto the Pope but onely to speake in the sence and phrase of us Roman Catholics as they are Christians when the world was not so happy to be honoured with Christian Princes but was governed and commanded wholly by heathen Lords and Rulers doubtlesse no Prince then regnant was in regard of Princedome the high Bishops Vassâ—ll or in state of subjection to the Pope But as Chrysostome testifies the chiefe Bishop was then Lorded of pagan or infidell and heathen Princes to whom like a Free-holder or Copie-holder he ought both suite and service as to his Lords paramount in temporalties Etiamsi Apostolus etiamsi Evangelista be thou Apostle or be thou Evangelist neque tamen pietatem id est religionem according to the greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subvertit istae subjectio howbeit by such estate or degree of subjection true piety that is to say true Religion is neither subverted nor yet undermined Laic power therefore shall not put either head or hand like an Homager under the girdle of Ecclesiastic power ratione potestatis as it is a power For the layic Prince I speak still as a Roman Catholic is onely so far forth subject unto the chiefe Bishop in spiritualities as the said Prince is a christian in which case the Prince and every private person are equall or in one and the same condition And therefore layic power as it is a power is not subject or subordinate unto Ecclesiastick power save only so farre forth as the said layic power is exercised by one that is a christian Prince as every other christian is a christian This makes the power of the Grand-Seignior of the great Cham and of the Persian Monarch to have not so much as the least dependency upon the Popes power And yet I trowe you know it is a power and that an absolute power to which cause if I take not my marke amisse you crowded and slily shuffled in the word christian when you said the Pope had power over all christians wherein you speake this language this in effect and no more That all are subject not ratione potestatis in respect of power but ratione christianitatis in respect of christian profession and so you speak not ad idem to the point which you undertook to prove 4. A Prince you say Hetrodox being demanded by what right he holds the Regall Scepter and possession of his Crown and Kingdome will never avouch the law of God in his defence thereof but either his right of inheritance or else his right by the law of just warre and of lawfull Armes or of election or of donation from which you inferre that his power is not immediately cast upon him by Gods gracious gift I must now be bold to re-joyne and come upon you with an expresse negative The Prince be you Hetrodox well assured will never suffer so lame so loose so dishonourable stuffe to scape his noble heart or lippes but if any shall be more bold then observant and respective to boord his Highnes with such a question how came you Sir by that Soveraign power and authority to govern and command your People He would readily and peremptorily shape him this religious and Prince-like answer I received it as the immediate gift of God and asked or interrogated againe who gave him the title and investiture of such power his answer to stop the interrogators mouth will be this in a word I
c. except it be for some evident benefit and most honourable acquist unto the Crown and State 9. You contend that secular Princes may suffer losse of their Subjects whereas the Pope lyes not obnoxious or obvious to hazard in that kind Oh that I could here truly say There speakes an Angell but see see how many Countries Nations Tribes and Kindreds have quitted their obedience to the Roman Church A word shall suffice that most beautifull flourishing nobilitated renowned Cedar of Libanus which in former ages hath spread it selfe both farre and wide over the face of the universe is now reduced to such pight and pickle that she hardly hath two or three Arms left growing to ward much lesse to beautifie the whole aged Trunke 10. Your tenth errour layes it selfe open and perspicuous in a most pernicious nice and tickle assertion That neither by the Generall Councell nor by the whole Corporation and body of Cardinals the chiefe Bishops power can suffer the least diminution and yet by the Subjects the secular Princes power may be plumed of the bravest feathers Touching the former branch of this assertion I have signified my mind before that I have no humour to draw into dispute whether Papall power when death seizeth upon the chiefe Bishop his mortall body doth remain in the Church or whether the Councell be above the Pope only this I hold to be indubitable that In causa haeresis est supra Papam in case of Heresie the Councell is above the Pope and that in case of scandalous offences the Church never wanted requisite and convenient remedies for the maintenance of her own rights and priviledges against Popes themselves But what shall I say to the other branch of your assertion Let us measure the truth thereof by the standard of common reason tell me then what People hath power to crow over the authority and power of any Soveraign and absolute Prince Surely none for by what authority Who dares now shew himselfe upon the Stage to broach and to draw the vessell of such pestiferous and scandalous doctrine What Is there a power in any people to depose their lawfull and Sovereign Prince To pare the nayles of his power To make a Soveraign Prince In esse no Prince De facto but a meer Subject To pull the Imperiall Crown from his head the royall Scepter out of his hand the purple robe or mantle royall from his shoulders and to kick him after a sort or to tumble him down from his Regall Throne Can there be a more desperate device more dangerous and forcible Bellows to blow the coales and to kindle the flames of most detestable rebellions of odious and insupportable Seditions of dreadfull conspiracies of Absolom-like or Judas-like treasons in the very bowels of the State I am loth to be a medler or a stickler and to have any hand in choaking or drowning the venemous seeds or in quenching the pestilentiall sparkes of these horible combustions with inke of Pen It is for noble and heroicall Princes themselves in these cases interested In Capite to rowse up their brave spirits and if the matter must needs come to blowes to draw the Sword in defence of their own so just and honourable a quarrell I must confesse it sorts well with a Princes honour to rule out his absolute power by his grave Councell of State and the wholsome Lawes of his Realmes and Kingdomes as it concernes and beseems the chiefe Bishop himselfe no lesse to square and to compasse out his power by the councell of his Cardinals provided they be no way interested or ingaged and overborn with passion but still have an eye to reflect upon the good of the Pope and the good of the Church alwaies directed by the laudable Canons and the venerable Councell For howsoever the absolute Prince perhaps Non tenetur suis legibus quoad obligationem is not liable to the conserving of his own lawes by plain termes of obligation tenetur saltem quoad directionem yet without perhaps or peradventure he stands bound to the conserving of his own Lawes at least for the office and duty of direction 11. You assume or presume rather that Monarchicall Rule of Laic Princes is changed sometimes into free States and free States of Laics are sometimes changed into Monarchies But as for the Church you affirme that she is not subject like the Moon unto the like mutation and change First if the case be put concerning Christ himselfe who is the supream soveraign Pastor of the Church there is no question but his Monarchie shall stand remain and endure for ever without all change Because of his Kingdom there shall be no end which comes not by reason of Title or no Title as you seem to inferre but by reason that Christ himselfe is not subject unto the least inward or outward violence the proper cause of all such mutation and change But make the case to concern Christ his Ministers and who can deny the Church was governed at the first after the form of a republick Let men read the fifteenth of the Acts there Peter proposes the case he puts down the Proposition he makes the Declararation Simeon hath declared as proloqutor then Iames gives the sentence or determination as President of the Councell wherefore my sentence is Lastly the Decree is ratified in the name of the whole Assembly or holy Convocation The Apostles Elders and Brethren unto the Faithfull send greeting It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us c. Whether S. Peter was then installed in the primacy like the Venetian Duke who holding a most honourable preheminence and ranke in that most illustrious and renowned State is neverthelesse restrained and kept in a State of Subjection to the whole body of that Republick I leave the matter to be discussed and sifted by those whom it may or doth chiefly concern It sufficiently makes for my purpose that whereas Decrees were published in the Primitive Church under the name of the republick or whole Assembly now edicts and constitutions are published under the name and authority of one alone And whether any mutation or change is imported thereby speak your selfe Hetrodox by whom it hath been denyed before 12. Your last errour is palpable in inferring this for a reason of difference between the two powers The rule of the one is immediate from God whereas the title of the other hath no such immediate derivation here I say you misse the marke and erre from the sense two manner of wayes For if by Title you meane the Power there is no such matter because neither is the Title the power nor the power the Title And if by Title you understand the means or manner of reaching to the height or top of power the one is no lesse humane or of men then the other The Conclave it selfe shall never be able to prove me a lyar in this point but I here put on a step further The power
Ecclesiastic is not in so precise manner or direct degree immediate from God as the power secular The reason Because it is in the man Christ or in Christ as man to wit as in the Head of the Church Joh. 22. to whom alone it is immediately communicated of God All Power is given to me in Heaven and on Earth So that all Ecclesiastick power which the chiefe Bishop challengeth and assumeth to himselfe is at best hand but a Delegate power communicated and committed to him by Christ For Christ being that Mediator between God and man as the Apostle speaketh it must follow by good consequence that God gives the superiority and power Ecclesiastic to the chief Bishop not immediately without meanes but mediately or by meanes id est Per Christum mediatorem by the Mediator Christ or by the meanes of Christ and this mediate power of the Pope is no Soveraign or Princely power but a Vicariate or deputed power it imports not Dominion and Soveraignty but rather Service and Ministery And hereupon the chiefe Bishop takes it for no disparagement for no vility for no abatement in his high and honourable Stile to be titled the servant of Gods servants a Pastor a Bishop c. All which titles imply Ministery rather then Lordship and humility rather then greatnes Mat. 11.8 For dominion and grandene are not sutable not sortable not compatible with a chiefe Bishops house as he is a Bishop Luk. 7.25 but with Kings Courts Hetrod I find Orthodox that you have the Prince of Philosophers Eleuchs at your fingers end but withall that you are superlatively positive in your new doctrine Orthod Soft good Sir a little more of your patience neither my Doctrine Hetrodox nor new doctrine It is no piece of my coine but comes out of S. Pauls Mint yea rather it beares a right stamp of the Holy Ghost speaking with S. Pauls tongue or at least writing with S. Pauls quill The Apostles words are thus couched and extant in the text Let every soule be subject to the higher Powers Rom. 13.1 for there is no Power but of God which text is expounded by Chrysostome in these expresse tearmes Facit hoc Ap. c. The Apostles purpose and intent is to shew in these words that Christ hath not brought his divine Lawes and Ordinances into the Church of any such intent and purpose as to undermine and subvert politic Regiments and civill States but for the better establishing and reforming of humane governments And there the Apostle teacheth withall that all Subjects and inferiors are bound to the due performance of his Apostolicall precept and charge not only seculars but also cloistered Monkes and Priests for so much is testified and verified in his first words Let every soule be subject unto the higher Powers be thou Apostle Evangelist Prophet or of any other degree condition or quality in state of a Subject Neque tamen pietatem subvertit ista subjectio howbeit godlinesse by this kind of subjection shall never come in danger to be subverted Thus farre Chrysostome Hetrod You go too farre Orthodox I neither can bear in my self nor forbear you any longer The passage which you alleadge and quote out of Paul treats of power in a generallity and teacheth obedience of Subjects to their lawfull Soveraigns and Superiors in grosse or to Superiors of every sort and degree and of every calling to be by Gods own Ordinance It doth not directly shew that such and such persons are subject in their callings to the secular Prince by the immediate Ordinance of God It is not denyed that all power is of God but some power is immediately of God Such was the authority of Moses and Aaron such also now is the Popes authority and power Some other power is likewise of God but mediatly as by meanes of succession or of election or of some other humane title And as for Chrysostoms testimony upon S. Pauls passage it is thus to be answered The holy Father affirmeth not in his testimony that Priests and Monks are bound by S. Pauls precept and authority to render obedience unto secular Princes but rather unto their own Superiors whomsoever It is no lesse true that Ecclesiastics are bound to keep and observe all such Lawes politick and civill as are not repugnant unto Ecclesiastic Lawes and such as are necessary for common commerce between Ecclesiastic and Laic persons For in the course and cariage of temporall affaires as Pope Nicolaus writeth unto the Emperour the Church makes good use of the Lawes Imperiall Howbeit Ecclesiastics are not bound and tyed to such observance of secular Princes Lawes by way of any force but only by way of direction that is to say Vi rationis non vi legis by vertue and right of reason but not by vertue and right of Law Let me give this instance for example The temporall Prince commands a tax to be set upon the price of corn in this case Ecclesiastics are bound to buy and sell at such price not because they are bound to the said law but because they are bound to buy and sell at a just and lawfull price and because in reason of State as also in common reason the price taxed by any lawfull Prince within his own Teritories must passe the muster of lawfull prices Howbeit say it comes to passe that some Ecclesiastic breaks the said law yet can he not for such delict or transgression of the Law be fetcht Coram nobis before the civill Judge or Magistrate by Sub paena or by any other of the Kings Writs nor can he be punished by the Laic Prince to whom he is not subject but by processe out of his own Ecclesiasticall Superiors Court. Orthod Let me have leave Hetrodox to give you the stop in your full careere know you Hetrodox what you say Is the Apostles text Let every soule be subject to the higher Powers to be understood of power in generall and not of secular Princes power The best is you avouch it with a bare affirmative you send it forth but bare and naked without any upper Garment not so much as a Waste-coate either of double or single stuffe I meane without any one reason of proofe at all But how can it be possible that Paul there speaks of power in generall Is it not his full and whole scope in that Chapter to stop the mouthes of those who slandered the Christians of that age and time to be seditious routs to professe very scandalous and pernitious doctrine to wit that Christians were not bound to the obedience of secular Princes but were exempted from all secular jurisdiction S. Paul then speakes to the point and saith Let every soul be subject to the higher powers i. e. to seculars of eminent place and high charge yea the very epithite Sublimioribus higher is a plain tearm of restraining the word Power And that S. Paul did foster and fancy none other conceit or meaning I appeale to
reason I now presse you Hetrodox to expresse what you mean by force of reason I suppose you understand with Bellarmine and all other Authors the law of reason to be the law of nature This now supposed and granted to be their meaning and yours Thereupon would very fain learn what need so many monitories To what end so many thundering Cannon-shot of excommunication Wherefore some few yeares past have not many Priests and other Ecclesiastics of the Venetian state stooped and yeelded obedience unto the particular demonstrations Lawes and reasons of State published by that most illustrious and renowned Republick which all Christian Princes have judged and approved no lesse reasonable then honourable The law of nature is a farre stronger binder then the lawes of Magistrates and therefore it neither will nor can brooke and admit any kicking or spurning against the due obedience thereof but you say In case the Law be transgressed it is not for secular Princes to rake any cognisance of Clerics faults and to rake in the sink of their facts but all transgressions or delicts of Clerics are punishable only by the power and authority of the Keyes Now I answer This cuâ—s not off the power of Christian Princes and Magistrates to enact and establish Lawes Politick which may bind Ecclesiastics to the good behaviour in the politick and civill Government by the sword For in your verdict Clerics are bound at least by force of reason to keepe and observe the said politick lawes And to wade yet somewhat deeper into these waters what ward have you Hetrodox for this blow He that hath power to give life soul and being to any Law hath no lesse power as the supream and Soveraign Judge to punish every transgressour of the same law how thinke you Hetrodox is it not so Hetrod Very good Orthodox bee it so Orthod And who if not secular Princes have power to make Lawes which may bind Subjects of any calling condition or quality both in temporalls and in conscience besides The secular Prince then is armed with power to judge and with a Sword to cut off or to bring in all sorts of Subjects who like Outlawes and Rebels forsake their assigned Quarter and fly out of the pale of lawfull obedience A Cleric of any Order by the character thereof is made subject unto his Prelate say wee in all duties essentially annexed to his holy Order and Function But for a man born a Princes naturall and lawfull Subject so soon as he hath gotten any degree of holy Orders on his back to be made free exempted from the subjection of his Prince That in my understanding is a very Monster and prodigious creature not in Evangelicall doctrine alone where humility and subjection are prized and valued at a very high rate but also even in the light of nature which were all written Lawes in the world for ever lost and the light of the same totally extinguished would perpetually stand and remain to us a positive law Rom. 2. But suppose your assertion in this point is grounded upon invincible truth tell me now Hetrodox wherefore is it not consonant and agreeable to Gods law that Clerics may not live in wedlock Would you have it rest in the Popes power to slate in these dayes the roof of that old Fabrick or frame which Boniface 8. projected and