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
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
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
Ecclesiastic is not in so precise manner or direct degree immediate from God as the power secular The reason Because it is in the man Christ or in Christ as man to wit as in the Head of the Church Joh. 22. to whom alone it is immediately communicated of God All Power is given to me in Heaven and on Earth So that all Ecclesiastick power which the chiefe Bishop challengeth and assumeth to himselfe is at best hand but a Delegate power communicated and committed to him by Christ For Christ being that Mediator between God and man as the Apostle speaketh it must follow by good consequence that God gives the superiority and power Ecclesiastic to the chief Bishop not immediately without meanes but mediately or by meanes id est Per Christum mediatorem by the Mediator Christ or by the meanes of Christ and this mediate power of the Pope is no Soveraign or Princely power but a Vicariate or deputed power it imports not Dominion and Soveraignty but rather Service and Ministery And hereupon the chiefe Bishop takes it for no disparagement for no vility for no abatement in his high and honourable Stile to be titled the servant of Gods servants a Pastor a Bishop c. All which titles imply Ministery rather then Lordship and humility rather then greatnes Mat. 11.8 For dominion and grandene are not sutable not sortable not compatible with a chiefe Bishops house as he is a Bishop Luk. 7.25 but with Kings Courts Hetrod I find Orthodox that you have the Prince of Philosophers Eleuchs at your fingers end but withall that you are superlatively positive in your new doctrine Orthod Soft good Sir a little more of your patience neither my Doctrine Hetrodox nor new doctrine It is no piece of my coine but comes out of S. Pauls Mint yea rather it beares a right stamp of the Holy Ghost speaking with S. Pauls tongue or at least writing with S. Pauls quill The Apostles words are thus couched and extant in the text Let every soule be subject to the higher Powers Rom. 13.1 for there is no Power but of God which text is expounded by Chrysostome in these expresse tearmes Facit hoc Ap. c. The Apostles purpose and intent is to shew in these words that Christ hath not brought his divine Lawes and Ordinances into the Church of any such intent and purpose as to undermine and subvert politic Regiments and civill States but for the better establishing and reforming of humane governments And there the Apostle teacheth withall that all Subjects and inferiors are bound to the due performance of his Apostolicall precept and charge not only seculars but also cloistered Monkes and Priests for so much is testified and verified in his first words Let every soule be subject unto the higher Powers be thou Apostle Evangelist Prophet or of any other degree condition or quality in state of a Subject Neque tamen pietatem subvertit ista subjectio howbeit godlinesse by this kind of subjection shall never come in danger to be subverted Thus farre Chrysostome Hetrod You go too farre Orthodox I neither can bear in my self nor forbear you any longer The passage which you alleadge and quote out of Paul treats of power in a generallity and teacheth obedience of Subjects to their lawfull Soveraigns and Superiors in grosse or to Superiors of every sort and degree and of every calling to be by Gods own Ordinance It doth not directly shew that such and such persons are subject in their callings to the secular Prince by the immediate Ordinance of God It is not denyed that all power is of God but some power is immediately of God Such was the authority of Moses and Aaron such also now is the Popes authority and power Some other power is likewise of God but mediatly as by meanes of succession or of election or of some other humane title And as for Chrysostoms testimony upon S. Pauls passage it is thus to be answered The holy Father affirmeth not in his testimony that Priests and Monks are bound by S. Pauls precept and authority to render obedience unto secular Princes but rather unto their own Superiors whomsoever It is no lesse true that Ecclesiastics are bound to keep and observe all such Lawes politick and civill as are not repugnant unto Ecclesiastic Lawes and such as are necessary for common commerce between Ecclesiastic and Laic persons For in the course and cariage of temporall affaires as Pope Nicolaus writeth unto the Emperour the Church makes good use of the Lawes Imperiall Howbeit Ecclesiastics are not bound and tyed to such observance of secular Princes Lawes by way of any force but only by way of direction that is to say Vi rationis non vi legis by vertue and right of reason but not by vertue and right of Law Let me give this instance for example The temporall Prince commands a tax to be set upon the price of corn in this case Ecclesiastics are bound to buy and sell at such price not because they are bound to the