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
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
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
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
remaines then that by authority of Scripture he was a temporall King albeit he never exercised his temporall power But in holy Scripture not a word of any such temporall Kingdome but only of his spirituall Kingdome Thus the great Father S. Augustine and thus Maldonate Tract 115 in Joan. agreeable to the opinion of al Divines of the best rank whereupon he concludes in this notable manner Quâ verô parte Christus homo erat non erat universi orbis terrarum temporalis Rex ut Augustinus eo loco quem modò nominavimus omnes boni Theologi sentiunt Aut enim naturali aut divino aut humana jure rex esset naturali non erat quia regis filius non erat quod est naturalem esse regem Divino non erat quia omnia sacrarum literarum testimonia quae de ejus loquuntur regno ut August aâ—t et omnes boni theologi affirmant de spirituali intelliguntur humano non erat quia non fuit orbis terrarum consensu res electus et cum Iudaei vellent eum rapere ut regem facerent aufugit So that Christ as mortall man then having no temporall dominion he could never exercise the same For Non est actus ubi non est ulla potentia ad illum actum no exercise where no power to bring forth such exercise This must be understood of Christ as he was man and mortall man For as God no doubt as before hath been said he was King of Kings Lord of Lords As for the eternall power of Christ our Lord for so you call it which was given him after his resurrection there was no need to make any speech or motion thereof because the present question is of temporall Power and not of eternall which eternall power for certain Christ our Lord hath not given and left unto his Vicar 3. Your third errour lyes in a mis-interpretation of two severall texts this for the one knowing that his Father hath given al things into his hands and this for the other whom he hath made heire of all things For you understand them both of his temporall power whereas Maldonate by the authority of S. Augustine and of all the best Divines affirmes they are to be understood as they ought in very truth of Christs spirituall Kingdom which in the Gospell is called the Kingdome of heaven Joan. 19. For if the said words might be understood of Christs temporall Kingdome then Christ himselfe had not forborn which God forbid to rap or breathe out a lye when he said My Kingdom is not of this world againe My Kingdome is not from hence For he had by that means denied what holy Scripture had affirmed he was indeed that is a temporall King But say still that Christ as man had temporall dominion yet still it remaines good that he did never put such temporall dominion in practise or execution which as you have already confessed so it is sufficient for my purpose Joan. 19.11 4. That place in S. Iohn Thou couldest have no power over me except it had been given thee from above you say is not understood of the Judge or Lord Governours ordinary power but of a permissive power In good time Sir but were it so as you interpret surely then Christ had proved himselfe but a bad Logician to answer the governour clean from the purpose for Pilate spake of his judiciary power Joan. 16. when he said to Christ Knowest thou not that I have power to loose thee c. Secondly not Pilate alone but likewise all the Iewes had the same permissive power of which permissive power your text before cited is to be understood this is your houre and the power af darkenesse which for this reason is called the power of darknes because It is not given from above 20. Jac. 1.17 even from the Father of lights Thirdly permissive power cannot be called a power given but rather a power not denyed or not letted hindered from above Non data sed non negata vel non impedita desuper Fourthly that is called permissive power whereby God permits and suffers a sinner to fall into sinne but God gives no such power from above for if he give it from above then he himselfe concurres with sinne and is the author of sinne which doctrine is even as false as God is true and as truth is no lye S. Thomas therefore saith and you Hetrodox confesse the words are understood of the Judge Pilats ordinary power as the Minister of Cesar yea S. Augustine upon the same words thus Discamus ergo quod Christus dixit quod Apostolum docuit quia non est potestas nisi à Deo quidquid sit de actu malè utentis eâ quia plus peccat qui innocentem occidendum potestati livore tradit quam ipsa potestas si eum timore alterius potestatis majoris occidit talem quippe Deus dederat illi potestatem ut esset etiam sub Caesaris potestate Learne wee then saith S Augustine as first Christ himselfe said in person and after taught his Apostle Paul there is no power but of God be the act of the person by whom the said power is abused what it will And learn wee withall that he commits the greater sinne who for envy delivers up the innocent unto the higher power to be executed then the Magistrate himselfe commits who for feare of some other Power higher then himselfe puts the innocent unto death For God gave Pilate such power as might be many degrees under Cesars absolute and supream power And here I will touch another of your errors a twig of the same branch in attributing that unto Pilats ignorance which Augustine with all the rest have ascribed to his feare of purchasing to himselfe Cesars heavy displeasure and indignation To my purpose I have this also from Saint Bernard Romani presidiis potestatem Christus super se quoque fatâ—tur fuisse ordinatam In Ep. ad Archiep. Senoven Our Saviour Christ was not ashamed to confesse that over himselfe the Roman President had lawfull and ordinate power And in the same Epistle to the same Archbishop Quid secularitatem contemnitis Secularior nâ—mo Pilato cui Dominus astitit judicandus Non haberes in me potestatem nisi tibi datuâ— esset desuper Iam tunc pro se loquâ—batur quod post per Apostoloâ— clamavit in Ecclesiis Non est potestas nisi à Deo Wherefore set you so light by Secularity who ever was more secular then Pilate before whose Tribunall and at whose Barre the Lord Christ himselfe stood indicted to receive judgement and sentence of death from his mouth Thou couldst not have any power against me saith Christ except it were given thee from above Even then there Christ was his own Advocate even then and there he pleaded his owne cause even then and there he had sensible experience of the same thing in his owne
for the next successour to Rodulphus in the year Mccxcii and the Emperour Albertus for the next successour to Adulphus in the year Mccxcix whereas St. Thomas walked the way of all flesh in the yeare Mcclxxiv Moreover they cite another text of St. lib. 2. Senten Dist 44. Thomas Esse in summo Pontifice apicem utriusque potestâ—tis Temporalis Spiritualis That our holy Father the Pope is top and top-gallant both of Temporall power and Spirituall power But let St. Thomas his text be viewed with a cleare eye and it will soone be perceived that he was of a contrary opinion For after he had taught that in Temporall matters we are bound to obey the Temporall Prince rather then the Spirituall and in causes meerly Spirituall the Spirituall rather then the Temporall at last he concludes That were he not Pope who in the P ovinces of his command is armed with the double Sword of both Jurisdictions he Subjects are bound to honour him with due obedience equally both in the one and in the other kind Hetrod Is this your strong Fort Orthodox Is it no better man'd Hath it no stronger Barricadoes Then heare n t yet my Basilisco or double Canons but my Demi-Canons and Culvering play Your third Proposition is like the second neither barâ—ell better herring It neither sorts nor suits with your principall scope it sâ—rves only to bewray the spitefull humour and little sincerity in alledging of the Authors by your selfe alledgâ—d Fiâ—st It jarres with your Scope and purpose For your whole intention tends to set up a Flag or Banner of Defiance against our Holy Fathers sentences of Excommunications and Interdicts thundered against Christian Princes and States in cases of contumacie as one that charges the said sentences and censures with Invaliditie and meer Nullâ—tie To which purpose you might as well affirme that our Holy Father the Pope is not L. Temporall of the World as if you should affirme the Frâ—nch King cannot condemne and send any man to the Gallies because the French King is no Bishop For to the thundering of a sentence Excommunicatorie or of an Interdict no Regall or Temporall Authority but only Papall and Spirituall Power is required as the Spirituall Power is not required for the sending of a man to Chaynes and Oares in the Gallies because the Temporall hath sufficient Autho ity for that Judgement As for your little Sinceritie in citing of Authors let Sotus let Bellarmine be perused with indifferencie of Judgement and and it will soone be found That neither the one nor the other doth use any such termes of immodesty as you have layed to their charge namely to affirme they wonder at our Canonists who had such brasen faces to affirme without any reason or without any Authoritie of the New Testament that Popes are direct Lords of all the World in Temporals a Doctrine in truth full of scandall and built on the Sands of the Sea-shore That wonder which is come out of your owne Forge will never be found in the writings of Sotus and Bellarmine much lesse that either they or we have termed the Doctâ—ine of Canonists a scandalous doctrine and not grounded upon any reason We have rather affirmed it is not absolutely the Doctrine of Canonists because we are not ignorant how farre the Canonists dissent one from another in their opinions Sotus alleadgeth for himselfe Iohannes Andreas and Bellarmine produceth for his opinion the Card. de Turrecremata and Navarras Cap. Novit de Judicii He might likewise have alledged Pope Innocentius the IV. and the Glosse in the same place where the distinction of Directè indirectè is apertly couched The difference between these Authors stands in giving or taking Supream Power from the Pope in Temporall causes For so much is granted of all Writers except Heretikes but rather it consists in the Mannor For by some Authors it is resolved that Popes are armed with Supreame power in Temporals in like manner as all secular Princes are Other Authors contend that Papall power properly and in it selfe is meerly Spirituall but in ordine ad Spiritualia in a certaine order and reflâ—x to Spirituall matters it may distraine and seize with all full and absolute authority upon things Temporall lib. 3. c. 11. 