attempted in the height of his Papacy to erect and raise not sparing nor fearing to remove every Stone for the purpose You know he declared by his Buls and Breeves that all such as had received the first sharing and shaving with all others entered into the foure inferior Orders should stand in subjection to the Church as his vassals though they had assumed the state of wedlock a constitution of such a dangerous exorbitant strain to supream States that all christian Princes by the vigour and rigour of their most holy and wholsome lawes have prudently and politicly laboured to quash and nip it in the crown For as then it might have been to Boniface so now it might be to his Holinesse a fit silver stirrop whereby to mount into the golden Sadle of perpetuall patronage dominion and lordship of all Christendome even in temporall estate How so Forsooth by causing all degrees of People to be sheared or else to undertake some one or other of the foure inferior Orders This liberty Hetrodox is removed and distant all the degrees in the Zodiack from Apostolical subjection I mean from that state of subjection which the Apostle S. Paul hath described and prescribed To make short work Howsoever the Levites in the old Law had their high Priest Aaron by name neverthelesse in temporall matters causes and judgments of Court still they remained under the authority of Moses their temporall Prince as right well is proved by Couaruvias Hetrodox How now Orthodox A fling at Moses too Cap. 31. qq Pract. concil 2. Rob Moses of his right of his honour Was not Moses high Priest even together with Aaron Was he not by Gods own Ordinance and extraordinary disposition greater then Aaron I know Couaruvias descants upon this plain song with unperfect cords yea with flat discords I therefore do esteem his musick not worth a blue point I credit divine Scripture and holy Fathers farre above Couaruvias by great odds who in matter of jurisdiction is caried with full sayles of partiality But heare me a little Psal 98. Exod. 40. Is it not extant in fair and faithfull record that Moses and Aaron were among his Priests even the Lords Priests That Moses offered incense unto the Lord which was the high Priests principall office and chiefe charge That Moses as high Priest and in quality of high Priest consecrated his brother Aaron made the Sonnes of Aaron Priests and offered sacrifice at their consecration That Pen to a most learned Hebrew honours Moses with stile of high Priest King and Prophet That Gregory Nazian stiles Moses Priest of priests and Prince of princes That Augustine avertes how both Moses and Aaron were high Priests That Hierome comes not an ace behind all the forenamed Authors That before all these Fathers and writers Dion Areop leads the dance and sings the same note So that Moses being high Priest it is no marvaile the Levites who were the onely chiefe Ecclesiastics of those times were subject unto Moses as unto their own proper Head and peculiar Judge Orthod You need not Hetrodox to put your selfe in so great a heate when you deal with any well grounded Catholique to prove by the authority of Fathers that Moses was either Priest or high Priest Levit. 8. and before himselfe was in the order and calling of high Priest invested Aaron in the office of high Priest viz. That he might the better apply himselfe to the exercise of the civill government surely this point is not denyed neither by Couaruvias himselfe nor by the Author whom I defend whose word is Rimasero the Levites remained subject unto
THE JESUITE THE CHIEFE If not the onely State-Heretique in the World OR The Venetian Quarrell Digested into a DIALOGVE BY THO SWADLIN D. D. Bernard Epist 256. Quale est hoc Principatum tenere Ministerium declinare Printed in the Yeere 1647. TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFVLL My very munificent Friend Sir GEORGE GRYMES Noble Sir IN the following Papers which are but a Translation of Eight Propositions as they were canvased by two learned Romane Catholiques you will meet with some Primitive Learning under the name of Orthodox and that will delight you you will meet with some Moderne Learning under the name of Hetrodox and that will not displease you In both you will find the businesse of Secular and Ecclesiastique Power at full discussed which will be no great burthen for you to reade and a great happinesse to my selfe that the world may therein see J am neither Popishly affected nor ingratefully infected since these lines walke under your Protection no friend to Popery a great friend to Piety and are Dedicated to you as a Tythe of that Gratitude which is necessarily due from Sir Your most humble Servant T. S. London Nov. 19. 1646. THE FIRST DAYES CONFERENCE UPON The first PROPOSITION HETRODOX IS the wind in that doore Orthodox Are you become so deplorately blinded and yet honoured with the reputation of a wel-founded Roman Catholique Is it possible that any Roman Catholique can swallow the sweet Pill but most deadly poyson of hereticall Pravity to assevere so distinctly as you have now done and to believe withall so confidently as you now pretend the power of secular Princes or of our Holy Father himselfe as a temporall Prince doth clayme a kind of Birth-right by lawfull derivation Immediately as it were from the Almighties throne and without exception Orthodox The wind blowes where it lists Hetrodox But whether I be now transformed into a Baertimeus or turned blind as a Beetle in this Theologicall Argument whether I have taken down a drachme or so much as only a drop of hereticall poyson in this dogmaticall assertion I neither intend to shew my selfe so selfe-conceited neither purpose to looke so big upon the tip-toe of my own private spirit as to deprive your critick faculty of any faire and free liberty to censure the verdict of my Position at parting when the Sun sets Hetrodox Fall then roundly and closely to the main of the first Proposition I barre all manner of byes Orthodox Your will be done Hetrodox Then first I take this for granted that all Dominion and Servitude that all Power in the Prince to command and all obligation of Subjects to performe with promptitude all due and requisite obedience unto the just and lawfull behests of their lawfull Princes by the law of nations is grounded and built upon one of these foure Bases Election Inheritance Donation or Law of Armes I mean Sword-Law and right by valiant Conquest So that all Princes advanced to the glorious Throne of sacred Supreamacy or supreame Principallity by any one or more of these foure Bases of State are condignly to be enrolled and registred in the most noble Canon or Calender of lawfull Princes And all such Princes I religiously professe in my conscience are crowned with Authority and Power immediately from God to command to enact Statute Lawes to exact due Tributes to heare and determine causes to inflict capitall and other corporall punishments to impose Pecuniary Mulcts of penall Statutes upon all their naturall Subjects without exception Hetrodox By these last words without exception whether mean you exception of Subjects or exception of Power or exception of Cause If the first surely your Proposition is erroneous For what Power can secular Princes carry over Clerics exempted as you know right well from temporall power at least by mans law as it is held by all Catholique Authors yea by Gods Law also as before our parting I hope so materially and substantially to verify that you shall be enforced to confesse your error to cry Peccavi and glad withall to deliver me your weapons in this Field If you mean exception of Power your Proposition is Hereticall For no Power of any Christian Prince or Monarch can be free frome subjection in some sort unto the power of Christs Vicar thr universall Pastor and Head of all Christians whether Princes o-private persons If you mean exception of Cause your Propositir on doth smell very strong of like pestilent contagious heresie Fot it is the doctrine of sacred Scripture and holy Councels That spirituall causes are not summonable nor bound or tyed to ther Courts of Layics not compatible of tryals in the Kings-Bench or Court of Common-Pleas but in Consistorian Courts and before Ecclesiasticall Tribunals alone in which point all the Doctors as well Divines as Canonists with unanimous consent do jump and accord Orthodox Not so Hetrodox saving your deep and as well may be avouched your infinite reading D. Medina for one dissents and holds hard for the contrary yet a Doctor Marshaled in the ranke of solid Catholique and Classicall Authors He delivers for positive doctrine that exception or exemption of Ecclesiastics in temporall crimes and causes is not commanded or prescribed of Almighty God in the whole volumne of the Bible Medin de Restitut q. 15. His expresse and formall words be these Videtur oppositum esse verum c. The contrary assertion seemes to go forth and bravely to march with flying Colours of truth for the purpose That after abolishing of the old Law there is not found any one obligatory precept in Gods word for the exempting of Clericks or Ecclesiasticks from the power of the secular arme and sword I rather choose to affirm maintain that in former ages Clericks have obtained and for the times present with great happines do enjoy their exemption by the munificent Grants by the gratious Charters by the indulgent priviledges of their noble Princes again Denique hac ratione unica c. To conclude this one argument hits the Nayl on the head drives it home and hits the Bird like a Bolt in the right Eye wee can professe and justify no point of doctrine to be grounded upon Gods Law or word except it can be warranted by some authenticall testimony of the same divine law or word Exempting of Clericks hath no cleer warrant passable or triuable in the law of God ergo Couar lib. pract q. C. 1â— conclu 2. c. Couaruvias also stands as firme like a Colosse for the same assertion In rebus temporalibus et in criminalibus quae spiritualia non attingunt c. In temporall matters and in criminall causes having no correspondency with spirituall cases the persons of Clericks and their possessions or estates are not by Gods word exempted from the jurisdiction of their secular Princes Hetrodox You know Couaruvias is challenged by Cardinall Bellarmine of partiality for the jurisdiction of the most Catholique King Orthodox And you know Cardinall Bellarmine
himselfe that can derogate or diminish retard or impaire the least portion of Papall power The reason because Papall power proceeding immediately from God is totally and universally free from Subjection to the will of creatures In secular Principalities experience teacheth us many times the contrary events the point of their power is now and then rebated by rebellious insurrections of their own Subjects or by cunning practices and hostile acts of some more potent Princes yea sometimes Monarchicall Principalityes are changed into free States and on the contrary free States into Monarchies because their power hath no immediate derivation from God but mediate from the consent and assent of men To be short If Secular Princes be not gifted with Power and Authority from God Immediately over the persons of pure Laics how much lesse are they armed with power over Ecclesiastick Estate exempted from the said power by the Law of God and Man whereof I hope to make before our parting evident demonstration Your Proposition therefore might have been better couched and put downe in these termes Secular Princes are not girded with any Sword of power immediately from God over their Laic Subjects but onely by meanes of some lawfull Title from their people and against Clerics or Ecclesiastics within their Dominions they have not so much as a short dagger or a small bodkin of Power and Authority to draw forth neither from God nor Man Orthod With great authority and confidence Hetrod you have taken the paines to utter and say just nothing The word Immediately against which you take so great a stitch is used by Navarrus a most grounded and Catholic Doctor In the Definition of Secular Power comparing the same with Ecclesiastic as you have now done he is positive in these words Cap. Novit de Iudi. Notab 3. Potestas Laica praedicta c. The said Secular power comes immediately from God for this reason because men are furnished with Naturall Reason engrafted by God himselfe and this Natural Reason concludes Power to be due and requisite over man propter bonum regimen eorum as tending and availing to their better more formall and more orderly Government Navarrus for this opinion or verdict rather citeth and produceth Durandus Iohan. Parisiens Almanius Gerson with some other Catholic Authors and then drawes the whole to this faire head As the Precept against Murther is by the Law of Nature Immediately from God so the Authority of Secular Princes against all Delinquents to inflict upon them capitall penalties according to the merit of their cause for the tranquillity and better Politie of the State or Common-wealth is immediately from God alone True it is that some before others are mounted to the Chaire of Soveraigne State as it were upon the backs and shoulders of men I meane by humane meanes as either by Inheritance by Election by Donation or by the Law and Right of Armes as I have laid it downe for an over-ruled Case and Principle in common-Common-Law And now I avow punctually for the purpose The very same principle can be no crosse or over-thwart-barre to the abatement of any honour in the armes of a secular Prince his power or to hinder his power from being the immediate gift of God neither can it be any forcible instrument or Engine to make the said power the immediate act or worke of man Rom. 13. First not of men as you pretend because all power is of God as Sâ— Paul affirmes in expresse words But authority of Princes is a power item no mortall creature I speak not now of supream Princes hath power to bind the conscience of any other unto the precise keeping of his commands whereas the supream secular Prince is invested with power to bind the consciences of all his own Subjects to the due obedience of his Decrees Lawes Acts or Statutes The secular Prince therefore is not armed with authority by mortall men but by the immortall and eternall God himselfe St. Paul frames the same argument and reason Whosoever resists the Power resists the Apostle sayth not mans Ordinance the Ordinance of God Rom. 13. and they that resist shall receive to themselves judgement Now then to take you up at your own weapon As Papall power is immediately from God saith Hetrodox howsoever the Popes election is acted by the suffrages and votes of Cardinals who are but men so howsoever the meanes or manner whereby the Prince is assumed or exalted to his throne be humane or of men his power also if the Popes be so or any such at all must needs be of God An example in Philosophy will make this point cleare The reasonable soule is not infused or inspired of God into mans body before the same body be fitted and accommodated with all the organs or instruments and with all naturall dispositions of nec ssity required to make the body a fit receptacle for the soule Now all these abilities and meanes are termed by Philosophers Conditio sine quâ non the condition without which the body at no hand can be framed or built for a convenient House Tent or Tabernacle for the immortall soule This notwithstanding shall any mans boldnesse abuse his reason so farre as to make him affirme the reasonable soule is not created and infuâ—ed in mans Body immediately of God but mediantibus dispositionibus by meanes of the corporall dispositions first fitted and prepared in the body Farre be it from any Christian tongue to utter so great blasphemy In like manner howsoever the meanes by which a Prince is mounted to his throne are but humane or of men and that is the condition without which the Prince is not installed in his throne yet his power to rule and govern the Stern of State is immediately of God But I must here take you Hetrodox at your word as one convicted by the power of truth it selfe and acknowledge so that Habemus confitentem reum the word immediately may be taken as you contend in two severall senses and this for the first Princes have immediate power from God to command their subjects that is to say the precept or law that bindes to the obedience of Princes our lawful Superiors and Lords is immediately from God and this I grant is true now albeit you here seek to confound the word Power and the word Command yet according to your own sence and acceptation of the words they both do signifie the same thing to all intents and purposes And in very deed the word Power would be better expressed by the word authority or jurisdiction For so the originall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which directly signifies authority to command would be translated and turned for the avoyding of equivocation Briefly The doctrine by me propounded in these two words immediately and without exception is not only Catholique and sound but likewise justified by verdict of your own mouth And howsoever you pretend to what purpose I cannot see to marke this doctrine with a