said law but because they are bound to buy and sell at a just and lawfull price and because in reason of State as also in common reason the price taxed by any lawfull Prince within his own Teritories must passe the muster of lawfull prices Howbeit say it comes to passe that some Ecclesiastic breaks the said law yet can he not for such delict or transgression of the Law be fetcht Coram nobis before the civill Judge or Magistrate by Sub paena or by any other of the Kings Writs nor can he be punished by the Laic Prince to whom he is not subject but by processe out of his own Ecclesiasticall Superiors Court. Orthod Let me have leave Hetrodox to give you the stop in your full careere know you Hetrodox what you say Is the Apostles text Let every soule be subject to the higher Powers to be understood of power in generall and not of secular Princes power The best is you avouch it with a bare affirmative you send it forth but bare and naked without any upper Garment not so much as a Waste-coate either of double or single stuffe I meane without any one reason of proofe at all But how can it be possible that Paul there speaks of power in generall Is it not his full and whole scope in that Chapter to stop the mouthes of those who slandered the Christians of that age and time to be seditious routs to professe very scandalous and pernitious doctrine to wit that Christians were not bound to the obedience of secular Princes but were exempted from all secular jurisdiction S. Paul then speakes to the point and saith Let every soul be subject to the higher powers i. e. to seculars of eminent place and high charge yea the very epithite Sublimioribus higher is a plain tearm of restraining the word Power And that S. Paul did foster and fancy none other conceit or meaning I appeale to
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
c. 37. Henrie IV. by Gregorie VII So that in this your opinion you erre and wander without any guide or companion but certaine ancient and moderne Heretiques and in particular Marsilius of Padua for one as it is testified by the Cardinall de Turre Cremata Nâ—y more the Pope cannot be judged by the Councell except in case of Heresie upon which point and Article all Catholiques are agreed And herein lies your second falsitie For Pope Iohn XII was not found culpable of Heresie but onelie of scandalous and inordinate life in which case he could not be judged Besides that Councell by which Pope Iohn was deposed was no lawfull Councell but a Conventicle Schismaticall and without a Head whereupon it was abrogated and cassed not long after who so desires to know the truth of this Historie may read the X. Tome of Cardinall Baronius or else to make a shorter cut the Addition of Onuphrius Orthodox This argument hath beene propounded by manie Catholiques and howsoever it is likewise taken up by Hereticks they make use thereof to another end then Catholiques use the same But without all question or doubt de Turre Cremata nor Bellarmine himselfe doth untie the knot and therefore in briefe I must uncase your particular Errours herein 1. It is the Doctrine of St. Paul that Christians must submit and leave themselves to be judged by Secular Painces and most of all in Causes of Appeale wherein the partie Appealing complaines of the inferiour Judge ad redimendam vexationem for a redresse of his grievances or wrongs yet behold you contend I cannot chuse but marvaile at your boldnesse that St. Pauls Appeale was not de Iure Tell me now good Sir did St. Paul appeale contra Jus against Right If so then you must needs thinke and believe that St. Paul sinned in the act of his Appeale But howsoever concerning other men it may be spoken de Facto of the Fact and not de Iure of the Right yet so to reprove the holie Apostle St. Paul of sinne of nothing as you seeme to doe I see not how you can avoid a great blot at least of blame 2. The word Coactus Constrained you take in other sense then it was taken by St. Paul For the Apostle uses the word Constrained to this purpose and sense That for so much as Festus an inferiour Judge had not done him right and justice therefore ad redimendam vexationem for the repairing of his wrong and losse thereby received he was constrained to make his Appeale unto the Superiour Judge as Appellants use commonly to speake whereas you tell us that St. Paul said I was constrained to appeale that he might not make men burst out into great laughter if he had appealed unto St. Peter 3. You say St. Paul appealed not unto St. Peter least hee should make both Jewes and Gentilâ—s to laugh Well fare you Sir for this merrie conceipt and pleasant device in the edge of an Evening I demand in that St. Paul appealed not unto St. Peter whether was it well done or ill If well then Exemption is not founded upon Gods Law If ill wherefore did he so What was it perhaps that people might not laugh Why then Sir to the end that people may not be put into a fit of laughter is it lawfull for one to doe ill or to forbeare speakiâ—g