13. So St. Thomas in that small treatise de Regim Principum divinelie makes demonstration at least if that little worke was of his penning For Bellarmine denies not in any absolute straine the said little worke to be the Artifice of St. Thomas but only reports that some not without cause have drawne the matter into doubt because in that petit volume there is record of an Historie that succeeded after St. Thomas death And Bellarmine himsâ—lfe affirmes it is no false Latine to conjecture the said Hâ—storie was nimbly conveyed after the death of Thomas into the Libret by some other And yet not building upon so weake an Answer that the said Booke was none of those works which were framed in St. Thomas his shop he subjoynes another more solid and much better soldered answer namely to cleare and explaine one sentence of the said Booke by other sentences thereof But how can your great and gâ—osse â—emeâ—itiâ— be suffeerd in speaking to harshly of the holy Canons I know these are your own wordâ— that some allâ—dge the Canons which as humane Lawes in concurrence or paragon of Gods Word come short in makiâ—g the weight of â—quaâ—l Authoritie They cite as you also affiâ—me St. Thomas c. O how great disparagement nay how great despight is herein uttered against our sacred Canon was ever the like heard from the mouth of any Catholique You seem to take no care at all whether your Doctrine be confirmable or contrary to the sacred Canons and not so much as vouchsafe to answer the opponent by whom they are alledged and propounded as if they were of no weight authoritie at all when they come to be tryed by the common standard and beame of Gods Word For you terme them absolutely humane Lawes as if they had not beene fâ—amed and indited by the assistance of the Holy Spirit wherein you faâ—l and fall from the accustomed phrases of the Hâ—l Fathers by whom the Canons are continually stiled Sacred Holy and inspiâ—ed of God Will you be pleased to heaâ—e what Lâ—o saith writing to Anatâ—lius Nimis haec imorohâ— â—imis prava suat quae Sacratâ—ssimis Canonibus inveniun uâ— esse contraria O in how high a degree of p avity and wickedn sse is that Doctrine rankt which teacheth positions adverse and contrary to the most Sacred Canons Lastly whereas you contend that sacâ—ed Canons in concuâ—rence with Gods Lawes come so short of matching them in equall ballance of Authoritie you plainly shew that Canons in this Argument are contrarie to Gods Word and so to be reputed of no reckoning or accompt Aâ—d in so doing what doe you else but reprove not onely the first Authors of the Sacred Canons for
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
as a Publicane where our Saviour gives Authority to Excommunicate but with a supposition of sin and of obstinate persisting in sinne Hetrodox Verily Orthodox you seeme to paire the nailes of Pontificiall power so near that you give me just cause to suspect you believe that our holy Father the Pope is but simple Priest or Curate without any lawfull Jurisdiction and that hee can doe no more but exhort to the obedient keeping of Gods Law as every ordinary Preacher doth or Baptise and confesse the people as every common Curate doth And so it seems you seek to revoke and to renew the Heresie of the Valdenses or Lionists of Wickliffe Mansilius of Padua and Iohn Huss which blind and pestiferous Heresie is caressed or embraced by all moderne Heretiques But I must come to a more narrow sifting of your words First You say the Popes power is meerly Spirituall To what end serves your meerlie was it not enough to say it is a Spirituall power was it not better to say it is principally Spirituall Navarrus whom you so highly commend Cap. Novit de judiciis and exhort all men to reade with diligence and great attention saith vâ—ry well that surely the Popes power is not meerly Temporall but he never saith it is meerly Spirituall as if the Pope could not in any sort shuffle and cut the Cards of Temporall affaires Nay hee further termes it a most eminent power which in it selfe being Spirituall and by consequence far Superiour to the Temporall both can and ought also to set the Temporall strait when it growes crooked or goes out of the right path And whereas our Saviour Christ said I will give thee the Keyes not of any Terrene Kingdome but of the Celestiall Kingdome or the Church of Christ hath said he that gives the Celestiall Kingdome takes not away Earthly Kingdomes or your selfe Orthodox hath said the Temporall Monarchie was founded of old from the beginning of the World surely none of all this makes either for the fortifying of your Sconce or to the weakening of my Campe For herein you affirme thus much and no more The Kingdome of Christ whereof Peter the Apostle received the keyes is no Temporall Kingdome which one cannot acquire but some other must lose but it is a Kingdome which governes all other Kingdomes without spoyling any man of that Dominion which by good just and lawfull right he holds Otherwise you might say as well that God himselfe hath no power over Temporall matters because God himselfe the giver of Heavenly Kingdomes is no robber and spoiler of mens Earthly Inheritances Againe you say Christ gave his Apostles and Peter a power but yet restrained Ioan. 20. and not without limitation that is a power over sinnes because he breathed on them all and said Receive the Holy Ghost c. This you cannot be ignorant is the Heresie of those who rob the Pope and the Church of all Jurisdiction an Heresie condemned by Christ himselfe in the very same place a little before the words now cited For before the words Quorum remiseritis c. whose sinnes ye shall remit shall be remitted he saith Sicut misit me Pater as the Father hath sent me into the World so doe I send you forth in which words he gave them absolute power and without limitation to governe the Church in his owne roome Hereupon Divines teach that in these words he gave the power of Jurisdiction in the other the power of Order And when afterward he said to Peter in the Chapter next following Pasce oves feed my sheepe doubtlesse he restrained not power to Absolution from sinne but hee gave a most ample power to rule and governe the whole Church For the word Pasce Feed is the very same in the Greeke language wherein St. Iohn did write his Gospell which is used in St. Iohns Revelation he shall rule them with a rod of Iron Apoc. 19. Mich. 2. as also in the Prophet as is translated by the Septuagint Ex te mihi erit Dux qui regat populum meum Israel out of thee shall come a Captaine unto me that shall rule my people Israel Mat. 16. So that by the usuall phrase of Scripture to make St. Peter a Shepheard or Feeder was to make him Ruler Governour and Prince of the whole Church So when Christ said to Peter whatsoever thou shalt loose or bind he restrained not the power unto sin nor unto the persons for he said not Quemcuuque but Quodcunque not whomsoever but whatsoever thou shalt binde or loose His meaning was to signifie and expresse an universall power of Binding and Loosing that is of commanding of making Lawes of Dispensing as it should be found needfull for the leading and bringing in of the Faithfull into the Kingdome of Heaven with most full and ample authoritie to enjoyne every man what he should believe and likewise to labour and to remove all the rubs blocks and impediments whereby they might be crossed in the way of Salvation as Cardinall Bellarmine hath declared at great length You give me thirdly to understand that our holy Father the Pope hath power onely over Soules and this you draw from that Prayer of the Church Deus qui Petro animas ligandi c. O God who hast given Peter the power of Pontificiall Dignity to bind and to loose the Soules of men If this Reason hath any force then secular Princes must have no power but over the Soules of their Subjects because Paul saith Let every soule be subject unto the higher powers And so either you make your selfe too simple as one who doth not consider that in Scripture the soule is taken for the whole man or else you seeke to catch the simple with words of holy Church not right understood And therefore perhaps the Divine providence to take away the like deceitfull sleights and flie shifts hath inspired the Reformers of the Breviarie to lib and geld the said Prayer of the word Soules which of old neither was found in the said Prayer nor ought at all there to be read because that Prayer was founded and formed upon the foresaid words in the Gospell whatsoever thou Peter shalt binde and whatsoever thou shalt loose Last of all you contend that power to excommunicate is conditionall presupposing sin and obstinacie in sin This Doctrine is both new and false you are not able to produce any Author that ever so taught Sinne I confesse must be presupposed for Excommunication is a punishment and the most grievous the most dreadfull of all other so that no sinne committed no punishment by Excommunicarion can be inflicted Disobedience also otherwise called contumacie is I confesse againe presupposed a sinne and to Excommunicate every sinne gives not sufficient warrant but only that sinne which is cloathed or clogged rather with Contumacie For Christ saith Si Ecclesiam non audierit If he will not heare the Church The censure therefore of Excommunication cannot be denounced against
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