and Regiments but rather to ground and establish them upon a more perfect and rectified forme these words do plainly testifie that he speaks of secular Princes in particular unto whom all Subjects owe their obedience according to the politick lawes of the State Lastly Chrysostoms conclusion so stops up all passages that you are not able to take your heeles and make any faire escape Ostendem quod ista imperentur omnibus c. S. Paul doth teach that all sorts or degrees of Subjects not only seculars but also Priests and Monks are lyable to this Apostolicall charge yea so much is punctually set by the Apostle at his first entrance into the matter when he saith Let every soule be subject Supereminentibus potestatibus unto the higher powers And who those higher powers be over and besides all that hath been delivered by him before the same Father declares in tearming them sometimes Princes and sometimes Magistrates At last he doubles his files re-inforces the argument and payes it home with etiamsi Apostolus c. Be thou Apostle Evangelist Prophet or what may be else for such condition degree or state of subjection is no engine to worke the subversion of piety or christian religion Thus Chrysostome to stop the mouth of all such as conceived in mind or gave out in speech that obedience to secular powers Princes was out of the square the rule the levell of christian professors where the holy Father doth not affirm that Princes are in any state of subjection to the Apostles In temporalibus and yet makes no bones of the matter he is nothing squeamish to determine that the Apostles who were all in one and the same height and altitude of power were in state of subjection to secular Princes And let me Hetrodox tell you more to prove that subjection to lawfull Princes is exceeding profitable unto all sorts of Subjects the same Father after his usuall manner and method of teaching makes demonstration to this purpose that generally subjection of inferiors to their superiors is never without speciall benefit and singular fruit As for instance and by name The subjection of the wife to her husband of the sonne to the Father of the scholer to the instructer of the younger People to their elders of which remarkeable profit and benefit not only the Foules of the ayre which fly after one guide as he comes in his vicissitude and turne to make the flight but also the Fishes in their streames are partakers after their severall kinds And it is not unworthy of observation that whereas the holy Father in the said enumeration might have taken into his tale the Subjects unto ecclesiastical Prelates yet he advised himselfe to leave them out of his list perhaps thereunto induced upon the same ground of S. Bernard inspired by the holy Ghost Apostolis interdicitur dominatio indicitur ministratio the Apostles are forbidden to exercise rule and enjoyned to serve Howbeit Chrysostome takes not up the said enumeration to shew that S. Paul there treats of power in generall as you Hetrodox are pleased to give it for indubitable but only to signifie that subjection of inferiours to their superiors being so profitable as appeares by all the former particulars forasmuch as the Prince is the superior and the Subjects are his inferiors the Prince is faithfully to be served and obeyed of his own Subjects in all things You aleadge that Clerics are not bound Vi legis by force of law but only Vi rationis by force of reason to yeeld subjection and obedience unto secular Princes or unto their wholsome lawes But how great untruth lyes in this your distinction which as it seemes you have borrowed of Cardinall Bellarmine let S. Paul be judge in these words Whosoever he be that resists the power he resists the ordinance of God then do well thou shalt have the praise of well doing but if thou do evill feare For he is the Minister of God to take vengeance on him that doth evill Here S. Paul speaks of all Subjects without exception of any one whereas you quit and free from subjection whom you list as if you had a better patent or warrant from Almighty God then the divine Apostle Paul himselfe but for my part I give more credit heare me with patience to S. Paul to the tongues and Pennes of the holy Ghost then to all other Pen-men and Writers in the world Produce but one cleane authority out of the holy Evangeli or out of the canonicall Epistles or out of any other like Bookes and writings for the disobliging of Clerics in temporalls from due obedience to the Lawes of civill Magistrates where the said Clerics have not first obtained some priviledge of exemption from the civill Magistrates as I have in a manner stricken you stone blind with a cleer and punctuall text of S. Paul to the same sence expounded by S. Chrysostome by S. Augustine by S. Thomas and others that is to say Clerics are bound to such obedience as they all affirm and teach dabo manus and I will yeeld up my weapons with open confession that you have driven me not like a right bred Cock of the game but like a ranck bastard or dunghill Bird out of the Pit That Clerics are to be freed and exempted in spirituall and ecclesiasticall causes we Catholics do maintain it stands with reason but in secular and civill causes I see not with what force of reason it can be born out Is it because Clerics have received the Clericall and Priestly character Surely no such matter no more then a man that receives the Sacrament of Baptisme the caracter thereof is thereby freed quitted from the subjection of his Prince a pure Pagan or a man who standing in the state and condition of a slave is freed from subjection and vassallage due to his absolute Lord so that a fortiori all such as are naturally born or otherwise Ratione delicti for some notorious crime or grievous offence committed become as it were accidentally the Subjects of some Forraign Prince are not loosed and set at large from their subjection by any reason or in any regard of their clericall character For this old axiom stands without all controule Si non de quo magis ergo neque de quo minus where the More is not consequent and firme the Lesse is never good and valuable The reason whereof is grounded upon these words of Chrysostome Neque enim pietatem subvertit ista subjectio This degree and state of subjection is no Ramme or other Engine to batter and beate down the Walles or Bulwarks of Religion It stands moreover without check upon the former doctrine of Thomas That Christian liberty is altogether spirituall and against Sin it is not carnall or of the flesh it is no freedome or exemption from secular jurisdiction But be it said though not granted that Cleries owe subjection obedience not by force of Law but by force of
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
other untruth be it heresie or errour howsoever I am directly of this minde it is flat heresie to stand upon termes of contradiction against so cleer a text of the divine Apostle Paul And lastly know this Hetrodox that man is a spider who weaves a spiders web to catch flies and poysons the springs or fountains of wholsome doctrine with venome of his own corrupt and false exposition know you moreover that Orthodox who now like the Bee sucks from the sweet flowers of Saints and chiefe pillars of the Church the most delicious honey of truth will never take pepper in the nose to heare himselfe blamâ—d on this wise sometimes your sweet honie Hetrodox turnes to bitter wormwood yea to deadly poyson to make false and erroneous doctrine burst all her bowels Hetrod Well Sir have you any more gall to spit up any more to say in confirmation of your first Proposition Orthod It is not I that will say the rest but Paul the Apostle who thus proceeds and subjoynes in the sacred text Rom. 13. Whosoever he be that resists the Power the same resists the ordinance of God here is clearly to be seen the authority of secular Princes to make lawes in any matter cause or subject whatsoever lawes obligatory to bind all degrees and sorts of persons Quicunque whosoever he be c. in full conformity to the words of God himselfe speaking thus in his own person By me Kings raign and law-givers or Princes decree justice From hence have sprung as from the prime roote many lawes in the Code made by Iustinian and Theodosius most christian Emperours concerning Ecclesiasticall persons their lands goods c. All which lawes the Apostle commands to be obeyed without resistance for so much as all that resist shall purchase and receive to themselves condemnation they runne and tumble into mortall sinne wherein if they shall finally depart out of the body without repentance in this life they shall be adjudged and condemned to eternall flames of hell Hetrod Where did Paul ever write or witnesse That secular princes have power to make Lawes in all matters and causes Lawes to bind all sorts conditions and qualities of people what shall Princes make Lawes for the manner and forme of saying Masse for binding Laics to say Masse and to make the vow of chastity for binding Priests to marry and instead of a Breviarie and a Portuis to weare a Fauchion a Skaine or a Sword Shall not all these be bound to shew and performe obedience if Princes have authority to make Lawes in all causes and in all matters yea binding Lawes for all persons iâ— when Lawes were enacted by Heathen or unbeleeving Princes that all people Nations Tribes and Kindreds should renounce Christ and offer sacrifice to Idols were they not bound then under the penalty of mortall sinne to obey the said Heathenish Lawes and Ordinances They were doubtlesse to my understanding though all Princes then were Infidels when Paul commanded the said obedience to Princes And yet Orthodox according to your new interpretation from Pauls precept or Apostolicall Canon it is forsooth to be collected That secular Princes have authority from God to make Lawes in all matters and lawes to bind all persons It may seem your wits are gone on wool-gathering that you perceive not how many errours flow from the source of your last speech and passage And yet you stick not here to come in with a strange and uncouth addition That your doctrine hath due and requisite conformity with King Solomons verdict in the Proverbs not discerning that Solomon there nips your new device in the crown or rather strikes it stone dead For he there bringing in the wisdome of God using these words viz. By me Kings raigne and Princes or Law-makers decree justice doth manifestly declare and shew That none but just Lawes doe proceed from the wisdome of God and that other Lawes many times enacted by Princes in matters which nothing at all concerne their dignities and imperiall places or established against persons not subject unto their secular authority or otherwise unjust lawes are but like puddle waters which run from the corrupt fountaine of their owne braine so not flowing from the spring which riseth in Gods bosome neither are the said lawes approved of Gods divine wisdome To the other addition which you make that Iustinian and Theodosius enacted lawes concerning ecclesiastical persons their goods lands Church-government or discipline it hath been already answered that in such their practise they exceeded the termes and limits of their power and whereas you affirme the Apostle commands obedience to their lawes you affirm a most large and no lesse manifest untruth or falshood for the Apostle there speaks in generall that he would have Subjects obedient to their superiors and whereas a litle after the Apostle brings in the example of secular Princes he speaks of Princes who in his time were Infidels and is not so to be taken or understood as if he did advise and teach Christians to obey such Princes I mean in lawes that concern the service and worship of God or the discipline of his Church but in civill and politick lawes alone and in temporall matters which lawes it was necessary then for christians to obey for the preservation of peace and unity as also to the end the Gentiles might not be carryed away with mis-credence or false beliefe and perswasion that Christian lawes or the lawes of Christ are opposite and repugnant unto the rules and reasons of civill or State government Orthod You thought my wits were gone a gadding and now I think your mouth runs over but I will stop the Fistula or the running issue of your mouth with a tent or two My meaning is this That Princes have power to make Lawes in all causes and matters Temporall but onely for the Public and Civill good and benefit provided alwayes their Lawes be just For it is alwayes presupposed That obedience is never due nisi justa praecipienti but when the Prince or State or other Superiors command things just and lawfull So that your late Consequences grow from a certaine misprision or wrong conception of my project purpose position and proofes For when I teach That a Temporall prince hath power to make Lawes in any or in all cases I meane such Lawes and such cases as are just conformable and agreeable to his power as also after the pattern and practice of his predecessors and other just Princes This was ever my meaning As for your exception taken to Justinians Lawes and those of Theodosius it shall suffice thus to answer in a word Their Lawes are sacred and have ever been reputed irreprehensible they were contrived and penned partly upon temporall grounds and subjects partly for the more strict observance of spirituall Canons and Orders partly for public benefit and yet did never any chiefe Bishop or High priest so kick and spurne against either of their Lawes as you Hetrodox have now
done with much disgrace and contempt As to that which you say touching the cause for which Christian subjects were bound to obey Infidel and unbeleeving Princes I will content my selfe to make use of Saint Pauls words for a sufficient and full answer thereunto You must be subject and obedient not onely because of wrath but also for conscience sake Rom. 13. Item Whosoever resists the power he resists the ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves condemnation In so cleere Texts and passages of Scripture what need you or any other fly to the shifts of any new expositions with danger to fall into infidelity or mis-creance and notorious Heresie especially when Chrysostome hath decided the matter before by so strong an argument from the lesse to the greater in this forme If the Apostle enjoyneth obedience to Heathen and miscreant Magistrates how much more ought we to performe and yeeld all due obedience unto beleeving and godly princes Thus Chrysostome Hetrod The Sunne is now declined many degrees and now ready to depart out of our Horizon Are you Orthodox as neere to the period of your first dayes labour and taske as the Sunne is to the full end of his Journall or Diurnall motion Orthod I am indeed as you shall presently perceive Saint Paul commands all men to pay Tribute unto their lawfull Soveraigne because he that dischargeth such duty makes good payment unto God himselfe Give Tribute unto whom you owe Tribute Custome unto whom Custome fâ—r they are the Ministers of God This passage is expounded by the Angelicall Doctor the great Master of Divines and onely Sunne of the Catholic School This great Clark saith you know full well That in case Clerics be free and exempt from payment of Tribute doubtlesse they are endowed with such freedome and exemption not by Gods Law as by divers it is thought and taught but by speciall grace and priviledge of secular princes who beare not Gladium the sword for nought seeing they are Gods Ministers to take vengeance c. See you not here the authority of Secular Princes to punish poena sanguinâ—â— with losse of blood or with corporall death Now the same authority Ecclesiasticall Prelats have not from God and therefore when they have once degraded a Cleric for some capitall crime or scandalous and notorious offence whereby they declare the party criminall to be devested of his Clericall degree and holy orders they take no course nor care at all for any further proceeding to his execution but for punishment by death tradunt brachio saeculari they refer and poast him over to the secular power And to the end it might not be conceived that Pauls words are not uttered by way of precept but onely of counsell Behold to make good his assertion he strengthens the same words with a very substantiall sinew Ideo necessitate c. Wherefore ye must be subject not onely because of wrath but also for conscience sake So then we are bound by Saint Pauls holy doctrine as it were with a forcible chaine of necessity O portet ye must to serve and obey the secular Prince in all such matters and cases as have been discussed and insisted on before Hetrod How now Orthodox play the lazie Poet Faile flag and faint in the last Act of your first dayes Conference Coyne or at least corrupt Scripture at your pleasure and for your purpose where find you this word in S. Paul For they are the Ministers of God Ad tributa to receive tribute or this word For he is the Minister of God Ad vindictam to take vengeance The sense of the latter words I grant is found in the Apostles Text but whensoever men cite the words of Scripture which indeed are Gods owne words it is but a sacrilegious trick to chop and change the right words especially when the genuine sense proclaimes it selfe to every meane capacity For example in the first sentence For they are the Ministers of God to receive tribute Paul doth not say That Princes are Gods Ministers to receive tribute but rather by all meanes to provide for and to procure the tranquility of the whole body So the words are expounded by Chrysostome and other holy Fathers Ministri Dei sunt in hoc ipsum servientes For they are the Ministers of God to the very same purpose that is to provide for and to procure the tranquillity of Gods people Yea the same Thomas also whom you so highly magnifie and upon whose testimony as you think and suppose you build so sure is of the very same judgement or mind For he reckons and ranks Tributes in the nature of Salaries given to Princes for the laborious taske surmounting the twelve labours of Hercules which they daily undertake for the good and happy government of their Subjects And who doth not know that no salarie can be given to God Princes therefore are not Gods Ministers Ad tributa to receive tribute but rather to bring their subjects unto a statâ— of blessednesse under a good and happy government Againe touching Thomas Aquinas whom you quote for another purpose namely to prove That Ecclesiasticks have been freed from payment of tribute by the most gracious charters and speciall priviledges of Princes it is in good sooth the assertion of Thomas and conformable to Historicall Truth But you impose and father upon Thomas more then he sets downe to wit That Ecclesiasticks are not so endowed and priviledged by Gods Law whereas Thomas affirmâ— the cleane contrary For thus he saith Princes by gracious priviledges have exempted Ecclesiastics from tribute because it stands and agrees well with naturall equity He means that Princes in so doing confirme the law of nature which doubtlesse is the Law of God To be short whereas in your last point you deny the power of the Church to punish by death I know not where you have pulled that wild and sowre grape except it be in the Desarts of certaine Hereticks as the Valdâ—nses Hussites Marsilius of Padua or the like who denyed the Church to have any right unto the power of both swords True it is the Church never strikes with any materiall sword nor doth punish criminall malefactors by death But wherefore what is it because the Church wants power in that case No verily but because it seems neither convenient nor suitable to Ecclesiasticall meeknesse in regard whereof the Church is well contented and apayed to leave all such criminall offenders in the hand of secular justice Vterque igitur Ecclesia c. Both swords therefore the spirituâ—ll and the maâ—eriall of right belong to the Church the materiall to be unsheathed in the Churches defence the spirituall to be drawn by the Churches arme the spirituall to be used by the Priest the materiall by the Soldier but yet when the Priest holds up his finger and the Emperour commands or sends out warrant for the purpose This doctrine of S. Bernard was afterward made authenticall by Pope