the truth and in particular for that chosen vessell that holie Apostle who saith we preach Christ crucified unto the Jewes even a stumbling block and unto the Grecians foolishnesse And what 1. Cor. 1.23 I beseech you Hetrodox makes men laugh more then foolishnesse But St. Paul abstained from preaching never the more because his preaching was by the Gentiles accounted foolishnesse No he tooke and reputed that imputation for a speciall Reputation ascribing the same to the greatnesse to the wonderfull vertue and power of his preaching Ministerie To tell you the plain truth I can by no meanes and at no hand brooke or endure to heare that for the firming or founding of an opinion which is delivered without all probabilitie and without any shew and shadow of Precept in holie Scripture anie man should talke his pleasure of holie Paul and sacred Scripture in so free a straine or veine of libertie 4. To know the Historie of Pope Iohn and Otho you referre us forsooth to Card. Baronius and Onuphrius in his Addition to Platina of the Lord Cardinall Baronius what shall I say Hee is an Historian and living still to this day His workes are suspected in the matter of immunities yea as one that hath not a tongue to speake or a pen to write otherwise he denies all the ancient Historians and in case by good hap he admit some one or other still he takes the words which make for his turne and as for those words which make against his owne purpose hee still seekes to blind the world and to make the Reader believe they are supposititious and thrust into the webb of that Historie by foule and forcible intrusion And even thus hee deales in this Historie denying the Authoritie of Intiprandus approved in the Church by the space of Dcc. yeares and other Writers of the same times So that now his Annals not finding such account or consideration in the World as no doubt he dreame of and believed as also for as much as a Booke entituled Errores Card. Baronii The Errours of Cardinall Baronius is in good forwardnesse to be speedily printed in which Booke are particularly laid open more then 20. Errours by him committed in denying this most ancient Historie of Pope John it is not worth while or whistling to speake of his Authoritie As for the Addition of Onuphrius first I say hee is very moderne and in a manner new then I answer that in the said Addition there is nothing that makes against my Position but rather on my side and is written in favour of our Tenent at least if the Election of Leo be admitted to passe for a lawfull Elâ—ction 5. You pretend the Emperour Otho could not de Iure depose Pope John for his Criminall Delicts and that Popes have de Iure deposed Emperours Hitherto the contrarie hath beene proved and ever de Iure Namely that in Temporall matters the Pope hath not Ius auferendi Regna jure Pontificatus that his Holinesse hath neither dram nor drop of right to take away Kingdomes in right of his Pontificalitie and that by Gods Law none is exempt from the Secular Power in Criminall Delicts But you draw a reason from contrarie sense and I know not upon what ground oâ— Foundation the said Reason is built 6. You grant and indeed you are forced so to doe the lawfull Deposing of Pope Iohn I say lawfull because by vertue of Iohns deposition Leo was elected and taken for lawfull Pope say Ciacconius what he list or can to the contrarie of whom if I shall pronounce that in the ancient Poet Quicquid delirant Reges plectuntur
forbeare to speake any more presupposing it is most evident as a matter tossed from one to another in every Venetians mouth Howbeit I build not so much upon this foundation because I have this answer of Rome at my fingers ends When the Pope doth any thing against the Canons that is the Pope is Supra Canones he is above the Canons How this can hold water or weight with truth I leave to your consideration For that Canon is grounded upon the order of Brotherly correction prescribed by our Saviour himselfe the alteration of whose Ordinance is too far out of the Popes reach 2. The â—â—â—â—â—ce of our holy Father the Pope you say is not a void 〈◊〉 â—â—nce of nullified by Gods Law and that you have sufficiently proved the Venetian Lords have most grievously sinned I doe not deny that you have in Affirmation charged the noble Lords with I wor not what grievous offences But Sir that you have made any Demonstration of your bold Assertion according to your stout pretence that you must give me leave to deny againe and againe Will you have my Reason It is indemonstrable that such as goe not against any Law doe fall into sin That such as tooth and naile doe stand for defence of their ancient Rights and Possessions doe fall into sinne That such as obey God rather then men fall into sinne That such as resist violence doe fall into sinne Such are the lawfull and laudable Actions of the Venetian Lords and therefore they doe not fall into sinne as to effectuall purpose hath beene declared before Whereas your oppositions against this