Secondly he should have a holy designe to attempt and enterprise the hardest labours of all other as to tumble the great Turke downe from his Imperiall Throne to pull his Regall Crowne from his Royall Head or to convert all the Indies or to reduce the whole World to the unity of the Church and such like matters of the highest stuffe which because the Pope neither will nor can performe it is easie for all men to judge that his Holinesse for all your sayings doth not governe all Kingdomes as God himselfe doth 7. Moreover you faine would make men believe that as God governes all Kingdomes not depriving any of their Free-hold whether it be Kingdome or Power so the Pope governes Kingdomes and takes not power from Kings First because those words of the Church are spoken of Christ man and not of of Christ God as the Lord Cardinall saith of whom Herod was afraid that he would spoile him of his Kingdome Hostes Herodes impie Christum venire quid times O ungodly enemie King Herod what ayles thee to be afraid of Christs comming Then Secondly because no man is to busie himself like a Polypragmon with exercise of Temporall power within the Dominions of any other Prince as a Prince Independent neither can any man exercise the said power therein without robbing the said Prince of his lawfull power within his owne Dominions what man ever enriched himselfe without impoverishing of some other 8. Again you make it a crime no lesseheinous then Herefie for any man to teach the power of Jurisdiction given to the Apostles is the very same power which Christ himselfe gave My reading tels me not a word of any other Text where our Lord Christ hath given his Apostles the power of Jurisdiction Ioan. 20. yea all the Doctors nay Christ himselfe doth not furnish mee with any other Text but in the same he teacheth us three things the first is Data est mihi omnis potestas in Coelo in terrâ All power is given to me both in Heaven and in Earth And this he speakes to teach that his good will and pleasure was to communicate some part of his entire and absolute power unto his Apostles The second Sicut misiit me Pater ego mitto vos As my Father hath sent me so I send you that is my Father sent me to take away to cancell all bonds for sinne and to worke all that which Hetrodox and Cardinal Bellarmine hath produced and alledged conatrry to the foresaid second Proposition and in like sort I send you now O my Apostles to doe and performe the said workes In which words our Saviour Christ made not his Apostles entercommoners with himselfe in his whole Spirituall Power â— No no such matter for hee communicated not unto them the power say we to absolve without Sacraments nor power to institute Sacraments c. nor the power of his owne Spirituall and Heavenly Kingdome so that Sicut the word As must be taken in a limited sense and not without some dooles and bounders of Limitation The third that Christ breathed on the Apostles and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose sinnes ye shall remit c. There our Saviour Christ likewise limits the word Sicut As That is to say I give you Spirituall Jurisdiction over Soules and over sinnes O my deare and faithfull servants Can there be any doubt or question hereof No verily For here the promise is fulfilled What promise The same that Christ made to Peter and the rest of the Apostles under the Metaphor of Binding and Loosing of locking up in Prison with Keyes and of delivering from Prison by the same Keyes This runs currant and so shall runne so long as the houre-glasse of old Father Time hath a drop of water or a crum of sand to let fall That for certaine the servitude or bondage from which we are delivered by Christ is the slaverie of sinne so that our liberty must needs be the liberty of Grace Mat. 18. And that is the reason wherefore the promise of Christ made in Metaphoricall Speech is expounded in these plaine and proper termes whose sinnes ye shall forgive Ioan. 20. c. For to locke and to deliver with Keyes to bind and to let loose to forgive and to retaine sinnes are phrases of Speech importing and signifying one thing partly according to proper and partly according to Metaphoricall Construction 9. You maintaine that Pontificiall power is unlimited but I cannot see your Assertion backt with any Reason or Authority neither can I find with what Leggs it walkes or upon what stumps it stands For the Lord God alone is cloathed and armed with unlimited power The Principall himselfe is invested with unlimited power but so is not his Vicar or Vice-gerent And besides to speake out of the teeth be you never so loth to heare it I cannot see how it is not repugnant unto Christian Faith to affiâ—me the whole power that Christ had himsâ—lâ—e as Head of the Church and that now he retaineth in Heaven hee hath communicated to the Pope which doubtlesse whosoever affirmes if your selfe be the affirmant he affirmes who affirmes the Popes Power is without limitation Ioan. 20. 10. Againe You have heard me onely stand for the power of Jurisdiction which our Saviour gave in these words Receive ye the Holy Ghost and you now urge the word Pasce Feed which word wraps in both powers not only the power of Jurisdiction but also the power of Oâ—der 11. I have not restrained the Popes Power to this or that kind of Subjâ—cts but have onely spoken in generall and have yeelded to the Pope all that Spirituall Jurisdiction By like Hetrodox you thinke that you talke and conferre with a man of Wood with a stock that hath not so much as the least sparke of Discourse or of Religion upon the Subject now in conference But you shall find your selfe deceived and that you have to deale with an Antagonist neither stock-like nor block-like 12. Without any occasion you passe over the River to the Pastures I meane to the word Pasce Feed and here you say that in the originall Greeke it signifies Peter governe and rule my Lambes Now Sir I doe not deny that Christ is the Spirituall King and Pastor of the Church or that as Temporall Kings in Scripture are called Pastors Feeders and Shepheards in Temporals even so Christ himselfe the Pastor is likewise King in Spirituals Nor doe I deny the Pope to be Christs Vicar and vice-roy with a limited Power in Spirituals a power every way most eminent as extending over Christian soules But from this can you Hetrodox well collect and gather that our Holy Father the Pope is a Temporall King much lesse a Spirituall King as Christ is himselfe and least of all that hee hath any Temporall Power by right of hiâ— Pontificiall Dignity and Authority St. John takes up the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice and the
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
had put in Protestation that matters were precipitated and hudled and shuffled and cut by the nimble fingers of cunning Gamesters The Acts of the said Councell are not in these daies to be cited with like integrity to those of the ancient Councels which foule Defect by the godly-wise and learned is justly attributed to the disgrace and disaster of our times And for this reason I am perswaded the holy Fathers in that Councell assembled subjoyned the fore-said words That in case any difficulty should grow and arise in future times about the Determinations of that Councell the Pope might have full power to procure and worke sufficient redresse and remedy thereof either by convocating the learned of those Provinces where such difficill and intricate questions did spring and grow or otherwise by calling a Generall Councell or else might by some other meanes provide for the Quiet and Peace of the Christian Common-wealth So that first I say those words of the Councell are cited amisse both by the Lord Cardinall and your selfe For the Councell saith not Ecclesiae personarum Ecclesiaesticarum Immunitas in Temporalibus est instituta ordinatione divinâ That Immunity of the Church and of Ecclesiasticall Persons in their Temporals is appointed by Gods Ordinance but onely saith Princes ought not permit inferior Magistrates to infringe and violate the Immunity of the Church or of Ecclesiasticks howsoever it be appointed by Gods Ordinance whether meerly Ecclesiastick or Temporall as the Glosse runs granted by Princes according to those Examples Registred in holy Scripture But all this while the Councell doth not deny that such Immunity is granted by Princes in Temporals howsoever after the Examples of King Pharoh and King Artaxerxes Then I say againe that for so much as no such Exemption is found in any place of Scripture but rather the contrary written by St. Paul therefore the Sacred Councell is to be expounded as it is expounded by the Glosse Rom. 13. for otherwise the Councell had maintained an Errour which we Catholiques are bound at no hand to admit or acknowledge 2. The Councell of Coleyne which you alledge was not Generall but Provinciall It Decrees nothing by Determination it delivers no more then the Glosse but speakes lesse in the teeth and more cleere then the Councell of Trent For it doth not say that such Immunity is commanded by the Law of God and man but onely rather introduced or brought in by Gods Law after a sort namely because Pâ—inces have been moved and incited by the Examples of Pharoh and Artaxerxes in holy Scripture which is Gods Law to grant Priviledges unto Ecclesiastics or unto some others for not payiâ—g of Tribute not because it is commanded in any Text of Scripture but as taking that good Example in holy Scripture of their owne accord 3. The Lateran Councell which you also produce is not accounted Generall as the Lord Cardinall himselfe hath not sticked to acknowledge in divers places and so it wants weight of Authority Besides that which the said Councell affirmes is not held for indubitable And if the Councâ—ll meane that Princes have no power over Clerics in matters meerly Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall upon the matter per sâ— in it selfe they hold a truth But if they meane that Clerics are exempted in Criminall causes and Temporall matters which Priviledge Clerics enjoy not by Gods Law as hath beene proved then the Councell is not in any wise to be followed Besides the Councell cannot understand it otherwise then according to the Glosse and that is denyed of none 4. You are pleased to cast upon me the reproachfull name of Goliah whom you might better liken to David because I fight Pro castris non contra castra Dei for the Hosts of God and not against his Hosts that is for the Doctrine of the Apostles for the holy Scriptures of Christ our Saviour the highest Priest and for the holie Fathers neither doe I averre anie thing as hath beene declared against any one of the Sacred oecumenicall Councels lib. 1. de Cler. cap. 28. 