such as have contrived and penned Constitutions contarry to Gods Word but likewise the whole Church that holds the said Canons for most reverend as holy Rules given by the Holy Ghost howsoever they first came from the heads and hands of Popes or sacred Counsels Orthod If ever that Latine Pâ—â—veâ—b had any truth Tuo te gladio jugulas the man hath cut his owne throat with his owne knife it will surely prove more then true in this occurrence For you Hetrodox will be found murthered with your owne murthering shot I mean refuted if not confounded with your own example which is Cardinall Bellarmine you affirme that in case the French King shall adjudge and commit a man to the Gallies he doth it by his Temporall power and not by vertue of Spirituall power whereof he is cleane void like a Fowle when she is bared of all her Feathers Now I dâ—mand in case the Pope shall serve his Inhibition upon some abâ—olute P ince or State prohibiting them to make wholesome Lawes for the more godly and peaceable government of their Liâ—ge-Pâ—oplâ— By what power shall the Pope send forth such Bâ—ll Sâ—â—â—l not by vertue of any Spirituall power because the Spiriâ—â—â—â—l power hath no manner or measure of extension to Temporall Judgements or Temporall goods Then sure he shall doe iâ— by vertue of his Temporall power But by his Holinesse good leave he is not invested with any such Teâ—porall power and therefore he â—a not by his Bâ—lls and Inhibitions disanull or cause the foresaid wholsome and godly Lawes And as the King sends to the Gallies because he is King not because he is Pope so the Pope as being Pope and no Temporall King of any absolute Prince or States Territories cannot put downe and repeale many Lawes that his Holinessâ— prohibits and while he takes that violent course and is not obeyed therein by any absolute Prince or State the disobeying Prince or State runs into no sin because the Pope hath no mandatory power in such cases your particular Errours in this Article are palpable 1. You interpret my scope and enâ—d in this Proposition at your pleasure and say I speake nothing o the purpose intended True it is â—hat my Principall end is to prove the censures of our holie Faâ—hâ—r the Pope in a certaine hypothâ—sis to be altogether invalid and of none eff ct But for as much as to make some proof thereof it is first necessarie for me to pâ—ove that in such cases the absolute Prince or State commits no sinne seeing the censure thundered against one who doth not sin is of no force or effâ—ct I have therefore drawne this Proposition wherein I make demonstration that where the Pope hath no authority to command there neither Prince nor State nor People are within the termes of obligation to yeeld obedience and that not obeying in that case their conscience is not defiled not wounded with anie sinne 2. You are of opinion that my drift is to prove the said censures to be of no force or validitie Ex defectu Authoritatis Spiritualis by reason of some lamenesse or weakenesse in the Spirituall Authoritie But you are verie far wide of my purpose For my purpose and endeavour is to make this good and unmalleable by any of your greatest hammers That all censures in that kind and nature are in qualitie of meere Nullitie because no absolute Prince or State commit anie sin when they use all good and lawfull meanes possible to hold fast and to defend their own right and lawfull Jurisdiction which makes a defect in the Pope not of Spirituall Authoritie as we Catholiques maintaine but of Temporall The Spirituall Authoritie gives him the power of the Keyes to excommunicate but defect of Temporall Authoritie makes the censure meerlie void and no censure because there is no obligation which inforceth or constraineth obedience to him that hath no Authoritie over the partie because in their not obeying they commit no sinne and because in committing no sin they run not into any kind of censure 3. You cannot denie that in re and upon the matter I hold and maintaine and truth in this thiâ—d Proposition howsoever you twitch or give some jerke at my drift and citation of Authors you therefore cannot justlie charge me with anie corrupt affection of mind herein That man hath a corrupt and perverse heart Prov. 27. who rises by night and in deceit blesses his neighbor with a loud voice but howsoever Maledicenti similis erit he shall be like one that curseth For as Gold is tryed in the Furnace and silver in the fier so is a man tryed in the mouth of him that praiseth For this reason at last it is better to be reproved by a wise man then to be deceived by the flatterie of fooles It is better therefore to utter a truth and to be reproved of men then to practise flatterie Gal. 1. and to be punished of God witnesse the Apostle si adhuc hominibus placerem c. If I should seeke to please men I should not be the servant of Christ 4. You count and call and wonder immodestie and so you found the wonder of Sotus with an Epiphonems of my proper Art For those words that such Doctrine is full of scandall and built on a sandiâ— foundation are neither the words of Sotus not of Bellarmine but my owne words and they are flowers of praise if they be put in the ballance with your words uttered of my Doctrine Howbeit you reprove both me and my doctrine in the Concrete whereas I propund the doctrine in the Abstract and in that sense of the Abstract my doctrine is not denyed but granted For what scandall can be greater then whereas our Saviour hath said of the perfect men If thou wilt be perfect Maâ— 19. go and sell all that thou hast and give it to the poore the Disciple is not above his Master to determine on the contrarie that he I meane our holie Father the Pope who above all other B shops is most bound to the state of perfection and to the imitation of Christs poverty should be Lord of the whole world in Temporall affâ—iâ—es Besides can that Doct ine stand upon any other but a sandy foundation which is contrarie to the verie words and example of poore Christ himselfe 5. You deny that Sotus wonders at our Canonists and yet as you cannot be ignorant he cites Augustinus Triumphus Dist 23. qu. art 1. with Silvester and Panormitanus whom he cals Juris-peritoâ—s great learned Legists or Canonists and terme their opinion of the Popes power directè in Temporalibus commentitious that is a verie fable an invention whereof they are the Patrons as he speaketh and the great Champions In particular he much complaines of Silvester and wonders that he hath swerved from the opinion of his Master St. Thomas being the opinion of the best Diviâ—es The Lord Cardinall Bellarmine himsefe not onely citeth Sotus but in his
Councels as of others and the notable evidence of a goodly vintage will manifestly appeare so as it may be reckoned for a wonder that after so great a vintage there be found some few clusters or bunches of Grapes which make for the honourable Rights and Titles of our most gracious Princes This way if it shall be followed long will prove the high way to crack the credit of all Scripture and to bring the whole Church of God to finall Ruine 16. Againe In the text of the ancient Breviaries you tell us the word Animas was never extant These eyes of mine have seene Manuscript Breviaries of more then 200. yeares antiquity with some Breviaries printed of more then an 100. The word Animas is extant in both and were it not extant yet I say it ought for the removing of all occasions of discord there to have a place 17. Last of all you confound the word of Disobedience with the word of Obstinacie This I hold for a certaine Position the man that disobeyeth a Law cannot incurre the censure of Excommunication This likewise for no lesse indubitable the man obstinate in sinne cannot be excommunicated when he hath not beene admonished of his fault or offence before But I never so much as dreamed to affirme the one or the other of these Positions I have hitherto onely affirmed that for the enwrapping of anie man within the most sore bands of Excommunication two things are of necessity to be presupposed the one that hee hath fallen into some sinne the other that being admonished thereof divers and sundry times hee hath not repented And what else is that but obstinacie in sinne For if any man shall commit some sinne and afterward being thereof admonished shall truly repent he ought not at any hand to be Excommunicated but for his persisting after he hath beene duly admonished he may and must beare the most heavy Censure of Excommunication So that obstinate persisting in sinne is the last cause of Excommunication of which obstinacie it is a manifest signe that being admonished he hath not beene reformed and become a new man So that all Disobedience is not a materiall cause of Excommunication nor yet all obstinacie but onely that obstinacie which presupposes Admonition Of this I speake of the same speake all the Doctors and therefore this Doctrine is neither new nor false But now Hetrodox t o insist over long upon matters most cleare and manifest it is but a manifest folly let us for this time part good friends after so sharpe a fray and prepare for the next encounter to morrow morning Hetrodox It pleaseth me right well The fifth daies Conference upon the fifth Proposition Orthodox YOu are later arrived this morning worthy Hetrodox then at any of our former meetings Hetrodox Not in any weakenesse of Spirit want of courage or disposition of mind to avoid this daies combat but as constrained by extraordinary impediment and unexpected restraint For in good and sober sadnesse my fingers have itched ever since peepe or breake of day to have your fifth Proposition by the eares Orthodox In good time you shall have not onely your Fingers but also your Hands full of skirmishing this day and yet shall not be able to draw one drop of the blood of my fifâ—h Proposition though I know you to be a most expert and skillfull master at the shâ—rpe Hetrodox Well Sir let us leave complementall prefacing and fall roundly to the matter Your fifth Proposition goes upon these same legs if I well remember the termes That aâ—â—â—it some Authors you know not upon what good ground be of opinion that as well the persons as the goods of Ecclesiastics are by Gods Law exempted from the secular Princes power neverthelesse the contrary opinion that such exemption is grounded upon mans Law is the sounder the more agreeable and consonant unto Divine Scripture unto the writings of the holy Fathers and to the file and thred of Histories Orthodox I have no reason to except against your memory you have hit the naile on the head my fift Proposition runs in the very same straines and forme of termes What exception have you to make against it in whole or in part Hetrodox If you did beare the least sparke of reverence to holy Church you surely would never have this used lavish and absolute affirmative that as well the Persons as the goods of Ecclesiastics have obtained Exemption and Immunitie from the Sâ—cular arme only by mans Law Sess ult cap. 30. In the Generall Councell of Trent it is cleerely declared That Immunitie of the Church and of all Ecclesiasticall Persons was instituted by Gods Ordinance and by Ecclesiasticall Decrees What Christian is he that dares give the affront or contest against so high so sacred Authorit e Par. 9. cap. 20. Before the Tridentive the Councell of Câ—lâ—y'â— declared the same in these words Ecclesiasticall Immuniâ—â—e pleads upon termes of great Antiquity and got good footing in the Church Jure divino pariter humano as well by Gods Law as mans Law Sess 9. In the Laterane Councell under Leo X. it is determined that Laics have no power over Ecclesiasticall persons neither by Gods Law nor by mans Law which words are directly and properly contrary to your Assertion that Layick Princes by mans Law have power over Ecclesiasticall persons Must not you Orthodox be some new Goliah who in the height of your tenâ—erity dare set your face and foot against so many Squadrons of the Lords Armie that is against so many Vniversall Councels Cap quamque de Consibus Before the said Counsels Pope Boniface left in good Record as a matter notorious and of none denyed that Church-men and Church-goods are not within the Circle but free and exempt from the reach yea from all touch of Secular Power and that even by Gods own divine Ordinance Before Boniface John VIII hath testified That Priests and other Cleries might neither be admitted into Orders Gratia Dist 96. Caâ— si Imperator nor judged by anie Secular Power but only by Popes according as Almighty God himselfe had appointed and ordained And the verie same that John left written of the persons Pope Simmachus long before together with all the III. Councell held at Rome in his presence hath witnessed of their goods That which I tell you Orthodox hath not anie stitch of Inconformitie with sacred Scripture The Patriarch Joseph exercising the Office of Vicar Generall to King Pharoh Gen. 47. exempted the Priests and freed them from the burthens which the rest of the people were enjoyned and enforced to beare 1 Esâ—r 7. Artaxerxes King of Persia exempted likewise all the Priests of the Hebrewes because the light of Nature which immediately shineth and cometh from God plainelie declares it is a thing most convenient Pope Alexander III. upon this ground uttered this worthy Sentence in the Later an Councell Cap Non minu s de Immun Eccl. It
can be no seemlie thing to make the Church of God lesse free in the Reigne and Government of Christian Princes then shee was in Pharohs time Let us now see and examine the reasons which you bring for proofe of your first Proposition For you pretend and alledge That Exemption of Ecclesiasticall Persons and their Possessions is onelie established and granted by mans Law and that your opinion in that point is more conformable to sacred Scripture to the holy Doctors and to the Histories of the Church then the contrarie opinion Orthodox You demand the reasons of my Doctrine in verie good time Hâ—trodox For in truth we are now come to the golden Key that opens the Closet and Cabinet of my Catholique Doctrine Howbeit Sir before I shall alleadge proofes of his Doctrine First it will be needfull to declare by certaine Propositions in what points your opinion dâ—ffâ—â—s from theirs who are commonly cited under the name of Heretiques which to be plaine iâ— likewise my opinion 1. There is a great difference betweene these two termes not Subject and exempt For the man is not subject unto any Prince Propositions foreâ—aid for grounds of the defence following over whom the power of the said Prince doth not extend and stretch Take this for Example An English man usually and commonly dwelling in England is not subject unto the French King For the French Kings power extends not over the English who have their common habitation in the Realme of England But in case an English-man dwelling in England shall not obey the King of England and his Lawes and shall not be conformable to the Statutes of England it must not be said that he is a Refractory because he is not subject unto the King of England but because he is exempted either by Almighty God the Lord of all or else by the King of Englands most Royall and gracious Priviledge So that whereas I affirme that Ecclesiastick Exemption and Immunitie is not in force de Jure divino by Gods Law my meaning is not in Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall causes cases or delicts For in cases of that nature and kind we cannot say that Clerics are excempt from the power of their lawfull and naturall Priâ—ce but we onely pronounce they are not subject unto the said Prince Then it remains that my meaning is in such Goods in such Causes in such Delicts as properly fall within the termes of Princely power not only to take due cognisance thereof but also to set and appoint due order in the same and what can such things but meerely Temporall and Politicall matters This hath begot and bred the Errour in some writers and your Error Hetrodox in particular In that whereas I contend that Clerics are not exempt from the power of their Naturall Prince by Gods Law you in all hast inferre thereupon Ergo Princes have power to make Lawes for saying Masse and for the marriage of Priests Certes Hetrodox this consequence hath no weight like a scive that holds no water they are not exempt from Temporall Power Ergo in Spirituall Delicts and causes they are subject Such equivocating Arguments of double sense and construction which are and ever have beene the precipitating of many simple spirits into erroneous conceipts ought by all meanes in so grave and weighty a subject both carefully and curiouslie to be avoided When I therefore speake of Exception Exemption and Immunitie from Secular power I must of necessity be conceived and taken to meane in such Causes in such Goods and in such Delicts wherein without all priviledge both Divine and Humane of God or man a man should of necessitie be subject unto the Secular Prince 2. There be foure opinions laid to the charge of Heretiques and rejected in this Argument as condemned and cursed with Bell Booke and Candle The Fathers of the first opinion are Marsilius of Padua and Jandunus These are charged and challenged by some to teach that Christ paid Tribute Necessitate coactus as one enforced by necessitie The next is Calvins opinion He dreames that Clerics are subject unto the Temporall Prince Ex debito in all Causes except onely such as are meerely Ecclesiasticall The third opinion calls Peter Martyr father He makes no bones to pâ—ofesse that it rests not in the hands it lyes not in the power of Princes to grant any such Priviledge of Exemption unto Clerics and in case they shall grant any such Priviledge they shall run into the snares of sinne because every such Grant is repugnant and contrary to Gods Law The fourth is the opinion of Brentius and Philip Melancthon they contend that Clerics are subject unto the Secular Prince even in causes meerly Ecclesiasticall All this verbatim is taken out of Card. Bellarmine Lib. 1. cap. 28. de Clericis It was therefore either out of affected Ignorance or else out of Supine Malignitie that one hath charged my Doctrine to be sprinkled or dipt in Brentianated Calviniated and Marsilianated holy water For I neither affirme with Marsilius of Padua if neverthelesse Marsilius was culpable of any such condemned opinion that our Lord Christ paid tribute as enforced by necessity but onely to shun the rocke of giving scandall Neither doe I teach with Calvin that in all Causes and Criminall Delicts Clerics are subject and ought so to be but in such onely wherein they have not beene exempted which Exemption stands not in force by Gods Law but by Princes Priviledge Neither doe I contend with Peter Martyr that Princes can grant no such Exemption but rather the contrarie that such Exemption may be granted Neither doe I lastly maintaine with Brentius that Clerics are subject in Spirituall Causes For I distinguish the two Powers the Temporall and the Spirituall And when I speake of Subjection or Exemption of Clerics I speake onely in Temporall matters over which the said power extends and stretches out her mighty arme and not in meere Ecclesiasticall matters and Spirituall save onely by Accident 3. My opinion is this that Clerics are not exempted from the power of Secular Princes by Gods Law but onely by Princely Priviledge either expressed or at least in tacite grant I mean after Canons lawfully published received as also after many laudable and approved Customes for such purpose Now that my Doctrine herein is Catholique it is confest by Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe in the place last cited For in his last Edition he holds that Exemption is by Gods Law forgetting by like what he had taught like a Doctor out of his Chaire in his other Bookes to the contrary of the same subject As where he writes of Medina and Conarruuias two Catholique Authors and both of them resolute in my true opinion for this point For he takes them downe in a round Censure terming them bold and hardy speakers in these words Sed operae pretium erit C de Restit q 15. ad eas objectiones breviter respondere quas Didacus Conarruuias Joannes Medina
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