Doctrine have not one myte of probability no not in appearance much lesse of certainty or Demonstration as you pretend 3. I have confessed the Popes power extends unto Spirituall matters and is over sinne you hereupon doe inferre that the Pope hath power at all times and in all causes to judge what is a sin and what is no sin This your opinion smels of Durandus his Chimnie and smoke an opinion of all men reproved but your opinion is much worse For Durandus doth not professe that in every sin we should stand to the Popes judgement whether it be sin or no for that is not necessary He onely affirmes the Pope hath power to judge all Christian People ratione peccati for sinne at his pleasure and to draw all matters into his Court Whereas you Hetrodox passe a whole degree further For if the Pope shall judge an action of vertue to be sin though I be never so certain it is no sin you forsooth will have the Popes judgement shall make it sinne This perswasion containes intolerable Errors 1. The first whereof is That in judiciis Facti in judgements of the Fact our holy Fathers judgement is infallible False for in cases of the Fact he may erre and hath oftentimes erred So teach all the Doctors in the Fact of Pope Stephen and Pope Pâ—â—â—osus with other Popes of whom Platina writes This Doctrine is held for most certain in the Church The Pope then may erre in affirming a thing to be sin which is no sin so the Pope can be no infallible Judge 2. The second Howsoever in a doubtfull case whether a thing be sin or no recourse may be had to the Popes Judgment or some other Doctors yet in cases which are certain and certainly known such recourse to the Pope for his Judgement is not necessary For example I know for certaine it is a sin to steale such a rich Jewell or such a piece of Plate again I know for certain it is a vertue to defend my Life my Land my Leases and to serve God Shall I give credit and faith to the Pope â—he should affirme the contrary to that whereof I am so certain and no way doubtfull Those Authors who grant all Authority to the Pope and judgement between Leprosie and Leprosie that is whether it be Leprosie or no Leprosie doe grant it only in doubtfull bâ—â— not in certain cases For in matters cleer evident and certain either the light of Nature or the sacred Scripture or the common estimation and account of all men is unto us a Law vox Populi vox Dei 3. That in the present case and assures of the Venetian Lords to make the world believe they sin it is all sufficient for the Pope to speake the word and to say the Venetian Lords doe grievously offend and transgresse the Lawes of God of the Pope of the Church c. Whereas you know Hetrodox it is the perverse the froward the wicked intention that makes a thing to be fin according to that of Bernard Tolle voluntatem Infernus non erit if a man be cleare from all wicked intention he shall be cleere and free from Hell-fire for ever because according to St. Augustine Peccatum est dictum factum concupitum contra legem sinne must be something spoken or acted or coveted against the Law of God If one therefore hath a good intention he goeth not against Gods Law Howsoever the Pope shall say he sinnes yet he sinnes not which according to all the Doctors as hath been said must be understood in re certâ Now because the Venetian Lords are certainly assured they have not sinned or offended and carry a cleer conscience fâ—â—e from any sinister and evill intention this knowledge is their sufficient warrant without running to the Pope for his judgement in such a cause especially wherein his Holinesse makes himselfe both Judge and Partie 4. The Supreame Judge you say hath judged the Duke of Venice to be covered all over with Leprosie from head to foot the Duke is therefore unclean all over Why good Sir the ancient Priest under the old Testament judged not of any mans Leprosie He onely said thou art an unclean Leper and therefore I will not suffer thee to enter into the Temple Now this judgement belongs to all Physitians and indeed to all other men when the Leprosie is manifestly seen and when every man knowes the partie to be smitten with Leprosie Besides if it be doubtfull whether a man be leprous or no men may runne to the Priest or goe to the Doctor to be certified of the truth But when a man is already assured and certain that he is not rotten but sound not run over with knots and knubs but of a cleer and smooth skin what needs he run or send his Vrine to the Physitian for the matter except his Phantasticon be like unto the immaginative apprehension of one who being Infra limites sanitatis as Physitians use to speake as whole as a Fish when his Physitian told him he had an Ague in his Phantasie so deepely made impressions of the Physitians words that he was in a trice surprised really of an Ague and thereof soone dyed To be short If Christ Jesus the Supreame Judge indeed who cannot erre should say contrary to the judgement and assured knowledge of the Venetian Lords you sin in these