5. The Canon of Bonifacius is understood according to the Glosse and so much is testified by the Lord Cardinall 6. Pope Iohn VIII and Pope Symmachus are to be understood in Causes meerely Ecclesiasticall after the manner before declared and not otherwise But of these two Popes more shall be spoken to purpose in another place It is very certaine they have not determined any thing against our Tenent as will easily be perceived by him that shall be pleased to take a fight of their Determinations 7. Your owne two Examples doe rather weaken and pull downe then build up and fortifie your Tower in two respects First you alledge that Pharoh and Artaxerxes granted their Priests free Charter of Exemption I can aske no more for I affirme the very same and no more viz. that granting Priviledges of Exemption belongs to the Prerogative of Princes Then againe you say that Princes have learned this lesson immediatly from the light of Nature whereas else-where the Lord Cardinall tels us that Exemption is not immediately taught by the light of nature but by the Law of Nations Et per quandam Similitudinem and by a kind of Resemblance or Similitude 8. Things taught by the light of Nature it is to no purpose for Pâ—inces to gâ—ant by Priviledge And whereas Clerics are exempâ—ed in particular as it is avouched by St. Thomas by the Priviledge of Princes Propter naturalem quandam aequitatem in respect of a certaine naturall Equity his words are to be taken in a sound sense And how That such Priviledge is founded upon the rule of Reason which is called naturall Equitie upon which rule of Reason or naturall Equity all the grounds and rules of the Law Civill are established but hereby St. Thomas doth not conclude they are established by Gods Law naturall but are civiil revokeable c. Hetrodox Now you have tickled my Eight Errors is there yet any more to be said for your Defence Orthodox There is more For beside all that hath beene declared in my first Proposition that under the old Law Priests were subject unto their naturall Prince 1. Reg. 2. and besides that Solomon deprived Abiathar and exauthorised him from the high Priest-hood of the Jewes In the Primitive Church untill the Raigne of the Emperour Iustinian there is not read or found in the whole bodie of the Law any Priviledge of Exemption granted to Ecclesiastics â— Hetrodox And have not I made evident Demonstration when I refuted your first Proposition that under the old Law the Priests and Levites were subject unto the Prince Ecclesiasticall And whereas you have affirmed that Moses was a Politicall or Civill Prince have not I proved by testimonies of Scriptures and holy Fathers that Moses was invested in the Authority of high Ptiest To your Example of Solomon I make this answer that Solomon exercised and exâ—cuted a power against Abiathar as the Minister of
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
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
Moses c. But Couaruvias with many catholique Doctors doth avouch that doubtlesse it is an evident sign and strong presumption that in temporall matters and in civill judgements the Levites were not subject unto the High Priest but unto the temporall Prince or Judge Because when Moses by a kind of mean conveyance and resignation as Catholiques would have it transmitted or transferred his whole authority of high Priest and his attendance upon the sacred service unto Aaron yet by no meanes did he then deprive or divest himselfe of authority to judge the Priests and Levits in their temporals And from hence it is evicted that such authority was not knit by any essentiall connexion to the office of the high Priest for had it been connexed in such a manner no doubt Moses would never have so wickedly robbed and cozened Aaron of such a collop as the moety or one halfe of his authority First of all lest he should be noted to wrong his brother Aaron in so high a degree namely by stripping him of no lesse then a whole moety or one halfe of his entire charge again because exemption of Clerics being as you pretend so grounded on Gods Law Moses was to leave the whole course exercise and execution of judgement in the hand of Aaron their ordinary and competent Judge lastly because Moses thereby should have gained the more free scope and greater liberty to serve in other politick imployments and affaires But howsoever Moses was both Priest and high Priest before Aaron if so much must needs be granted yet sure it is a flat Non sequitur to inferre Therefore at one and the same instant two high Priests concurred Quoad exercitium both at once executing and exercising one and the same office For wheresoever the Scripture makes mention of the high Priest it never points out Moses for the man but Aaron as Paul speaking of the high Priest Hebr. 5. saith not Who is called of God the high Priest as Moses was called but as Aaron was called As for the Fathers whom you cite and alleadge adorning Moses with all the foresaid titles I dare take upon me to affirme they witnesse the state and condition of Moses only before the time of Aarons consecration but none of them all do qualifie Moses high Priest Quoad exercitium in point of executing of the high Priests Office after Aaron himselfe was once made and consecrated high Priest For the Church with two heads in spirituals had then bin a very Monster withall the unity of the Church and of Christ himselfe had been thereby very poorely and weakely represented but in case you are so certaine as you seem That Levits were exempted from all power and judgement of the temporall Prince in temporals what meant you to be so farre overseen as to alleadge not so much as one testimony divine or humane in demonstration thereof As I and my Authors have produced two this of Moses for one and that of Solomon 1 Reg. 2. for another Howbeit had you produced any one such testimony yet for so much as the Ceremoniall and Judiciall precepts of the old Law are now abrogated I see not how they could make any thing or stand you in any stead at all for your purpose because I require and stand upon precepts of exemption drawn from Evangelicall and not from legall grounds Hetrod What man It seemes then you purpose now to inferre there was no distinction of Court in the Primitive Church Orthod You have it right in very deed there was no distinction of Court before Justinians time he was the first who upon the humble Petition and suite of Menua Bishop of Constantinople granted that Ecclesiastics might be judged in civill causes by their Prelates Nov. constit 83. Ipso tamen non impedito provided alwaies that his imperiall prerogative thereby were not any manner of way impeached In which case and in case of criminall Delinquents he leaves Ecclesiastics under the power of the temporall Prince and of his Ministers Hetrod I thinke you dreame Orthodox at least I believe you are groslly mistaken S. Paul averres the contrary that in the Primitive Church the Bishop had his peculiar Tribunall and in his own Court gave judgement or sentence upon his ecclesiasticall Subjects I mean his Cleargy Against an Elder saith Paul receive no accusation but under two or three witnesses that is to say admit none to put in a Bill or to preferre Articles against any Priest before thy Tribunall-seat except it be Billa vera or articles verified by the depositions of two or three witnesses I can dazle your eyes with a huge cloud of Councels but I am very loth to impaire your sight a few shall suffice The Councell of Agatha in Provence thus Conc. Canon 32. Clericus nè quenquam praesumat c. A Cleric shall not presume to sue any man before a secular Judge and in case a Cleric be sued in any such Court of Record he shall not put in his answer to the Declaration in any criminall cause before a secular Judge Conc. 1. Canon 9. The generall Councell held and celebrated at Chalcedon in Bethinia before Justinian was hatcht hath decreed in these expresse words Si Clericus adversus Clericum c. If one Cleric shall have an action against another the plaintiffe shall enter his action and prosecute the suite before his own Ordinary and not before any secular Judge The third Councell at Carthage in Africa more ancient you know then the former at Agatha Canon 9. about some 130. yeares before Justitian peept out of the shell thus Item placuit c. Furthermore it is decreed that if any Bishop or Presbyter Deacon or Cleric shall decline his own competent Judge and peculiar Court or cause plea to be entered or made in any other Court of judiciall audience and preceeding he shall forfeit his Ecclesiasticall dignity or other his pastorall charge if the action be of any criminall nature or quality though the sentence doth passe for the plaintiffe in case it be a civill action he shall then pay cost and dammage yea he shall forfeit whatsoever he hath evicted by sentence of the said Court The Milenitane Councell of like antiquity to that of Carthage Can. 19. thus Placuit ut quicunque c. Wee decree that whosoever shall petition the imperiall Majesty to take cognizance of his cause for Oyer Terminer thereof in any of his Majesties imperiall Courts he shall be deprived of his ecclesiasticall Dignity Now then Orthodox upon what ground what authority what warrant dare you affirme that in the Primitive Church there was no distinction of Court and that Justinian was the first by whose constitutions it was ordained and provided that Ecclesiasticks were priviledged to have their tryals and sentences before their Prelates But in plain truth at least if you can abide to heare the truth because Iustinian was a Prince who by usurpation of more then competent
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
act play his part or handled his weapons like a skilfull master of defence halfe so well you have indeed to deale plainly and truly puzzâ—ld my wits a litle and put my reading perhaps to some stagger If you can play the man and lay about you as well in the other seven Propositions for the second whereof in token of challenge I here cast downe my glove as the Appellant calling for your personall appearance to answer the challenge in this place to morrow by sun-rising you may perhaps work more with my present opinions beginning to waver then you are aware Orthod I refuse not your challenge but in signe of acceptation I take up your glove and will not faile to be in the field at the houre assigned Interim I wish you good rest for this night and sharper weapons for the next morning The second dayes Conference upon the second Proposition Het A Good morrow to you Orthodox worthy Champion Defendant you come well armed I make no doubt at all pieces Orthod The same salutation to you Hetrodox noble Champion Appellant whose armes I wish to be more pungent in the conflict of this day then I could find them in our late former skirmish Hetrod Be pleased then without further delay and more losse of time to lay forth your second Ground or Proposition Orthod Nothing pleaseth me better Then mark well the words and contents thereof Christ our Saviour as the Sonne of God equall to the Father is King of Kings and Lord of Lords and yet all the time that he was clothed with our mortall spoyles not onely before his bitter death but likewise after his most blessed and glorious resurrection he never