you shall affirme it is no new Doctrine you shall be sure to find none other Authors Fautors and followers of this Doctrine but Heretiques and in particular Martyr a Lutheran upon the 13. chapter of St. Pauls Epistle to the Romanes Orthodox I have made no long Repetition but onely a short remembrance of some former speeches what need such a hot reprehension for putting you only in mind what I have said before Now then Sir your Errors 1. In defence of your opinion de Iure divino you find no place of Scripture to warrant your assertion whereupon you fall into this new and strange Doctrine that Exemption holds by the Law of Nations and that Law of Nations is Law Divine or the Law of God No marvaile for I suppose you have spoken this to please your selfe and flatter others against one who of late hath written according to the Doctrine of the best Authors In such a mind how could you doe lesse then fall into such a Noveltie 2. You affirme the Doctrine of repealing and revoking Priviledges in case of necessity is not approved by the foresaid Authors By your leave Hetrodox it is not onelie by them approved but likewise by all that handle the matter of Priviledges and yet are not so to be ranked and reckoned with Machiavelists which Sect is more dispersed and scattered in other Cities and States I will not say in Rome then it is in Venice where the Lords aime at none other marke but publike Tranquilities Religion Justice and in case of necessitie to represse force by force and strong hand All which things and actions are permitted by God himselfe by Catholique Authors and by the Law of Nature which in case all the writers in the world should bind their pens to the Peace and condemne them to perpetuall silence would 〈◊〉 unto us a Law Rom. 2.14 3. Yâ—â—â—eject and reprove the Division into the Law of Nature Canonicall Priviledge of Princes and Custome whereas all Authors make the same Division to the very same purpose and in very truth it is very necessary 4. Whereas the Text of St. Paul is manifest All power is of God Rom. 13. â—â— Sap. 6.1.2.3 and that other oâ— Solomon Here therefore O ye Kings c. for the râ—le is gâ—ven you of God and power by the most High All this notwithstanding you doe not blush to affi me â—ha◠〈◊〉 have proved the poweâ— of Princes over their Laick Subjâ—cts is not by Gods Law but by Mans Law and much lesse their power over Clerics It is not possible to speake of Exemption in such broad termes and not speak against Scripture inspired by the Holie Ghost 5. You say the Power of Princes may be taken away and diminâ—shed by the Canons I take this to be false de Jure and never taught by any judicious Divine The Pope will some Divine say may admonish and exhort a Prince to admit and receive his Canons of immunitie but I never yet read in any Divine that Popes have Power to force Princes when the Canons treate of matters neither Spirituall nor just yea St. Bernard reproves Pope Eugenius with a Quid alienos fines invaditis si volâ—s utrumque perdes utrumque Why will you thrust your sickle into another mans harvest If you will flourish with both Swords you shall beare neither of both 6. True it is that Popes have power to make Canons concerning Exemption and other matters Howbeit no Canons can challenge or carry any force where they are not lawfully published and recâ—ived For all Canons are Lawes of men according to all the Doctors which to bring in and impose obligation do necessarily require the two-fold condition of lawfull publication and generall acception Therfore the sacred Councell of Trent binds not in some Provinces because it was neither lawfully published nor admitted and received in the said Provinces as other Canons in some other Provinces Hereof none of the Dâ—ctors to my knowledge at least hath ever doubted Sotus Nâ—varrus and Conarruuias require beside the Canon the consent of all that are interessed The reason Because when the Pâ—pâ— not being otherwise Dominis totius orbis in Temporalibus Jurâ— Divino Lord of the whole World in Temporals by Gods Law makes anie Canons prejudiciall to Lâ—ick Jurisdiction it is nâ—câ—ssary to make them stand in any force and verâ—uâ— for the said Canons to be protested by thâ— content of him that is Lord of the said Jurisdiction otherwise there would be found in the said Canons a meere Nullitie This Doctrine is held for most certaine by Conarruuias by Sotus by Navarrus by Medina Navar. cap. Novit and all those who treate of this matter upon the safest and firmest foundations 7. You contend that Princes cannot diminish the Authority of Canons received True so teacheth Sotus and Conarruuias but here is to be understood this word Ordinarilie and because they have given their consent for the admitting and receiâ—â—â—g the said Canons it is not fitting for every light cause and â—rifling occurrent to deprive them of Priviledge Howbeit none denies that in case of necessity the Priviledge may suffer derogation and admit diminution yea Popes themselves daily use to derogate from their owne Priviledges 8. Lastly you come on with a false and crooked inference and be sprinkle me with villainous waters or at least mine Author and me in him In which veine of reproachfull termes I forbeare to follow your Example and will onely conclude that my Authors Doctrine is true in the Superlative Catholique grounded on holy Scripture and Fathers of the Primitive Church whereas your Doctrine Hetrodox and your Masters Cardinall Bellarmine merits those Epithets which the Judicious no doubt will marke and brand it withall if ever this my Defence may be so happy to come in their sight Hetrodox By this full conclusion it seemes Orthodox that you have done with all your Propositions in Thesis Orthodox You guesse right Hetrodox But have you any humour to heare the Doctrine of the rest in Hypothesis at large confirmed Hetrodox I have in earnest for so hideous is their aspect at first sight that I am almost astonished therewith and am wrapt with a kind of wonder to thinke what can be well spoken in their Defence Orthodox I purpose to dispatch them all three to morrow in one day Be stirring early for wee will make no more daies and spend no longer time in Conference The sixt daies Conference upon the sixt Proposition Orthodox I Am glad to see you Hetrodox thus risen with the Larke We have three large and long courses to run in this one day And therefore I will presently set forth E. carcoribus Hetrodox Be it so and I will run close so long as my breath shall hold without breaking my winde Prop. 6. Orthodox Then heare the sixt Proposition The Venetian Prince is the lawfull and naturall Signor of the Venetian Sâ—â—e He never knew any Superior in Temporals but God himselfe He makes
Lawes touching the Goods and Possessions of Ecclesiastics within his Dominions Hee punisheth Ecclesiasâ—â—â—ll persons in grievous and atrocious cases He disposeth of 〈◊〉 before they are past over by meane conveyance unto Ecclesiasticall persons And this he doth by that Authoritie which â—â—â—â—mediately receiveth from God and whereof he hath never been deprived either from Priviledge granted or by Canon received Hee hath continued in possession of this Authority by custâ—â—e continued I say not for many yeares but for many Ages or hundreds of yeares And in doing all these things hee doth nothing amisse he runneth no course of sinne The reason Hee that doth nothing against any Law doubtlesse doth no sin much lesse he that keepes the Law And more He that holds and maintaines his owne Dominions sinneth me neither should he be forced to follow their opinion who â—oâ—d Exemption to be derived from Gods Law For every Christian is free and at his owne choice to follow that opinion which likes him best alwaies provided that his opinion be Catholique yea to follow one Doctors opinion grounded upon sound reasons though it be against a full tyde and current streame of Doctors 〈◊〉 pralud is no sinne which point is right well proved by Navarrus It can therefore be no sinne to follow the Doctrine of St. Paul and of so many famous Doctors of great markes alledged in the first and fifth Proposition And to speake truth I cannot excuse those who hold the opinion that Ecclesiasticall Exemption is authorised by Almighty God For to my understanding they seeme sometimes to speake as not well founded sometimes as ill advised sometimes as men running a race of too great hazzard and sometimes as too much the servants or slaves of Adulation Hetrodox Now at last you discover to the full your intention hitherto cunningly concealed But because you have no grace or gift in speaking without jumbling and mingling all kinds of Errours together you so point out in your discourse the Prince of Venice as if he were some absolute Monarch For you make him the naturall Signor and Lord of the Venetian State Now Sir if that be so then the Republike of Venice â—â—th lost her libertie and cannot in Right be called a Republic â—â—â—â—use it hath a Lord and a naturall Signor or Lord A Lord â—â—one that can dispose of his owne at his owne pleasure Hee can give sell lay to gage or pawne and make it over when how and to whom he lift or thinkes good And a naturall Signor or â—â—rd is one that hath Dominion by Herison by Succession of bloud by Birth-right not by Election or Donation But whether it be convenient for the Duke of Venice to be the Naturall Signor of the Venetian State I referre my selfe upon the matter to the judgement of everie man or of anie one that knowes the state and affaires of that noble and illustrious Republic You say moreover the Prince of Venice knowes no Superior in Temporals but God alone Doe not you hereby make him a Lord no lesse absolute then Supream and Soveraigne Kings to whom the Common-wealth hath past over all her power But if the Republic be a true Republic and free indeed as it pretends doubtlesse it hath not past over and transferred all her power to the Prince but hath onely communicated and conferred upon him such part of her power as to herselfe seemeth good Shee can augment or make little enough or take it away altogether She can make the Prince shorter by the head whensoever hee shall attempt to practise or make himselfe the Head Lord and Patron of the Republic which was her practise of Justice and Power upon the person of Marinus Fallerius And so by consequence the Duke ought to know for his Superior not God alone but likewise his Republic or the Grand Counsell But passe we from these Errours For if they doe not pinch the Venetians they need the lesse to pinch strangers Let us then come to the point and knot of the controversie Both your Author and your selfe Orthodox affirme the Duke of Venice hath not sinned in making Lawes prejudiciall to the Church and in committing Ecclesiastics to prison for which Acts he hath been reproved by the Pope and after that in defect of his obedience hath beene censured with Excommunication That he hath not sinned you prove by three reasons First because the Duke hath power immediatly from God over the Persons and Goods of Ecclesiastics Secondly because the Pope was never despoiled of the said power neither by Priviledges granted nor by Canons received and admitted Thirdly because the Duke hath still held possession and yet holds the same to this day time out of mind Your first reason is false by your owne affirmation in your last Speech and by evident experience For you affirme in your last passage that the Duke of Veniâ—e hath power to punish Ecclesiastics in grievous and atrocious Delicts or crimes your owne affirmation therein is a manifest signâ— that his power is not immediately from God derived but from some other by whom the said power was granted with some limitation For if the Duke had power over Ecclesiastics immediately from Gods Law then he should have it in all cases both grievous and light both atrocious and not atrocious Likewise you affirme the Duke hath power to dispose of all Goods not yet made over and transferred to Ecclesiastics What can you meane by this Limitation but onely that hee hath not absolute power over Ecclesiastic Goods and so hath it not immediately from God For were it so he might not be limited by anie other as the Popes power is not limitable because his power is immediatelie from God Besides I demand whether the Republic hath power to diminish and encrease the Dukes Authoritie and whether it can depose him from his Magistracie when he beares not himselfe therein according to the Venetian Lawes Out of all question the Republic hath power so to doe The Duke then hath not his power immediatelie from God but from his Republic and so the Dukes power is an Humane power limited and subject unto a higher Power which is also Humane Your second reason stands in like degree of untruth For if 〈◊〉 Duke or Prince hath not despoiled himselfe of his power by â—noâ—ledges of his owne grant unto Ecclesiasticall persons that â—â—y hold true because he never can be despoiled who never was â—â—â—sted Now the Prince of Venice was never invested with â—â—e such power For the Venetian Republic tooke his beginning when Ecclesiasticall persons were before exempted from 〈◊〉 power It may be further alledged that when a Laic changes his coat and turnes Ecclesiastic then the Prince is despoyled of the power that he had before over the same person But how 〈◊〉 spoiled Forsooth by Divine priviledge granted to Ecclesiâ—â—â—â— and also by many Canons received thorow all Christenâ—â—â—â— in such manner and forme that no Prince nor all Princes together can derogate from the
same So Sotus and so Conarâ—â—â—â—â— as before But suppose Si quis suadente q. 4. we were destitute of all other â—â—â—â—es and Authorities That most famous Canon which excommunicates all such as lay violent hands upon Clerics or 〈◊〉 may be sufficient the Absolution in which case is reserâ—â—d to the Apostolic See without exception of any Princes or 〈◊〉 Lords This Canon was never yet revoked to this day 〈◊〉 when Martin V. in the Councell of Constance was inclined 〈◊〉 pâ—derate the sharpe censures of Excommunications and to 〈◊〉 order that it might be lawfull to have conversation with Excommunicate persons neverthelesse he excepted all such as 〈◊〉 declared Excommunicate by processe of Quorum nomina withall those who notoriously doe lay violent hands upon Ecclesiastics For without all further declaration it was his will and pleasure that conversing with all such persons should be avoided and that his foresaid moderation should not at any hand extend to the benefit of such as by violence had laid up any Ecclesiastic Your third reason drawne from possession time out of mind is refuted by the words of the Venetian Lords themselves For they in Anno 1605. renewed a Law enacted in Anno 1536. That Goods Immoveable might not be given to the Church for none other cause and reason but onely because it had never been observed to that present yeare as by themselves it is confessed Besides against Justice no possession or Custome 〈◊〉 stand in force It is therefore a notorious falsitie to say the Duke of Venice hath not sinned in making the â—â—id Lawes and in 〈◊〉 up Ecclesiasticall persons But whâ—â—soever sees or heares thâ—â— day the most grievous and horrible acts of Excesse done by the Venetian Duke in committing Priests and those of Religious Orders to prison in compelling and forcing Ecclesiastics contrarie to their conscience to violate and breake the Apostolicall Interdict in filling Monasteries with Souldiers and last of all in raising of public persecution against Churches and Religions as in foâ—â—â—er ages Valens an Arrian Emperour and after his â—â—â—s Hiâ—uricus King of the Vandals an other Arrian hath done â—ow can that man professe the Duke doth not sin if he be not â—â—â—ether blinded with passion and given up as the Apostle 〈◊〉 unto a reprobate mind I passe over your words which 〈◊〉 that he sinnes not who doth nothing against the Law 〈◊〉 that keepes the Law nor he that followes the Doctrine of St. Paul These points are too well knowne and fitter for â—â—â—low and light-witted children then for solid and 〈◊〉 vines But your last Censure that such as 〈◊〉 in Ecclesiasticall Exemption to be fixed upon the Pole of Gods Law and 〈◊〉 seeme to you not well founded or ill advised or over 〈◊〉 or grosse flatterers is not a censure given against men 〈◊〉 Blasphemie pronounced against the Holie Spirit For the 〈◊〉 which we maintaine is the expresse sentence of the Laâ—â—â—â— and Tridentine Councels both generall So that if we acknowledge according to the truth that the sacred Councels most of all the Generall Councels are assembled in the name of the Holy Ghost and if we be able to say with that first Councell hâ—ld at Jerusalem Visum est Spiritui Sanctâ— nobis it hath seemed good into the Holie Ghost and unto us then it followes that you make thâ— holy Ghost sometimes not well founded sometimes ill advised sometimes too venturous and sometimes too full of flatterie Orthodox These two positions have beene sufficiently made good before the one that the power of Temporall Princes comes immediately from God howsoever the mâ—â—ne of attaining unto the said power is by the meanes of men and that Almighty God hath not exempted any one Subject from the just Lawes and commandements of the said power the other that the Popes power albeit Spirituall cannot curbe or barre Temporall power from the exercise of their just Dominion over their owne Subjects From these Principles proved point by point in my last passage there is drawne this necessary consequence That when the Pope by his Spirituall power inhibits the Prince of Venice to exercise his Temporall power over his owne Subjects then the Prince of Venice is not bound to obey the Pope therein and that in case of such disobedience the Prince committeth no sin or offence This Hetrodox I trust is no fetching about by the bowe full bent but going to the matter in a strait 〈◊〉 by the string of the bowe Now for so much as you charge 〈◊〉 mine Author to be men who cannot speak without interâ—â—â—ing all kinds of erroneous materials it is necessarie for me to 〈◊〉 off this aspersion of Calumnie reproach and to let you see 〈◊〉 a Christall Glasse the Errours couching in your own oppoâ—â—â—ns Errours without all doubt so much further from excuse as they are so audacious and shamelesse to reprove other mens 〈◊〉 and sound Doctrine for Errour 1. The most illustrious Republic is the naturall Prince of his own 〈◊〉 in all my Authors Propositions he never speaks word of the Duke He names the Duke not so much as once but still speakes of the Signorie or of the Republic or of the Prince Whereupon you Hetrodox do nothing but confound the word Prince and the word Duke and with the word you also confound the power of the persons So that by the Prince of Venice you understand the Duke who is onely Head of the Republic and shee onely the Prince So manifest is this your first Errour that all â—â—n take fight and knowledge thereof This one Errour marres your Market for it â—â—ps the force and authority of all your other oppositions concerning this matter in your head 2. You seeme to have so base a conceit of me and my Author that you presuppose we cannot distinguish the Prince when hee signifies the Republic and when the Duke who is but a particular person though the first and chiefest in the Republic or else that all those by whom the Authors worke was revised were so close muffled as they could not descry so manifest an Error you seeme so desirous to find Thornes amongst flowers that I doe not marvaile you see sometimes one thing for another and call vertue her selfe by the name of Errour 3. Whereas in my Authors answer no mention is made at any time of the Duke but of the Republic of the Signorie and whereas the Author treats not but of her Dominion and power it was your part Hetrodox to understand the word Prince is Generall signifying as well Emperours and Kings as Republics or Common-wealths and that in this place it did not signifie the Duke but the Republic Besides the Authors words admit none other sense For the Prince of Venice as this Author speakes in plaine and expresse termes never knew any Superior in Temporals but God alone will any man understand this to be spoken of the Duke who so long as hee was Procurator of St. Mark acknowledged the Duke for his
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