exercised the least power of a secular and temporall Prince Hetrod Make that good and you shall win the spurs or carry away my weapons out of the field Orthod Then sure it shall goe very hard but I will here leave you unarmed in the place For Christ our Saviour was never invested or inthronised in any temporall Kingdome Pilate makes the question to Christ Art thou a King Christ gives the answer Thou sayest I am a King But know O Pilate howsoever I am a King yet my Kingdome is not of this world that is not a temporall Kingdome When that multitude of people who had been miraculously fed and sated with five loaves and two fishes were minded and purposed to make him King he stept aside that he might not be taken by them and so made King He never took upon him to sit as Judge or Umpire in any mans cause Tho. Aqui. in ep ad Roman but answered those who required him to give sentence in a certaine litigious matter Who made me a Judge over your persons or your causes Yea he directly acknowledged Pilate Caesars deputy or Governour to be his lawfull Judge Thou couldst not have any power over me if it were not given thee from above Hetrod This your second Proposition seems to shoot and have a fling at matters of State in present question and no meane garboyles But in sooth it doth not so much as touch the same for they treat not of temporall Kingdomes but of Ecclesiasticall affaires so that your Proposition serveth onely to bewray your own bad affection and erroneous conceit I therefore must give you thus much to understand Very certaine it is that Christ as he was Man mortall did never exercise any power of a temporall Prince in this world For his comming into the world it is his owne testimony was to suffer to serve to teach men contempt of worldly wealth and honour as also by his humility and obedience to chalke out and make plaine the way or path which leadeth to the celestiall Paradise before the face and eyes of all proud and rebellious or disobedient people The Sonne of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life for the redemption of many Mar. 20.28 The Sonne of Man hath not whereon to lay his head Learne of mee that I am meek and lowly in heart Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ Luc. 9.58 Mat. 11.29 2 Cor. 8.9 Phil. 2.8 that he being rich for your sakes became poore He humbled himselfe and became ebedient to the death even the death of the crosse But your Proposition should carry this one joynt or branch more That Christ even as man in case he had been so minded might have assumed to himselfe the dominion of all temporall causes or matters and made himselfe a King or an Emperour Jam. 11. Heb. 1.2 which of the two he would The Father hath given all things into his hands and hath made him heyre of all things Againe It should not have been put down in your Proposition that Christ after his Resurrection exercised no power of a temporall Prince without addition of this clause that Christ after his Resurrection even as he is man hath obtained the government of the whole wold not as a temporall Prince but as an Eternall Prince Reve. 1.5 Mat. 28.18 farre superiour to all temporall Princes as the first begotten of the dead and Prince of all earthly Princes and to whom all power is given both in Heaven and in earth Which power is not properly temporall bâ—cause it is eternall and yet is above all things both temporall and eternall But now againe that Christ acknowledged Pilate for his Judge as you affirme I must be bold to tell you Orthodox It smells somwhat ranke of errour For Christ even as man was the High preist with power of excellencie yea he was the head of men and of Angells so that he had no superiour upon the face of the whole earth neither could he be judged of any other I meane de jure by right Philip. 2.8 howsoever perhaps de facto by fact he might be brought coram nobis upon his owne sufferance and permission For it was he that humbled himself viz. because he would be so humbled by the death of the Crosse And as for his words to Pilate Thou couldst have no power over me O Pilate if it were not given thee from above where Christ seems to take Pilate for his Judge this answer I make By power in those words is meant Permission and so the sense of that passage results to this reckoning That Pilate had never been able to stir either one foot or finger if it had not been by Gods permission In the same sense are these other words to be taken Luc. This is your houre and the power of darknesse And this is the answer of the holy Fathers Chrysostom and Cyril in their Expositions upon the 19. of John In 13. ad Rom. But whereas Thomas understands the same place of Iohn of the power that Princes have from God it likes me well to confesse and say that Pilates power as the Minister of Cesar was from God from whom all lawfull power descends Howbeit with your favour that such power in
Pilate was extended and stretched over Christ it grew out of Pilates ignorance who never knew the super-excellent dignity of Christ and gave sentence against Christ as against a private person of the same Country or Territory whereof then under Cesar he was L. President or chief Governour As if a Priest in these dayes under the name of a Laic and in a Laic habit should be brought by warrant before a Secular Magistrate or Judge he might be judged by the same power whereby he judgeth all other Laics yet doth it not follow that Priests are to come under the judgement of Laics or that Christ was to submit his neck under the yoke of Pilates judgement Orthod You deny that in the present garboyles at which you wrongfully charge me to aime there is any reference to the temperoll Kingdome and yet because you needs will draw me to the scanning of that point I say it is most notorious that in a manner the best Freehold of all temporall Kingdoms is thereby drawn into debatement I let passe your Thesis and will stand upon the Hypothesis Say the Pope now sends forth prohibition to any Christian King or temporall State that he or they shall not meddle with judging Ecclesiasticall persons running into delicts of nature meerly temporall and no way reflecting upon spirituall matters Againe that he or they shall not frame particular Provisoes or Lawes concerning Lands not hitherto acquired or accrued to Ecclesiasticall dominion In quae bonae nondum ipsis est jus quaesitum I now demand By what authority the Pope sends forth any such prohibition I hope not by any authority of Temporall Princes or States for he is not Lord Paramount in Temporalls of their Dominions and Territories By like then he doth it by his authority of universall Pastor Now because that authority of Universall Pastor as we hold he holds as the Vicar of Christ it was not impertinent or superfluous for me to shew but necessary to demonstrate what authority Christ himselfe exercised in temporall causes For Christs authority must be the onely rule of the Popes authority witnesse the words of Christs owne mouth As my Father hath even so doe I send you forth Joan. 20. In which words Christ communicated the authority of jurisdiction to Peter and the rest of his Apostles as by Card. Bellarmine himselfe it is confessed And moreover for so much as the Disciple is not above his Master nor the servant above his Lord Luc. 6. it serveth to draw from those words Paseâ— oves Feed my sheep That as Christ himselfe was no Pastor in Temporals but in Spirituals in like manner the Pope Iure Pontificatus in his right of Popedome hath do authority or dominion in temporall matters and in particular when the lawes temporall Non impedunt cursum ad vitam aeternam are no hinderance in the way to life eternall but establish a civill peace are directed and leveld to the maintaining and preserving of that State of that Liberty of that Dominion wherin particular profession is made of Christian Religion and of Piety as also to the conserving and upholding of publ que justice Now then if I to bring proofe of all this have laboured in the first place to shew what power our Lord Christ himselfe exercised in temporall matters then sure I have spoken home to the point and nothing from the purpose as you cavill Now I will have a bout or a course at your errours not as in a May-game or light skirmish but with Champion-like devoyre 1. You confesse that Christ never exercised any temporall power in this world and it is all that I either have affirmed or can desire to be confessed Neverthelesse you take upon you to teach that I looked not before I leaped because I should have subjoyned that Christ if it had been his good pleasure might by his power have exercised the said temporall power Now as I freely canfesse and acknowledge that in this point you are not our of the right way that if Christ had been so pleased he lawfully might have exercised the said power because he was not only man but also God natures being united in one person and actions according to that rule in philosophy Sunt suppositorum idiomata communicantur according to that rule in divinity neverthelesse whereas you pretend that all I have delivered of this point before is to litle purpose and from the purpose you are to take this for a short but yet for a sufficient and full answer that our present question is de facto a question of the fact non de possibili not a question of what might be or what was possible to be done Forasmuch as the Popes authority being founded upon Christs example the supream Pastor it sufficed to shew what actions Christ himselfe used for the feeding of his little flock and not medle with another new question what actions he was able to do if he had been willing For doubts any man that Christ was able by extraordinary power to worke the conversion of the whole world To sanctify the whole stock and race of mankind in the twinckling of an eye without shedding one drop of his precious blood Is there any thing impossible with God Luc. 1.37 But well assured that arguments drawn from possible to fact are of no force therefore I would not be so idle before to talke of what Christ was able to do in temporall matters but what he hath done in very truth 2. This again you have supponed that our Lord Christ as mortall man had lawfull dominion in temporall matters But Moldonate a learned Jesuite of your own Order in his exposition of these words My Kingdome is not of this world In cap. 27. mat hath learnedly and effectually proved the contrary it may by some perhaps be collected that Christ had the temporall dominion of the world three wayes as he was man 1. By right of inheritance 2. By right of creation 3. By authenticall testimony of Scripture where in many places he is called a King and that as he was man which in effect is thus much That Christ was King of this world either jure naturali by the law of nature that is by the right of inheritance or jure humano by mans law that is by right of election or jure divino by Gods law that is by authority of Scripture But first by right of inheritance I say Christ was no such King for albeit he was descended from the royall stock of Judah yet wee know that Kingdome according to the fore-threatning of Almighty God ended and came to the last period in Jeconiah and was a kind of particular reigning neither was Christ lawfull heire apparant unto any other King Next he was no King by election for it is not known that ever he was chosen King by the People but rather that he gave them the slip and went aside when he knew they intended to make him King It