which executes the Jurisdiction of the Prince in Venice and not the Duke 10. You say the Authority of the Republic over his Subjects iâ— derived from men and the Popes Authority from God Rom. 13. Sap. this Errour hath been dasht out of countenance before by the expresse text of St. Paul and other Scripture 11. You affirme the Republic taking his beginning when Ecclesiastics were exempted before she could not be divested of that wherein she was never invested In this point Hetrodox you should have drawn some plain Demonstration that Ecclesiastics were exempted in those times of the Republics birth Whereas you alledge but one priviledge of Frederick II. not worth whistling but a new upstart instance in a manner of two daies old and such as with Ecclesiastics doth not deserve to beare any sway For after the said Priviledge he was excommunicated and deposed from the Empire by Gregorie IX and so by consequence all his Constitutions were annulled But Sir the Lords of Venice have run still at all times by the File and have cut their cloth by the thred of the most holy Emperor Iustinian whose Novell was de-cryed like false and adulterous Coyne and never spoiled Ecclesiastics of any Exemption which they formerly enjoyed but rather endowed them with other new Priviledges 12. You affirme againe that vi characteris by vertue of the Character due to the order of Priests the Prince is deprived of his Authority over his owne Subjects Touching which point I answer thus much and say no more If the Character of Baptisme hath no vertue Quaest 15. de Restitu Cap Novit de judiciu Notab 6. no force or power to free any man from Subjection to his lawfull and naturall Prince much lesse the Character of Clericall Order You know this valide Argument of Medina which you also know Navarrus holds to be insoluble 13. You pretend that Scripture the Law of God Canons and Councels have granted Exemption unto Ecclesiastics I answer it is not commanded in Divine Scripture nor taught in the Law of Nature which is likewise Divine No such matter is defined by the Councels nor by the Canons tanquam de Fide as before hath been declared As touching some other Canons of Exemption made by Popes I acknowledge that where they have been lawfully published and received in those Kingdomes Countries and States they stand yet in their full force and that except in case of extreame necessity to speak in the termes of Sotus and Conarruuias by any ordinary means or for any ordinary cause they are not sufferable of Derogation or thereunto lyable as hath beene defined in matter of Priviledges But Sir this makes nothing to the purpose of our present case touching the Venetian Lords who never yet received any Canon which was contrary to Lawes of their own making in these present daies and times 14. You produce the Canon Si quis suadente c. If any thorow the Devils instigation shall offer violence and lay violent hands on a Cleric and here you presuppose without either grant or thankes for your paines the Venetian Lords by Satanicall perswasion have with violent hands attempted and assaulted the persons of Clerics But you must be answered with a godly resolution to your Diabolicall presupposition The said Lords have not done any such Execution by the suggestion of Satan but by the perswasion of God and of honourable Justice As for your famous Canon that speakes of private wrongs and offences Otherwise the Ecclesiasticall Judges themselves in like manner should be fetcht within the power and penalty thereof So that in the Venetian Territorie the Canon is duly observed For in case a private person by the Devils instigation shall cast violent hands on a Cleric and thereby tumble into the strong Net or Toyle of Excommunication his Absolution is procured 15. The Republic you say is not in the possession of the Judicature that she exerciseth or of the Lawes that she causeth to passe in public The most learned Father Paulus in his Considerations hath most excellently proved this Assertion to be most untrue Two things only will I here annexe The Law named upon this matter was first made in Anno. 1333. and not in Anno 1536. as you have alleadged Secondly the Prince hath Authority to enact Lawes to renew Lawes or to dilate Lawes but not because Lawes are sometimes not observed For the same authority whereby a Law was made at first gives the Prince sufficient power to renew to dilate c. the said Law 16. You attribute unto the Duke that which is the Order of the whole Republic For only the Republic hath such power ad vim vi repellendam to resist force by force and to provide that by Heresie the State be not infected And therefore both because the Republic stands upon a sure ground of certaine knowledge that the Popes present Censures are in the condition of meer Nullity whereof she makes not so much as the least doubt as also because it pleads possession time out of mind she justly pretends the interdict hath never been observed in her Dominion 17. It fills not Monasteries with Souldiers as you object That 's but an old wifes tale whosoever is the Reporter much more a meer fable that she exerciseth public persecution of the Church No surely What she doth is done in favour of the Church If it be not so Hetrodox tell us what one Heresie by name is protected or so much as never so little countenanced by the Republic which pretends none other matter but only to defend and maintain her owne 18. Moreover you have matched the Republic with Arrian Princes Even so doe the Cardinals Bellarmine and Baronius I cannot forbeare to tell them and you once for all you thinke to scarre us like little Children with I wot not what Bugs I mean with Epithets of Heretiques Schismaticks The World knowes what Heresie what Schisme is well enough And might we once be so happy to have a generall Councell called of the whole Church which cannot erre it should soone manifestly appeare who is an Heretique who is a Schismatick In the mean time the Republic is neither the one nor the other and that for this time shall suffice 19. Againe you confesse the Lateran Councell is not generall and the Tridentine treats not of that Exemption which is maintained by the Authors of the contrary opinion and neither the one Councell nor the other hath come in this case to any Definitive Sentence de Fide with what face then have you affirmed the said Councell are of equall Authority to that Canon whereof it is written visum est it hath seemed good unto the Holy Ghost and unto us c. 20. I have not given the former Epithets to such as hold Exemption in large manner of Construction that is by way of comparison and similitude to be by Gods Law But onely to such as affirme it is by Gods Law as commanded in holy Scripture
and the Masse being celebrated in all the rest of the Churches I would not have men to feare where no feare is nor cause to feare nor to give any cause why those who alwaies have beene faithfull to their Prince the most illustrious Republic should draw upon their own heads any such imputation as this Filii matris mea pugnaverunt contra me the Sons of my mother have fought against me but I would wish them rather to fight and strive how they may best obey that Apostolicall Precept let every soule be subject unto the higher Powers Rom. 13.15 not only because of wrath but also for Conscience sake I make no doubt at all of their constancie for I rest well assured they are almost ready to lay downe their life for their Prince The Lords of Venice have ordained on paine of death That all the Religions in the City shall keepe their Churches open and shall celebrate Divine Service as they have done before Have the Lords made this Decree out of any feare least such of the Religions to whom they stand well-affected who both know and follow the true Doctrine as in a manner they doe all would now doe otherwise than they have done or would not goe on to celebrate and exercise all the Offices of their Ministerie No sure wherefore then was that grievous penalty ordained Forsooth onely that none of the said Offices might be intermitted in that Citie which ever hath stood Catholique and now professeth to continue Catholique more then ever Whereupon she will not suffer any change at all to be seene in the exercises of Piety or â—â—e intermission of the said exercises to be unto any an occasion of their Precipitation For which mischiefe the Prince for the Churches behalfe and for her benefit by Gods Law is bound to provide a Remedy by all meanes possible Last of all I commend to the Religions the Doctrine of Navarrus as a most safe haven Cap. Novit de judiciu Notab 3. manu cap. 27. de Censuris wherein they may ride without all danger and this it is That what Exemption soever they enjoy the same they enjoy not by Gods Law but by the Priviledge of their Princes who have power to retract diminish dilate and amplifie the said Priviledges when and how they please according to such new reasons as rise and as good occasion shall be represented for the doing thereof to the common utility and publike benefit or advantage of the Dominions under their Subjection For the same power the Pope exerciseth in the priviledges of Indulgences and other matters depending upon his Spirituall Authority which by him sometimes are annulled sometimes diminished and sometimes augmented Hetrodox From false Principles you inferre a false conclusion That for so much as the sentence of our holy Father is of no validity therefore it ought not in any wise to be feared and that by consequence the Priests of Venice and thorow the whole Venetian Dominion are bound in conscience to celebrate all Divine offices as if they had not beene interdicted at all First you affirme That according to the Doctrine of Navarrus the Sentence of the Pope when it is Nulla is to be feared and observed untill the people shall be thorowly perswaded of the Nullitie to the end there may breed and grow no scandall Then you subjoyne the Venetian people are fully and wholly perswaded of the Nullity of the Popes Excommunication by the Dukes Edict as much to say when the Judge affirmes his Sentence is just and in full force and the Malefactor sales it is unjust and of no force when the Malefactor should be credited and the Judge not believed What Sentence at any time shall goe current for just and in force if the Malefactors word and credit may be taken Next you affirme That certaine Religious persons are inexcuseable for chusing to depart out of the City rather then to celebrate Divine Offices and that very many thereby have beene scandalized Alas good Sir the said Religious have no need of your excuse and if any other have beene scandalized by their obedience to the holy Father the words of our Saviour to the Pharisees will serve well to remove and take away the scandall Sinite illoâ— they are blind leaders of the blind Mat. 15. let them alone Then you affirme it is enjoyned by Gods Law to defend the liberty of their Prince whereas Ecclesiasticall Sentences are enjoyned by mans Law and that ought ever to give place unto the Law of God At every word you take the Divine Law in your mouth no mervaile your Argument runs in this divine forme To defend the Princes liberty is by the Law of God Ecclesiastical Sentences are by the Law of man the Law of man gives place unto the Law of God Ergo the Priests ought to despise the Popes Excommunication and Interdict and to defend the Liberty of the Venetian Duke But heare you Sir my answer If it be by Gods Law to defend the Liberty of an Earthly Prince much more it is by Gods Law to defend the liberty of the Church the Spouse of the Heavenlie Prince I say moreover The liberty which the Duke of Venice pretends now a daies is a liberty to clap up such in prison as are none of his Subjects and to make Lawes against Justice and Piety and therefore it is according to Gods Law not to defend but rather to impugne such a Liberty And I yet subjoyn that Ecclesiasticall Sentences as touching Power are by Gods Law established Mat. 10. and founded on the Gospell And againe you affirme That some are deceived in thinking this present controversie to be de Fide when it is onely de Moribus and that if any thing be expressed in Scripture which makes this businesse to be de Fide it is the Republics opinion expressely taught by St. Paul I answer The Principall controversie is not de Fide Neverthelesse those who have undertaken the defence of the Venetian Cause have in their discourses mingled certain Errors in matter of Faith And whereas in your accustomed way of Wisedome no doubt you tell us the opinion of the Signorie is expresly taught by St. Paul your wisedome doth not marke That such things as are expressely taught by St. Paul cannot be called opinions For then it should follow that some doubt might be made of St. Pauls Doctrine because opinions are ever doubtfull and uncertaine The truth is Hetrodox the opinion of the Signorie is not found in St. Pauls Epistle to the Hebrewes Obey them that have the oversight of you Hebr. 13.17 and submit your selves for they watch for your soules as they that must give account for your Soules Now against this Doctrine which goes not in the Church for an opinion but for a most certaine Article of Catholique Faith your Lords of Venice deceived by such as your selfe no DD. but Seducers are precipitated in these daies and carried headlong as it were downe
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
is no lesse partiall for the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction It serves my turne and makes much for my purpose that Couaruvias holds both touch weight with other sound and Catholique Doctors that he passes currant coyn for an Author that builds not onely upon the strong foundations of most solid and valid arguments Inno. de major obed C. 2. Ferrar. in pract tit de confess plenam Col. 1. Bellar. lib. decler cap de immunitatib but also upon right authenticall testimonies of diverse famous writers Victoria and Sotus have sung the same note with Medina and Couarruvias pre-alledged yea Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe harps now and then upon the same string But what need I to make muster of many Authors when your selfe Hetrodox howbeit I suppose full sore against your will have sufferred no lesse and the very same to drop and slip out of your own learned lips before Namely that Clericks are exempted at least by mans law as it is held by all Catholique Authors in which words you grant and acknowledge by a kind of tacite and implicite confession that all Catholique Authors hold exempting of Clericks not warrantable by Gods Law with all the former Authors Chrisostome concurres or to say better he precurres them all Manifestum est quod ista omnibus imperentur c. Who doth not see that all sorts and degrees of Subjects not onely Seculars but also Regulars and Priests are included within the circle of this Precept and must come under the Lee of this Apostolicall Rule So that neither God himselfe nor his divine Appostle who treats of Secular Power from the mouth of God hath exempted or excepted any sort or degree of Subjects from the lawfull power of secular Princes But what quarrell have you to pick or what exceptions can you take to the word immediately Hetrodox Not few Orthodox and more perhaps then your Eares are well able to brooke or your Stomach to digest For this word may be taken two manner of wayes First it may signify that Princes as they are Soveraigns and Superiors have a superlative and absolute power immediately from God to command their Subjects that is the commandement of Subjects due obedience to their lawfull superiors and liege-lords is immediately descended or derived from God himselfe Now this I grant is true and of no good Christian to be denyed or gainsaid For how can he be Supream Lord of Subjects who hath no lawfull power from God to command his People or he a Subject who is not lyable to the bond of due obedience This duty the Lord himselfe commands in holy Scripture The light also of naturall reason clearly shewes the same duty that every Subject should render and yeeld entire obedience to his own lawfull Superior But now again Orthodox the same word immediately may import and beare this other signification that secular Princes challenge this or that People for their own People and Subjects by the immediate grace and gift of God For example The most Christian King doth or may challenge the French in this latter sence The most Catholique King doth or may lay claim to the Spanish in the same con-construction The most illustrious Re-publique of Venice doth or may pretend the right of Domination over the Venetian in the same signification of the word So that by consequence all the said three most renowned States are invested immediately from God with absolute Power over their severall Subjects and native People Now this latter construction of the word is dipt in a deepe die to carry a base tincture of manifest falsehood I appeal herein Orthodox to some of your own premises for in the opening or dilating of your Proposition you fairly affirmed before that Principalities and Kingdoms fall to great mens fortunes and shares foure severall wayes namely by Election Inheritance Donation Law of Armes or right of Conquest Now these Titles all men know are not divine or of God but humane or of men If any one therefore shall aspire and ascend to the summity or sublimity of temporall dominion and power over this or that People by the steps or degrees of those Titles the said power falles not as it were into his lap or to his lot immediately from God with some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but by mediate proceedings and actions of State namely by meanes of Election as in the case of German Emperours and Kings of Polonia or by meanes of inheritance as in the case of Spanish and French Kings or by meanes of Donation as in the case of Princes holding their States in Fee or by meanes of just Warre and Conquest as in the case of Duke Godfrey and other Christian Princes Conquerers of the Holy Land by the dint of Sword If the most Christian King were now questioned by what right he holds the Crown and Kingdome of France would he answer by right from God No verily but by right of hereditary succession If the Venetian Duke were interrogated by what right he claimes the Government of that most illustrious Principality and State would he answer by divine right No such matter but by election of the Senators And herein lyes the difference between the Ecclesiasticall Principality of our holy Father and all other secular or civill Principalities the Pope hath power over all Christians not onely by the universall right of Gods holy ordinance whereby superiors have right of rule and command over their Subjects but likewise because by the immediate gift of God he is Lord of all Christians as of his right and proper vassals And howsoever he is advanced to the sublimity of St. Peters Chayre by the immediate suffrages and election of the most illustrious Lords the Cardinals yet his power is not derived from the said Lords as water is derived from a Spring by Pipes or Channels but immediately from God the perpetuall and inexhaustable Spring or Fountain of all Power who said to Peter Pasce Oves feed my sheep the reason because the Pope may go whistle for any the least power to alienate any one Province or City or individuall person from his Apostolick Primacy neither is it possible for the Pope to be true Pope and not superior to all degrees of Christians as Christs Vicar the reason because the Title of his power is divine On the other side Kings and secular Princes may be deprived of their Subjects in whole or in part t is in their own power hand and free liberty to make alienation of some City or whole Province to bring the same under some forraign Prince his yoake and thereby to strip themselves of all power over the said City or Province The reason because they have no just and true title to their power from the immortall God but only from creatures of mortallity In like manner no mortall creature no sublunary power is able to pull so much as one feather out of the Popes powerfull wing It is neither the Colledge of Cardinals nor generall councell nor Pope
the judgement and authority of Chrysostome of Thomas of Augustine of Theophilact expositors of the same text who agree not in consent like harpe and harrow but jump and accord all in this one cleere exposition that Paul there speaks of subjection to secular Princes What mean you then Hetrodox to deny this Orthodox exposition and to contend that S. Paul there speaks of power in generall and of papall power in particular which in S. Pauls time was hardly crept out of the shell at least not crept up to any degree of sublimity but lay lowly couched and louting after a sort if it was then at all in the person of one poor one simple one lowly Apostle Moreover if S. Paul there speaks of power in generall how can these words following in the same context Give tribute unto whom yee owe tribute for he doth not beare the Sword for nought be dexterly and aptly applyed or fitted to power in generals The husband I trow hath power over his own Wife the father over his own child the pedant over his own Schollars what Have these also power to exact lawfull tribute and to condemne their Subjects unto corporall death Our Saviour to shew that his Kingdome was not of this world as he spake to Pilate and that his power was none of those higher powers meaning no terrene or worldly Power was pleased to use this argument Joh. 18. If my Kingdome were of this world then would my Ministers fight without all question but now because my servants fight not in my quarrell that I might not be delivered to the Jewes for certain my Kingdome is not from hence Exacting of tribute and bearing the Sword to take vengeance on those that do evill is directly so proper to the secular Prince and to his Ministers that by no meanes it can or may be applyed to any other power S. Paul therefore speaks there in particular and not in generall And howsoever it may seem that some things there spoke and taught by the Apostle may by Allegory and in a spirituall or mysticall sence be applyed to the spirituall Prelate as by name that he beares the Sword viz. of Gods word or the Sword of Excommunication and that he exacts tribute viz. of Teares and repentance yet whensoever any dogmaticall point is handled it is needlesse to seek a knot in a rush needlesse to hunt after Allegoricall constructions and sences most of all needlesse to pick out contrary senses as in our present case This doctrine makes very much for the firm establishing of the secular Princes authority thorow all Christendome therefore in this argument or subject we neither ought nor need to runne and fly unto allegories but are to stand firme and to hold us fast by the proper and litterall sense of Scripture Hetrod Hitherto you have argued and wrought upon the matter by reason I will not say how good or how strong Let me now see how you can back and strengthen the same point with solid authorities Orthod The interlinear glosse upon the former passage of S. Paul thus Potestatibus sublimioribus id est Secularibus bonis vel malis To the higher powers i. e. To secular powers whether good or evill A little after thus In hoc quod sublimet id est mundanis to higher powers i. e. to worldly powers Irenaeus thus Non diabolus determinavit hujus saeculi regna c. The Kingdomes of this world are not disposed by the devill but by God for the Kings heart is in the hand of God Prov. 8. By me Kings raign S. Paul thus Be subject to the higher Powers Thus farre Irenaeus Tertullian thus Quod attinet ad honores regum c. Lib. de Idolol c. 25. Touching honour due to Emperours and kings we are commanded to carry our selves in obsequious obedience at all times according to the Apostles rule Be subject unto Princes and Magistrates S. Augustin thus Quod autem ait omnis anima c. In expos quar propos ep ad Bon. And whereas S. Paul saith Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers for there is no power but of God He therein deales and workes by holy and wholsome admonition that none be puffed up with pride in this regard that God hath called him to Christian liberty that no man be perswaded to runne out of his ranck and to quit his assigned station in the peregrination of this life that none be of this false beliefe that he ought not stoop to submit his neck unto the yoake of higher powers ordained for the time to beare the chiefest swaie in the mannaging ordering and governing of temporall affaires For whereas men consist of soul and body so long as we continue in this life temporall and have use of temporall things as good stayes and supporters of this life We ought in matters pertaining unto this life to be subject unto powers that is unto men by whom humane affaires are ordered and administred with some degree of honour thus farre S. Augustin In which passage I observe these three things The first S. Paul as he is there expounded by S. Augustin speaks for the particular of secular Princes and not for the generall as you pretend The next S. Augustin himselfe a Bishop of Episcopall authority and jurisdiction there saith Nos Wee even wee Bishops must be subject unto the powers The last S. Augustin useth an emphasis in the word Oportet we ought which word implyes a necessity of subjection By all the fore-alleadged authorities it well appeares how great difference large distance there lyes between your assertion and the doctrine of the holy Fathers by name of S. Augustin the very light and bright shining Sun of all Divines And what say you to that of Thomas Circa primum c. Touching the first we are to consider that some Christians in the primitive Church denyed at least in word and assertion subjection to terrene powers They pretended and stood upon their Christian liberty obtained and purchased in Christ according to those words of Christ himselfe If the Sonne shall make you free you shall be free indeed Now the liberty granted by Christ is that spirituall liberty by which we are freed from sinne as it is written The law of the Spirit of life which is in Christ Jesus hath freed me from the law of sin of death whereas the flesh yet remaines in bondage and under the law of sin The man therefore once freed by Christ shall never be obnoxious to subjection either spirituall or carnall when Christ hath delivered up the Kingdome unto God even the Father and hath layd aside or put down all rule with all authority and power In the mean time so long as wee are clothed with corruptible flesh we must be subject unto Lords carnall as it is written Servants be obedient unto your Masters according to the flesh which is the very same that S. Paul saith Let every soul be
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
authority sought indeed to heare the causes of Ecclesiastics and thereby intruded himselfe to cut as it were their spreading Combes for that reason Menua in all submissive humility petitioned Iustinian to leave the cognisance at least of civill causes unto the Bishop to which Petition the Emperour was pleased to give both gracious care and princely grant How true it is that Iustinian usurped excessive authority it is evident by his practise for he both shufled and cut the cards he intruded himselfe to bridle the Clergy to tye and hold them short unto the stake by his Lawes as well in spirituals as temporals who so lists to read the titles De sanctit Episcop de sacro sanct Ecclesiis may clearely see the same with halfe an eye but more pregnant and positive for the purpose is the Nomocanon of Photius Howbeit you know Orthodox it is the doctrine of all Divines and Canonists yea of Couaruvias himselfe too that by Gods own word the judgement of spirituall causes belongs only to Bishops and to the highest Bishop as to the supreame Judge whereupon both before Iustinian and after the sacred Councels have debarred and restrained the clergy by expresse and peremptory inhibition from procuring any tryals before secular Judges as in the councell of Toledo besides divers other Councels it is more then manifest Perhaps Tholouse in France Can. 13. And that all the world may see the foundation which you have laid I mean that novell-constitution 83. of Iustinian to be but a rotten foundation it is much considerable that Iustinian himselfe in the very same constitution hath decreed it shall not be lawfull for the secular Judge to punish an ecclesiasticall person except first he be deprived by his own Ordinary of his Clericall dignity and thereby brought under the whip or lash of the common lawes Now if ecclesiastics be not found within the compasse and power of the common lawes before they be degraded by the Bâ—shop how shall they be judged and sentenced by any secular power so long as they are still invested with clericall dignity and holy Orders In the same constitution it is professed by the said Emperour that his lawes imperiall thinke not scorn to follow and come after the sacred Canons whereas then by the said Canons it is well and wisely decreed provided and ordered that Ecclesiasticks are to be judged by their own superiors how can the said constitution stand in force and be observed which determines the cleane contrary And now to draw the Arrow up close to the very point of the head the inconvenience of this decree made by the Emperour Iustinian seemed to the judgement of Frederick the second to be of so dangerous a straine and consequence that he repealed the foresaid law of Justinian with all other the like lawes repugnant unto the liberty of the Church for it is found in Fredericks first constitution thus recorded Sanâ— infideliam quorundam c. the pravity of certain miscreant and unjust Princes hath so disborded and over-flown the Banks that now contrary to the discipline of the holy Apostles and to the name of sacred Canons they make no bones to contrive new Statutes and to frame new lawes against Church-men and Church-liberty A little after Statuimus ut nullus c. Wee decree that none shall presume to sue any ecclesiasticall person before a secular Judge in any criminall or civill cause contrary to the imperiall constitutions and canonicall decrees and in case any suite shall be otherwise commenced or entered wee decree the plaintiffe to lose his cause and to take no benefit of the Judges order or sentence as also the Judge himselfe to be put out of the commission for Judicature Likewise the Emperour Basilius long before Frederick repealed a law made by the Emperour Nicephorus against ecclesiastics liberty with asseveration that infinite calamities like epidemicall diseases or publique ulcers and botches had runne over and infected the whole body of State and common wealth with poyson of the said pestiferous and unwholsome lawes let Balsamon upon the Nomocanon of Photius be consulted and viewed where he expounds the first Canon of the first and second Councels celebrated at Constantinople and thus much touching the authority of your great Iustinian Orthod I am not ignorant Hetrodox in whose goodly Vivaries or fresh Ponds you have taken so great paines to fish for this dish of dainty Mullets as you suppose but saving his savour with whose heifers you have thus plowed up the goodly field of the Emperour Iustinians 38. Novel the said Novell comprehends three distinct parts the first is that upon petition of Menua this noble Emperour sealed a patent and passed a most gratious priviledge for the Cleargy of this faire tenure and tenour that in matter of pecuniary causes called after the common stile civill causes Church-men might be tryed and judged by their Prelates Non ex scripto without some formall drawing of Bils Bookes or pleas except both parties agreed to have some necessary essentiall and materiall points of the case formally drawn couched and put down in writing and in case the knot or difficulty of the matter would not beare and suffer such summary decision then it should be free and lawfull for the complainants to take the benefit of civill Courts and to commence their suites before the ordinary secular Judges The Emperours own words lye penned thus Petiâ—i sumus c. Menua beloved of God Arch-bishop of this most flourishing City and universall patriarch by humble Petition hath moved our imperiall highnesse to grant unto the most reverend Cleargy this gracious priviledge that if any shall have just and lawfull occasion to sue Churchmen in a pecuniary cause he shall first repaire unto the Archbishop beloved of God as unto his Diocesan within whose jurisdiction he then liveth and inhabiteth and shall require the Archbishop to take information of the cause whereby he may merit his judgement Ex non scripto by summary proceeding without drawing of Bookes or breviats And in case the Archbishop shall undertake to proceed in such forme the Cleric shall not be molested nor drawn into any Court of civill Audience nor driven to intermit the exercises of his holy Function but rather without damages the cause it selfe shall be throughly canvased and sifted Ex non scripto Howbeit withall the said cause may be couâ—hed in written forme if the parties be willing and condescend both alike to require that course and to relinquish the other but in case for the quality of the cause or for some other emergent difficulty the Bishop beloved of God shall not be able by any meanes possible to make a full and finall end of the matter then shall it be lawfull to bring the said cause before civill Judges and Magistrates and all priviledges granted to the right reverend Churchmen preserved it shall be lawfull to implead to take examinations to make a finall end of the suite and contention in the
himselfe to follow another tract and better path Now in this large discourse diverse things occurre and concurre worthy of observation in favour of the point which I here maintaine The first by name that Emanuel is honourably commended and highly praised by Nicetas for a most noble and pious Prince The next is that for the reformation of monasticall discipline he revoked the repealed and annulled Act or law of Nicephorus which was not done out of passion or out of any envious or venemous humour against the Church but only out of a religious disposition to worke and effect a timely reformation of the Church The third is that Emanuel renewed the law of Nicephorus annulled by Basilius because Nicephorus was directed guided by most prudent consideration to enact and establish the same Law which because Emanuel did set on the own first feet again therefore Nicetas gives him the honourable adjunct and stile of Cordatus Imperator an Emperour of an upright right couragious and right sincere heart The fourth is that never any man opened his mouth to complaine or to declare himselfe grieved-or offended against Emanuel for the re-establishment of the said law The last is that as well by this Act of Emanuel as by the Acts of Nicephorus Basilius and other christian Princes it is lawfull and free for christian Princes as it is now practised in act at pleasure to establish and re-establish the like lawes and that immunities whether passant or dormant do grow and flow Ex privilegio principum from the sweet spring of Princely priviledges I passe over diverse matters Hetrodox as namely that you pick out of Authors and scrape any thing together which may but seem to make for your purpose and omit or leave out all that makes against your cause as also that you build and worke upon texts of no weight or importance upon priviledges cassed and annulled in like manner that you disclaime and reject authorities of the most noble and christian Emperours their most holy Lawes and priviledges never yet annulled neither by custome nor by any superior power Hetrod I feare Orthodox you will breake your wind or at least runne your selfe out of breath in this argument if you may be suffered to have your own swinge I will therefore take down and coole the heate of your discourse as it were with a sprinkling or two of holy water Answer but one example and you shall give me more then meane satisfaction when certain Processes were preferred and presented on a time to Constantine the Great against sundry ecclesiasticall persons what was his gracious and Princely response Vos à nemine c. No mortall man hath power to judge you of the Church but you are to be judged by God alone Orthod What aime you to inferre upon this one instance Hetrod That Clerics or Churchmen are not subject unto secular Princes Orthod You shoot both too farre short and too farre wide of your marke That Princely response was only a kind of excesse wherein the noble Emperour endeavoured to demonstrate an over-weight of his exceeding benignity and piety towards the Church the gracious eye of his internall judgment lookt another way then you seeke to inferre For if that response had been true and according to his inward perswasion or beliefe thereof then Clerics without all question might not be judged by their own Prelates For Constantine there saith Ad Dei judicium reservamini you Churchmen are exempted by the benefit of reservation to be judged by God alone which doubtlesse is a blurre to your learning and a grosse Non sequitur to inferre Hetrod Beleeve me Orthodox you labour to crown the great Emperour Constantine with garlands of homely praises and perfumes when to make him renowned and glorious for his benignity and piety you paint him forth as a masqued and cunning lyar But Sir to the end you may plainly see in what heighth and elevation of the Pole Hist Eccl. lib. 10. c. 2. the words of Constantine deserve to be placed have patience whiles I turne word for word what Ruffinus hath recorded Constantine said to the Bishops Almighty God hath given you the Order of Priesthood with power to judge us Princes wee therefore of right are to be judged of you Priests and you may not here below be judged of men stay then wait and expect in suites commenced by men of your own Coat and Order the time when you shall be judged by God alone keepe your suites to be tryed quarrels to be decided at his Barre are you not given to us of God as Gods on earth Is it not a great and a shamefull fault for men to 〈◊〉 and to judge their Gods Is not he alone to hold the great assizes for their tryals of whom it is written Deus stetit c. God standeth in the Assembly of Gods Where it is to be noted that as temporall and secular Princes are Gods in respect of their People so Priests are Gods in respect of Laics though they be Princes as Constantine sticks not here to affirme and upon this foundation the great Emperour very safely grounds his conclusion that Priests have power to judge Emperours but Emperours have no power at all to judge Priests Now if this great Emperour of the world hath acknowledged that he held Priests as in the ranke of Gods that he could be no judge of Priests and yet might himselfe be judged by Priests how much more ought other inferior Princes and States confesse the same in word and acknowledge the same in fact Nor doth it follow in right consequence that Priests cannot be judged by their own Prelates but rather the contrary for ever and at all times the superior judgeth in Gods name from whom he receiveth authority and power Nay rather God himselfe then sitteth in judgement by the mouth of his lawfull Minister for the exercise of judgement So when a Bishop judgeth some inferior Ecclesiastic or when the Pope himselfe judgeth a Bishop it is God that judgeth by the Ministery or mediate worke of his appointed and approved servant This was therefore great Constantines beliefe and perswasion that Bishops who in respect of Laics are Gods cannot be judged by Laics who are but men and not Gods in respect of Priests Again that it resteth in God alone to judge Clerics viz. by the interposition or mediat act of his great Vicar as in like sort secular Princes who in respect of their secular People and Subjects are Gods cannot be judged by the said People being but private persons but only by God by meanes of his Vicar the Priest who in that regard is called God to wit in regard of the secular Prince In that only sence the Lord said to Moses I have made thee Pharaohs God namely to judge to chastise that cruell King with my rodds my sore judgements And for some good proofe of Constantines beliefe that power to judge censure Bishops is in the hand of the Pope
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