person and case which afterward he proclaimed in the Church by the ministery of his Apostle There is no power but of God 5. S. Iohn Chrysostome and S. Cyril whom you have alledged doe not deny that Christ speaks of ordinary judiciary power They onely affirme that whereas Christ might have avoided that judgement either by hiding himselfe perhaps as he did when the Jews would have stoned him to death or by commanding as he was God twelve legions of Angels to come down from heaven for his aid and rescue yet he did not decline retard or any way hinder the course of the said judiciary power and proceeding From whence no argument is to be drawne that such power was not of God but rather the contrary And this our Divines understand not of Christs ordinary but of his absolute power quia oportuit Christum pati Luc. 24.46 for ought not Christ as he speaks himselfe to have suffered these things and enter into his glory 6. Againe you bring the same for a reason which is in the question The Pope being High priest cannot be judged forsooth in temporalls by any temporall Judge therefore Christ being High priest could not be judged by Pilate in the fact of usurped jurisdiction imputed and laid to his charge What shall I call this manner and forme of reasoning but a sophisme or fallacie in a bold begging of the question For it should rather be thus reasoned and argued on the contrary Because Christ our Lord hath not shunned the judgement of the temporall Prince but said that his power was given from above and yet by all meanes was the High priest therefore the Pope or High priest of Rome ought not in like cases to renounce or disclaime the judgement of the temporall Prince for Christs actions must be a rule to the actions of the Roman Bishop not his actions a rule to the actions of Christ You put upon Thomas an exposition of his words cleane contrary to his true meaning and right sence of the same an exposition altogether unworthy of that Angelicall Doctors doctrine and here I am bound to fight for my Country for my Master and Compatriot whose Catholike Doctrine in all Theologicall disputes and in this by name I am resolved to hold His words be these Quicquid communiter de Deo de creaturis dicitur à Deo in creatur as derivatur Potestas autem de Deo hominibus dicitur Job 39 Deus potestates non abjicit eum ipse sit potens unde consequens est quòd omnis humana potestas sit à Deo Dominabitur excelsus in regno hominum Dan. 4. Joh. 19 cuicunque voluerit dabit illud Non haberes in me potestatem ullam nisi tibi datum esset desuper Whatsoever is affirmed in common both of God and the creatures the same is derived and sent from God to the creatures Now power is affirmed of men as well as of God for God who is most powerfull himselfe exalteth Powers by his power whereof it followes in right good consequence that all power is of God The most High ruleth in the Kingdom of men and giveth it unto whom he will Thou couldst have no power against me except it were given thee from above So that we see Thomas there treateth of judiciarie power affirmed in common both of God and the creatures and speaks not of Permissive power You please your selfe in producing the example of a Priest stept into a Laic habit and presented before the secular Judge This man knowing himselfe to be a Priest indeed and not a Laic as he shews pretending and standing upon his exemption would never as you beare us here in hand say thus unto the Judge My Lord You have power against me from heaven but rather thus on the contrary your Lordship hath no power against me from above So that Christ himselfe not so speaking but rather the contrary hath not marked or pointed out any such pretension Where it is to be considered that you bring into the Play and upon the Stage a Priest attired like a Laic di stucâ—â— one who pretending Priesthood is not able to say that he is a Priest nor to produce and present his faculties but I know the contrary practice For in some States where the Prince hath granted exemption from his power unto Clerics in criminall causes many to shun escape the secular judgement have made themselves capable of Orders and Clericship by false and counterfeit faculties or breves whereas you Hetrodox are of another mind as it seems namely that a Priest who is grac'd and priviledged with such exemption in very truth may not say so much nor shew the same to the secular Judge but rather should confesse the contrary to wit That doubtlesse the Judge is authorized and strengthned against him with ordinary power Now these things Hetrodox not onely are false but also stand next doore to things incredible Hetrod Have you done with my errors or have you any more good and sound stuffe wherewith to bombast your 2. Proposition Orthod I have no more to say of your errors but now I long to see how deep your challenging sword can cut in this one shield of brasse Our Lord Christ commanded tribute to be paid unto the secular Prince that is unto Cesar Give unto Cesar the things that are Cesars The truth of this Proposition is opposed by some who say that howsoever Christ paid tribute really unto Cesar both for himselfe and for Peter yet withall he professed and said he was not bound to the payment of such tribute Nunquid filii debent solvere tributum Are the children bound to pay tribute Herein say these men the Lord Christ pointed out as with one of his fingers his owne authority of a temporall Prince no way in termes of obligation to be assessed and laid as a Tributarie To this doubt Answer is made That according to some Doctors all that were natively of the Country bred and borne therein who were called by that name of children were not bound to pay the said tribute and because both Christ himselfe and Peter were of that Country bred and borne therefore Christ affirmed they were not obliged to any such payments or else to speak in a better and higher sense he thereby pointed 〈◊〉 his owne most holy Divinity and said That as the Sonne of God he was not bound to pay But because the rendring of that reason was too deep and too high a mysterie whereof the public ministers or officers for the exacting and collecting of tribute were altogether uncapable he therefore said further sed ne scandalizentur lest we should cause them to stumble at some offence or scandall Where we may see what speciall account reckoning our Saviour Christ made of not scandalizing the Ministers of Secular Princes the Collectors of Tribute or Poll-money alledging so true and reall an exemption howsoever by the said Toll-gatherers it was not understood
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
See translated the Roman Empire from the Greekes to the Germans in the person of the Magnificall Charles the Great In clement Rom pontif Pope Clement V. and joyntlie the Generall Councell of Vienna repeats the same Is not hee then temerarious that dares give two Popes and one Councell the lie Neither can it be true that Platina hath anie record to the contrarie For Platina doth no more but affirme that by decree and request of the Roman people the Pope created Charles Emperour of the Germanes So that all that Platina hath avouched in effect is thus much and no more that the people of Rome decreed the Pope should be sued unto and petitioned that he would be pleased to install Charles in the Westerne Empire that Charles in like manner did win the Garland of the Romane Empire it cannot be true because he never made War against the Romanes lesse true that ever he purchased anie Title of Irene and Nicephorus These are only the fictions of Matthias Illyricus without any one yard or foot of good foundation Much lesse true that Charles tooke the Imperiall Dignitie by any power in the Romane people to conferre the same For all the ancient Romane Emperours were chosen by the Armie or else by the next precedent Emperour And therefore Maximus and Balbinus both elected Emperours by the Senate were very soone after slaine by the Souldiers who disdained and scorned to accept or acknowledge anie Emperours set up by the Senate Herodiact 8. or by them advanced to the Imperiall Dignitie St. Hierome also is an authenticall witnesse that Romane Emperors were elected by the Souldiers Ep. 85. ad Eva. Lastly whereas you say that when Charles the Great was invested then Pope Leo had no possession of the Empire that 's but a poore shift and no barre at all to the Popes guift For the Pope gave not Charles the possession but the Title onely and the reason by meanes whereof hee became the lawfull Prince of those Countries which the Westerne Emperours were accustomed to govern and to have the same Dignitie and Prerogative which the said ancient Emperours had possessed and enjoyed Which that he might doe it was not needfull for the Pope himselfe to be possessor of the Empire sufficient it was that he was Pope and consequentlie had Apostolicall power by which power in case it be profitable or necessarie for the state of Christendome he may lawfullie dispose of Christian Kingdomes and Empires as appeares by the manifold practise of our former Popes to have beene done in former ages Orthod I have said once before and I doubt not but you beare it in remembrance that jure Pontificatus by Right of Popedome the Pope hath no power to exercise Temporall Dominion because the Vicar can have no greater power then the Principall and againe because the actions of Christ our Lord must be a Rule to his Vicar of all their actions Vpon the firme ground of those Reasons I have lately brought in and built greatlie to the purpose if I be not greatlie deceived two Arguments of the Adversaries drawn à Facto from the Fact to impugne the true Doctrine in Iure in case and point of Right the one of Alexander VI. and the other of Leo III. which two Popes it may at least so seem have exercised Temporall Dominion For the one divided the Indies betweene the Kings of Spaine and Portugall the other translated the Empire into the West or to utter my mind better declared Charles the Great Emperour of the West These two Arguments I have answered before with one Reason thus That Iure Pontificatus by right of their Popedome these acts were not done Then I rendered a Reason of the said Acts Non ex propriâ Sententiâ not as out of mine owne Judgement but according to the writings of Historians whether this be to the purpose or no I leave the consideration hereof to your selfe when you shall be in a better temper In the meane time take notice of your particular Errours 1. You fall into a Digression of just Warre and the way to be taken or course to be followed in converting the Indians to the Faith and knowledge of Christ Surelie this Digression might verie well have beene spared or else upon as good ground and with no lesse reason you might have made another Digression of Navigation For I have only affirmed that Pope Alexander VI. made the former Division that neither of the two Kings might be anie impediment or hinderance to the others Navigations and acquists Whether the Kings of Spaine and Portugall have made lawfull Acquists of those barbarous people and Countries or no that nothing at all concernes our present discourse especiallie because it should be far from us once to harbour a thought of those Catholique and most Christian Kings undertakings but upon great reason and good conscience wee now treate only of Pope Alexanders Division I have presupposed that as well the Navigations as the Acquists were lawfull as purchased Iure belli by Right of Warre as in verie deed they were and to cast any doubts in certaine cases it is meere folly which I trust is lawfull and free for me to utter in defence of the Catholique King of Spaine Philip III. my Naturall and Liege Lord who now holds the possession of the said States Iustâ— titulo by jâ—st and lawfull title 2. You stand and stick stoutly to this Division of Alexander VI. but you tell us not whether he made such Division de Jure or de Facto with good warrant of Right or onely by way of bare Fact you onely affirme that hee made the Division as the Head of all Christendome But every Christian we hold and say hath two Heads the one in Spiritualls let him be the Pope the other in Temporals and he will be whosoever saies nay the Naturall the lawfull Prince Temporall of this or that State Now that Division was not made by Alexander VI. as a Temporall Prince Ergo as a Spirituall but as a Spirituall Prince as hath beene already shewed and proved he could not be invested with anie such power and had he then beene so invested the Indies were no Countries of Christians but of Infidels His Fact was therefore to be excused as I have excused the same according to divers Historians that he made the Division as Compromissarie and Judge chosen by the parties I confesse this judgement was to be put and referred to Alexander VI. rather then to any other because he was Christs Vicar and Superiour Head to the said Kings in Spirituals and herein his Indirectlie granted by some Divines is not denyed For that Indirectlie doth not import anie Authoritie or absolute Jurisdiction in Temporals except it be accidentallie by chance by councell by admonition by reproofe in all patience and instruction Therefore when the great Canonist Navarrus and all other Doctors well grounded Cap. Novit de judiciis take upon them to handle these and the
of his words as we find it spun and woven by his owne fingers Credimus Romanum Pontificem quatenus solùm est Rom. Pontifex Vicarius Christi summus nudus ab omnibus Privilegiis donariis humanis nullam habere Potestatem Laicam neque Summam neque Mediam neque infimam neque Actu neque Habitu habere vero Potestatem Ecclesiasticam nonè à Christo Servaâ—ore nostro institutam qualis nunquam ante illius institutionem in orbe fuit quaeque est Species Potestatis distinctae à Laica longè nobilior ea ut Aurum est Species Metalli distincta à Specie plumbi â—â nobilior quaeque directè solùm amplectitur super-naturalia indirectè vero eatenus naturalia quatenus sunt necessaria ad consecutionem finis supernaturalis ob quem sunt instituta In which Text of Navarrus the longer it is the more points are observeable As first of all that where you charge Navarrus to affirme that Papall power is not meerely Temporall hee gives not so much as the least suspition of the said pretended and imputed affirmation he rather stands out and holds out for the cleane contrary assertion Then secondly that what Laick power soever is annexed to the Pope he hath got it by the Priviledges of noble Princes and by the Donaries if I may take up Navarrus his owne word of Magnificent Personages but not as Christs Vicar Then thirdly that as the Vicar of Christ he hath not a hands breadth not an Inch of Laick power neither in the highest degree nor in the middle ranke nor in the lowest region Then fourthly that he hath neither the Act nor the Habit of Laick power whereby he may be so much as enabled to exercise the same though he should never put it in practise but keepe it up close like a Bee in a Box or as men say like a Sword alwaies in the Scabbard Then fiftly that his power is Ecclesiasticall the same that was instituted by Christ our Lord a power never heard of in the world before Christs institution Then Sixtly that his Ecclesiasticall power hath nothing at all to doe with Laick power but is directly distinct from the same in Specie as the Species of Gold is directly distinct from the Species of Lead so that as Gold is not Lead and Lead is not Gold even in like manner Papall power is no way Temporall and Laick power is no way the same with Papall power Then Seventhly that Papall power directly stretcheth out his arms to imbrace things that are Supernaturall as Grace by name given by his Holinesse thorow the meanes of holy Sacraments as Catholiques believe and the same grace is meerely a thing Supernaturall Eightly and lastly that Pontificiall power indirectly makes use of things naturall instituted by Christ for a Supernaturall end as water to baptise oyle for that action which we call Extreame or last unction 1 Cor. 19. and silver for Almes ordaining besides that hee who serves at the Altar should live by the Altar and that no mouth of any Oxe which treads out the corne be at any time muzzeled according to Christs institution for the better obtaining of the Supernaturall end This is the power whereof Navarrus affirmes as you seeke to beare me downe that forsooth it is not meerely Temporall Doth Navarrus there speake of Temporall power Nay doth Navarrus once dreame thereof For albeit he speakes of the use of naturall things yet he cals them neither Secular nor Temporall nor Civill but onely naturall and restraines them to those things which were instituted to a Supernaturall end and not so far forth as they are naturall but as they are Spirituall that is to say as they are clothed and apparelled with goodnesse of the Supernaturall end according to Christs owne institution How then can that be true which you charge Navarrus to affirme that Papall power is Layick and Temporall howsoever not meerly Layick and Temporall and that as Pope hee may intrude himselfe into the exercising of Temporall Dominion and Jurisdiction But with you Hetrodox it is no new or strange thing as oft it hath beene knowne and seene to cite Authors for some opinion who teach a cleare contrary Doctrine 4. You stand for the Popes Kingdome to be a Kingdome that governes all Kingdomes Then belike he steers the huge Argonfie of the grand Signior and of the mighty Tartarian and the most potent Monarch of China too But I believe he dares not once presume to set his foote in any of their powerfull Aâ—kes No no the Pope is no Governour of Kingdomes but Pastor of Christians it is more then high time to pull up by the rootes all such thoughts purposes and projects to sway the Scepter of secular Princes Kings and States Non est Discipulus super Magistrum the Disciple is not above his Master nor the servant above his Lord. 5. Item You make the chiefe Bishop a God as God was tâ—ken of the old Philosophers that is to be causa prima the first cause of things For thus you say As God governes all Kingdomes and takes not away from Kings the Kingdoms ruled and governed by his omnipotentarme so the Pope governs all Kingdomes and takes them not away from the true owners to whom in right and reason they belong so far exorbitant is this your comparison and openeth so great so wide a gate unto Idolatry that I cannot I dare not passe by the gate thereof but with a warie foote What Is the Pope then omnipotent omniscient Vbique per Essentiam praesentiam potentiam Is his Holinesse every where by his Essence by his presence by his power for as much as he immediately governes all Kingdomes as they are governed by God himselfe I know not Hetrodox how it is possible that so vast so exorbitant imaginations have taken roote in the Intellectuall Facultie of any Christian man 6. Againe to give but not to grant you thus much I mean to give it for courtesie sake though not grant it for a veritie that our Popes governe all Temporall and Earthly Kingdomes as they are governed by God himselfe yet all the learned know that God suffers the second causes to work and himselfe is only concurrent with all their operations with all that are good he concurres Positivè by position with all that are evill Permissivè by permission Then for example when the operations of the most Christian King are good wherefore should the Pope not suffer him still to be in such action Here I would have no man step in with a frivolous answer the Pope will not suffâ—r the King so to doe because the Pope is perswaded the Kings operations are wicked and therefore hee will take order for the remedy and reformation thereof For if the Pope should undertake the attempt and enterprise to reforme all wicked men first he should be nothing like unto God who many times permits wicked men to range in the waies of their own will
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
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