Manâ—â—cript Lectures and in his first Books the words of Sotus are both found and read If now being of another mind he be not pleased to acknowledge and grant us the same and would have us to belâ—eve that he hath not written what I now avouch and averre the matter is not of any great consequence In his Books we see infinite alterations choppings and changings every day Sotus by him cited hath left it upon Record and that serves my turne And howsoever it imports but little to the principall question whether he will have it so uttered by the tongue and penne of Sotus or no that puts me to no manner of trouble so long as I finde it extant in the writing of Sotus himselfe whose Doctrine whose phrase nay whose verie words the learned take notice to be in great request with his Lordship and not a little pleasing to his appetite 6. You practise no small subteltie of refined wit when you shew that you are so unwilling to have that opinion which is taught by many Canonists called an opinion of the Canonists where is in the same companie a Divine the same opinion and that an opinion of the same may not be called an opinion of Divines when one Canonist is of their side and holds the same Tenet But every Novice in Theologie knowes that Appellatio Donominatio fit a majori parte things have their Appellaâ—ion and Denomination from the greater part yea Bellarmine himselfe works upon this distinction and the title of the question using this Argument Probatur opinio Theologorum ergo contraria opinio est Canonistarum the opinion of the Divines is approved and therefore the contrarie opinion is the Canonists amongst whom albeit in these last impressions he cites Navarrus a Canonist and not a Divine neverthelesse for the reason before alledged it is of no import The opinion of those who affirme the Pope to be Lord in Temporals is called the opinion of Canonists because it is not founded upon any Authoâ—iâ—ie of Scripture but only upon certaine Canons or Lawes Registred in the Decrees and Decretals and the contrarie opinion is that of the Divines because it is built upon Gods Word in the holie Scriptures 7. The Supreame Power Temporall you say is by all Authors except Heretikes granted to the Pope If that be so then doubtlesse Navarrus take him for one amongst many other is a notorious Heretique in this formall conclusion In cap. Novit Quare dicendum est Papam nullam habere potestatem laicam neque supremam neque mediam neque infimam The Pope therefore stands in no degree at all of Laiorck Temporall power neither in the highest nor in the middle nor in the lowest Region of Temporall power For my part I call that opinion Heresie and so I compt it which in explicite and implicite sense fights against holy Scripture and such is the opinion of all those who affirme the Pope to have Supreame Temporall Authority Our Lord Christ saith Mat. 16. Tibi dabo claves Regni coelorum I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven and the Pope saith Regni terrarum of all Earthlie Kingdomes Christ saith Mat. 20. Mark 10. Luke 22. Ioan. 19. Ioan. 20. Reges Gentium dominantur eorum vos autem non sic the Kings of the Earth beare rule over them but so shall not yee and the Pope saith vos autem sic and so shall ye Christ saith my Kingdome is of this World and the Pope saith nay my Kingdome is of this World and over the whole World Christ saith as my Father hath sent me so doe I send you my Disciples and the Pope saith not as the Father hath sent me so doe I send you There be two Supream Powers two Heads of all Christians Professors of Christian Religion Terrena potestas caput Regem Spiritualis potestas habet Summum Pontificem Hug. de Sanct. vict l. 2. de Sacr. p. 2. c. 4. the King is the head of all Earthlie and Temporall power the Pope of all Spirituall power Pope Gelasius in an Epistle to the Emperour Anastasius Duo sunt Imperator Auguste quibus principaliter mundus hic regitur Auctoritas Sacra Pontificum Regalis Potestas This World Decr. dist 96. Caudâ—o sunt most noble Emperour is chiefly governed by two Supreame Powers the Sacred Authoritie of Popes and the Temporall Authoritie of Kings Innocentius III. held this Article for so certaine and indubitable that he made no scruple to affirme Cap. Novit Regem in Temporalibus neminem Superiorem recognoscere that in Temporall causes the Kings of the Earth doe acknowledge and take no mortall creature to have anie Superioritie of Power or any right any reason to crowe over their Crownes How then can there be anie truth in the L. Cardinals affirmative Pontificem recognoscit the King doth acknowledge the Pope for that is to say the Pope is dignified and endowed with Supreame Temporall power with which words I must confesse that I am plunged in a deepe pit of astonishment For those Authors who grant an indirect Authoritie to the Pope break not forth into this unreasonable and exorbitant excesse but use a certaine mitigation of the word indirectlie as that it is Spirituall non per se sed per accidens not in it selfe but by occasion and accessarilie to write in case of necessitie and most of all with consent of the parties interested But for any to affirme the holie Fathers power to be Supreame and Temporall fateor scandalum est mihi to me I must confesse it is a scandall or stumbling block and stone of offence so long as not onely the true doctrine but also the Doctrine of the Lord Cardinall Bellarmine can hold up the head and stand in full force l. 5. de Rom. pont c. 3. and 4. 8. I have not charged the Lord Cardinall to hold the foresaid Booke was never of St. Thomas his penning I have onely alledged that his Lordship hath made so good and so cleare demonstration of that point that never yet anie answer durst peepe abroad to contradâ—ct his Lordships demonstration As for your subterfuge that the said Historie was perhaps afterward primed or popt into the foresa d Booke that carrieâ— no shew of proâ—abilitie seeing you produce not anie one conjâ—cture not any one reason to fortifie the same For to what purpose had any man a mind to patch up the said Historie in so good so faire a Wâ—b as the foresaid Booke to what end how long time since He that dares take upon him to affirme these things shall make the credit of all Histories to shrinke and shake The Lord Cardinall Baronius flies to the same Answers as to his best refuge When he is put hard to his trumpes and shifts how to untie the knot of an Argument drawne from Historicall Authoritie straitwaies he thinkes to take up mens lips and to dazzle their eye-sight with such and such words are
any man because he is a Thiefe or an Adulterer except first he be admonished and then he wilfully denies obedience But betweene disobedience and obstinacie there is a great difference For a man may stand stubborne and obstinate in some sin whereof he hath never beene advised never admonished by the Church This man for all his obstinacie cannot be stricken with a Thunder-Bolt of Excommunication On the contrary a man may be disobedient and for his disobedience may be Excommunicated albeit afterward he persist not obstinate in Disobedience The words of Christ if he will not heare the Church do signifie disobedience and to speake properly not obstinacie Orthodox Fie Hetrodox that a man of your deepe learning should be so shallow I will not say idle in a matter so serious So clear is the light of this fourth Proposition that I much wonder how you have devised and raised any matter against it whereby to make opposition Now to frame the sounder answer it will be necessary to make some Explication of the Proposition it selfe I speake not here of all the powers which Peter had from Christ our Lord as his Vicar in Earth for they were two the one of Order the other of Jurisdiction In this place I meddle not with power of Order I onely define the power of Jurisdiction and this power I say is meerly Spirituall First because Christ our Lord never practised any Temporall Jurisdiction but this jurisdiction which Christ gave to Peter is part of the same Jurisdiction which was practised by Christ himselfe Ergo it is no manner of way Temporall but meerely Spirituall The Major as it is called hath beene proved before at large the Minor is cleere by the words of Christ himselfe As the Father hath sent me so I send you the consequence therefore or conclusion remaines indubitable Ioan. 20. that this Jurisdiction is no manner of way Temporall Secondly This Jurisdiction or Power is not all that Power which Christ himselfe had as Head of the Church For he never according to all the Doctors communicated to his Apostles the Power of his Excâ—llencie much lesse the power of his Spirituall Kingdome which by Cardinall Bellarmine is called his Power Eternall yet such as had a beginning though it shall continue and last for ever with which Power by secret meanes he governes his Church For that power he practiseth and exerciseth in Heaven by himselfe alone It is therefore a Branch of that power whereof our Saviour saith Data est mihi omnis Potestas All power is given unto me the power of Christ whether as high Priest or as King is meerely Spirituall Ioan. 20. as it is proved by the Authority of St. Augustine and of all the best Divines the Branch therefore of the same power namely that Branch which was given to St. Peter is meerly Spirituall Thirdly The power given to Peter is to Loose and to Binde that is to absolve and not absolve sinne the power to absolve or not absolve sinnes is meerely Spirituall Ergo the power of Binding and Loosing given to Peter is meerly Spirituall Fourthly Hee that defines a Habit from the end thereof drawes the best Definition Thus hath Aristotle defined vertue virtus est quae â—onum faecit habenteâ— vertue is that which betters her owner and possessour the end of the Popes power according to all is life eternall and that end is meerly Spirituall Ergo he that affirmes the Popes power is meerely Spirituall produceth a right affirmative because he defines the Popes power by the right and proper end thereof Lastly If the power of Jurisdiction which Christ gave unto Peter had not beene meerly Spirituall but Temporall doubtlesse he would have taken up materiall Kâ—yes and would have said unto Peter and the rest of the Apostles take ye these keyes whose sinnes c. But Christ having done that Spirituall work breathed on them all and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost and saying these words receive ye the Holy Ghost or the Holy Spirit he undoubtedly declared it was no Temporall power that hee then bestowed but a power meerly Spirituall And this Hetrodox is that which before I have pronounced that as well by the Act which our Saviour did as also by the words that hee spake it is aptly gathered that for certaine the said power is meerely Spirituall Now I purpose to draw a Picture of your particular Errours 1. You argue from the Genus to the Species in this manner The Popes power as Orthodox affirmes is meerely Spirituall Orthodox therefore hardly believes the Pope to be some simple Priest or common Curate just as if I should frame this Reason Hetrodox affirmes that a Lion is a creature therefore Hetrodox affirmes that a Lion is a little Ant or Pismire or this Argument Hetrodox affirmes the power of the most Christian King is Temporall therefore Hetrodox affirmes the most Christian King is the Father of a private Familie with power oeconomicall were it not a very abusive straine a wrong intollerable if I should make Hetrodox the Father of so ridiculous Ergoes worthy to be hissed knocked and stamped out of all Theologicall and Philosophicall Schooles If Orthodox pretends and avouches that Papall power is meerly Spirituall he doth not forsooth thereby avouch that Papall power is restrained to a private Familie and without all Jurisdiction like the power of every simple and common Curate but Orthodox grants it is a power over all the Soules that are subject unto the Popes power 2. Againe Sir you are pleased to terme it Heresie for any to affirme that Papall power is meerly Spirituall and I must make bold to tell you Hetrodox the contrary Doctrine hath no great conformity or congruity with divine Scripture and by name is not conformable to that faire Text Sicut misit me c. As my Father hath sent me Ioan. 20. so I send you my Apostles the power which our Saviour himselfe being sent of his Father exercised in this world was meerly Spirituall Ergo the Popes power being a Branch of the same power which Christ himselfe exercised is likewise meerly Spirituall True it is that his power as we must hold extends and spreads it selfe Jure Divino by Gods Law over all his owne Subjects which Article being denied by the foresaid Authors whom you have remembred before they were thereupon condemned but not because they maintained the Popes power to be meerely Spirituall For it is one thing to maintaine the Pope hath no Jurisdiction and another thing to affirme that his Jurisdiction is meerely Spirituall 3. You alledge Navarrus to this purpose That Papall power is not meerly Temporall as if he had said the Popes power is Temporall but accessorily Spirituall Thus much is noted by these words is not meerly Temporall But know Hetrodox that Navarrus was never so much overseene to suffer so grosse an Errour to drop out of his learned braine or painfull quill Navarrus affirmes the full contrary take the file
c. 37. Henrie IV. by Gregorie VII So that in this your opinion you erre and wander without any guide or companion but certaine ancient and moderne Heretiques and in particular Marsilius of Padua for one as it is testified by the Cardinall de Turre Cremata Nâ—y more the Pope cannot be judged by the Councell except in case of Heresie upon which point and Article all Catholiques are agreed And herein lies your second falsitie For Pope Iohn XII was not found culpable of Heresie but onelie of scandalous and inordinate life in which case he could not be judged Besides that Councell by which Pope Iohn was deposed was no lawfull Councell but a Conventicle Schismaticall and without a Head whereupon it was abrogated and cassed not long after who so desires to know the truth of this Historie may read the X. Tome of Cardinall Baronius or else to make a shorter cut the Addition of Onuphrius Orthodox This argument hath beene propounded by manie Catholiques and howsoever it is likewise taken up by Hereticks they make use thereof to another end then Catholiques use the same But without all question or doubt de Turre Cremata nor Bellarmine himselfe doth untie the knot and therefore in briefe I must uncase your particular Errours herein 1. It is the Doctrine of St. Paul that Christians must submit and leave themselves to be judged by Secular Painces and most of all in Causes of Appeale wherein the partie Appealing complaines of the inferiour Judge ad redimendam vexationem for a redresse of his grievances or wrongs yet behold you contend I cannot chuse but marvaile at your boldnesse that St. Pauls Appeale was not de Iure Tell me now good Sir did St. Paul appeale contra Jus against Right If so then you must needs thinke and believe that St. Paul sinned in the act of his Appeale But howsoever concerning other men it may be spoken de Facto of the Fact and not de Iure of the Right yet so to reprove the holie Apostle St. Paul of sinne of nothing as you seeme to doe I see not how you can avoid a great blot at least of blame 2. The word Coactus Constrained you take in other sense then it was taken by St. Paul For the Apostle uses the word Constrained to this purpose and sense That for so much as Festus an inferiour Judge had not done him right and justice therefore ad redimendam vexationem for the repairing of his wrong and losse thereby received he was constrained to make his Appeale unto the Superiour Judge as Appellants use commonly to speake whereas you tell us that St. Paul said I was constrained to appeale that he might not make men burst out into great laughter if he had appealed unto St. Peter 3. You say St. Paul appealed not unto St. Peter least hee should make both Jewes and Gentilâ—s to laugh Well fare you Sir for this merrie conceipt and pleasant device in the edge of an Evening I demand in that St. Paul appealed not unto St. Peter whether was it well done or ill If well then Exemption is not founded upon Gods Law If ill wherefore did he so What was it perhaps that people might not laugh Why then Sir to the end that people may not be put into a fit of laughter is it lawfull for one to doe ill or to forbeare speakiâ—g the truth and in particular for that chosen vessell that holie Apostle who saith we preach Christ crucified unto the Jewes even a stumbling block and unto the Grecians foolishnesse And what 1. Cor. 1.23 I beseech you Hetrodox makes men laugh more then foolishnesse But St. Paul abstained from preaching never the more because his preaching was by the Gentiles accounted foolishnesse No he tooke and reputed that imputation for a speciall Reputation ascribing the same to the greatnesse to the wonderfull vertue and power of his preaching Ministerie To tell you the plain truth I can by no meanes and at no hand brooke or endure to heare that for the firming or founding of an opinion which is delivered without all probabilitie and without any shew and shadow of Precept in holie Scripture anie man should talke his pleasure of holie Paul and sacred Scripture in so free a straine or veine of libertie 4. To know the Historie of Pope Iohn and Otho you referre us forsooth to Card. Baronius and Onuphrius in his Addition to Platina of the Lord Cardinall Baronius what shall I say Hee is an Historian and living still to this day His workes are suspected in the matter of immunities yea as one that hath not a tongue to speake or a pen to write otherwise he denies all the ancient Historians and in case by good hap he admit some one or other still he takes the words which make for his turne and as for those words which make against his owne purpose hee still seekes to blind the world and to make the Reader believe they are supposititious and thrust into the webb of that Historie by foule and forcible intrusion And even thus hee deales in this Historie denying the Authoritie of Intiprandus approved in the Church by the space of Dcc. yeares and other Writers of the same times So that now his Annals not finding such account or consideration in the World as no doubt he dreame of and believed as also for as much as a Booke entituled Errores Card. Baronii The Errours of Cardinall Baronius is in good forwardnesse to be speedily printed in which Booke are particularly laid open more then 20. Errours by him committed in denying this most ancient Historie of Pope John it is not worth while or whistling to speake of his Authoritie As for the Addition of Onuphrius first I say hee is very moderne and in a manner new then I answer that in the said Addition there is nothing that makes against my Position but rather on my side and is written in favour of our Tenent at least if the Election of Leo be admitted to passe for a lawfull Elâ—ction 5. You pretend the Emperour Otho could not de Iure depose Pope John for his Criminall Delicts and that Popes have de Iure deposed Emperours Hitherto the contrarie hath beene proved and ever de Iure Namely that in Temporall matters the Pope hath not Ius auferendi Regna jure Pontificatus that his Holinesse hath neither dram nor drop of right to take away Kingdomes in right of his Pontificalitie and that by Gods Law none is exempt from the Secular Power in Criminall Delicts But you draw a reason from contrarie sense and I know not upon what ground oâ— Foundation the said Reason is built 6. You grant and indeed you are forced so to doe the lawfull Deposing of Pope Iohn I say lawfull because by vertue of Iohns deposition Leo was elected and taken for lawfull Pope say Ciacconius what he list or can to the contrarie of whom if I shall pronounce that in the ancient Poet Quicquid delirant Reges plectuntur
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