Spirituals who is the Pope but of the Head in Temporals who is the Prince to whom the Subjects are obliged by more then manie Titles and Tyes Let men read over the 23. Homilie of St. Chrysostome upon the Epistle to the Romanes But Protestants tell another tale and sing in another Keye Namely that a Prince Temporall is likewise Head in Spirituals but I for my part dare not go so farre The end of any operation which makes the operation good and laudable is over the principall not secondary and consequent according to the common Doctrine of Divines For Example Our Lord Christ desired to dye and voluntarilie exposed himselfe to death even the death of the Crosse This death could not follow if Judas Pilate the Scribes and Pharisees had not sinned This notwithstanding no man must or dare affirme their sin was the end of Christs death or suffering and that his worke of immense love did merit anie blame at all for and in respect of their wicked and sinfull action For to determine the goodnesse and justice of an Operation then reckoning must not be drawn from the secondarie but onelie from the Primarie and Principall end In like manner say I the Subjects end is to performe obedience unto his Temporall Prince in those things which may justlie and lawfullie be commanded by the Prince The Subject cannot performe such duties enjoyned by his Prince without renouncing his obedience to the Popes invalide and void Sentences In this case it must not be said the Subjects Action is to despise the Pope or to contemne his Papall Authoritie For the Subjects end is to obey him whom he is bound to obey and by whom he is lawfully commanded his end is not in anie wise to despise the Holie Father and his Censures which neverthelesse upon a necessarie consequence he doth not observe as one preferring the Superiour and Primarie end before the Inferior and Consequent 13. I have not affirmed that Subjects laying down their life in obedience and for the defence of their Naturall and lawfull Prince are holy Martyrs but onelie that in so doing they doe not ill but rather well neither can it be said of such good and faithfull Subjects These are the noble and tryumphant Champions who have contemned God to keepe the commands of Princes but rather These are the victorious and tryumphant Conquerors who to keepe Gods commandements have obeyed their Princes 14. You confound the name of God with the name of Man Samuel speakes of Gods name Hebr. 5. who cannot erre I speake of mans name qui circundatus est infirmitate who is compassed about with infirmities And in that sense are those words understood He that heareth you heareth me and he that despiseth you despiseth me that is when Prelates deliver things just and conformable to their owne power then they are to be heard then to be obeyed St. Paul himselfe otherwise had strayed from the right way when hee withstood St. Peter to his face who then was to be blamed Galat. 2.11 And in case this were universally true then such as had imbraced the Doctrine of John XXII had not done amisse and yet his Doctrine was manifest and notorious Heresie For he affirmed the Soules of the blessed Saints did not see the face of God so soone as they departed out of the Bodie but were to expect and stay for the sight of God untill the last Judgement John XXII held this Hereticall opinion as Pope Adrian VI. and Gerson have directly delivered Lastly to what purpose doe the Summists affirme That invalide and void sentences ought not to be observed if the Popes voice Gers. serm de Assump or the voice of inferiour Prelates can justly challenge to be observed in all things yea our blessed Saviour would have the Doctrine of men to be well tryed like Gold and well fifted like Meale A fructibus ye shall know them by their fruits yea St. Paul giving touch of the times to come Mat. 7. when Prelates would not attend to wholesome Doctrine but would suffer themselves to be led and carried away by their owne humane fancies of new Doctrine doth admonish Timothie his Disciple that he should not be like unto those Teachers All Teachers therefore are not to be heard and in all matters but onely such as teach Doctrines agreeable to sacred Scripture and holy Truth as also conformable to the example of Christ and of his Saints 15. You call that Doctrine of Diminishing and Ampllating of Priviledges a false and new Doctrine It is nothing so you know that Popes every day doe the like by their Spirituall power What shall then let a Temporall Prince to doe the same by his Temporall power Conarruuias and Sotus are to be understood with the word Ordinarilie and out of the case of necessitie For in case of necessitie for Example To rebutte and repell force for so speaketh Sotus or in other cases of necessity and so speake all those who treat of Priviledges my Doctrine and Assertion is uncontrouleable and undeniable most ancient as well for the Right as for the Fact 16. Navarrus frames this Argument Plus differt Christianus à Pagano quam Clericus à Christiano There is a greater difference between a Christian and a Pagan then is between a Cleric and a Christian but a Christian remaineth subject unto the Lay-Prince Ergo much more a Christian entred once into Clericall Orders remaineth subject unto the Lay-Prince This Argument Navarrus is resolute stands insoluble and not possible to be dissolved but by confessing That Exemption is grounded upon mans Law Thus Navarrus from the number which you Hetrodox have cited untill the Reader comes to the Corollarie 17. It is very true That when Subjects are prohibited to keep a valide and effectuall Interdict it is a sinne and this point Navarrus himself doth directly avouch But we now speak of an invalide interdict of no force no interdict at all And treating of such an interdict wee should have recourse to the Doctrine of the said Navarrus himself reduced to these Propositions following Prima Nemo tenetur nostrâ aetate servare interdictum aliquod nisi denuntiatur In this our Age none is bound to keepe and observe any interdict except it hath been denounced Secunda Neque tenetur servare interdictum quando est nullum in se nullitas est sufficienter publicata exceptis Religiosis qui debent illud observare si Ecclesia Mater id observat No man is bound to keepe an interdict which in it self is void and when the Nullity thereof hath been sufficiently published except religious persons who are to keep and observe the said interdict if it be observed by the Mother Church the Cathedrall Church Tertia Interdictum est nullum regulariter in eisdem Casibus in quibus est nulla excommunicatio An interdict is regularly none in it self and utterly void in the same Cases wherein Excommunication is of no validity or force 4.
water First because your comparison of the Princes is impertinent and inâ—pt Secondly because I would haue you know that if some Princes interdicted and excommunicated have met with a miserable death some Popes in like manner Interdicters and Excommunicators of others have drunk of the same cup and have been scourged with the same whip of a miserable death By all that hath been hitherto dilated in our sixe dayes Conference concerning the Doctrine of eight Propositions five in Thesis three in Hypothesis the same Doctrine is manifestly declared to be found Catholic and trâ—e conformable to divine and holy Scripture to generall Councels to sacred Canons to imperiall Constitutions to the example of holy Popes of most prudent Kings and Emperours to the Doctrine of the holy Fathers I and of those Catholic Doctors who have written and printed since the sacred Councell of Trent by name Navarrus Medina Couarruvias Victoria Sotus Cornelius Jansenius That all those three Propositions which make up the main of the controversie are most certain and true Catholic and most firmely founded as extracted from the sweet Fountain of holy Scripture from the goodly great Rivers of Generall Councels of sacred Canons of Imperiall Constitutions of unreproveable Histories of worthy Saints and of Catholic Doctors The three Propositions be these 1. The chiefe Bishop Nudus a Donariis Privilegiis Principum jure Pontificatus as Navarrus writeth and St. Barnard that is to say stript and left naked of Princes Donations and priviledges and only measured by the right Pole of his Pontificall Priest-hood or high Priestly Dignity nullam habet laicam Potestatem can claime or challenge no kind of laic-Laic-power neither in the highest degree nor in the middleward nor in the lowest ranke neque actu neque habitu neither for Fact nor Habit. 2. In temporall matters and in other Delicts Temporall quae Spiritualia non attinent having nothing to doe with Spirituals for that phrase is used by Couarruvias Ecclesiastics are not exempted from the secular Prince his power in the whole or for the whole and by the Law of God but only for some Delicts and in some cases or matters and that either by the priviledges of Princes themselves or by Pontificial Canon which the said Princes have received and admitted or else by custome long approved 3. That a void and invalide Sentence when there is a cleere Constat of the Nullity ought neither to be observed nor so much as feared So that of all the former Doctrine in this whole Defence that may be averred of the Venetian Republic which the Holy Ghost hath spoken of the white Dove in the Canticles Et macula non est in te and thou art without spot most of all in those her two wings I mean in the defence of her Catholic Religion and of her liberty which two Prerogatives proper to her self and to this day pure Virgins we hope and trust so much in the favour of our Lord God that he will be graciously pleased to conserve in their Virginity without spot for ever The Sun is now setting the three Races run and high time to repaire to lodging and rest Glad would I bee to understand Het how you rest satisfied with my Defence of these eight Propositions but however in your approbation of my Discourse or my contrary resolution I am resolved to rest ever at your service Hetrodox know this to be my resolution Orthodox I must be I will be semper unus idem ever one and the same I depart in the same beliefe wherein I came the first day to this Campe-fight or single Combate Howbeit common civility commands to render due thankes for the merit of these Discourses and Christian Charity much more commands Hetrodox or Card. Bellarmine which you please the Champion of Rome even to wish nothing but good and happinesse to Orthodox or Ioannes Marsilius Neapolitanus the worthy Champion of Venice and yet with a Salvando la querela with a saving this learned quarrell conference or contention FJNJS