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
words were personally spoken to Peter alone then the power and use of the Keyes rests not in the hand of the Church the action of binding and loosing is no action belonging to the Church but forasmuch as this power is exercised and this action is lawfully used by the whole Church therefore Peter signified the Church when he received the Keyes and then he received the Keyes when Christ said unto him pasce oves feed my sheep S. Augustine takes up the same conceit again in the very same Tract And Leo expounding the passage of I will give thee the Keys concurres with S. Augustine transivit in alios Apostoles c. The vertue and efficacy of this power was conveyed unto the rest of the Apostles it was past over in Peter to the principall and chiefe rulers of the Church S. Cyprian hits the bird in the right eye Erant caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus c. De simpl Praelat The rest of the Apostles had equall share and portion with Peter in the participation as well of dignity as of power but because every beginning springs out of unity the honour of precedence or the primacy was therefore conferred or cast upon Peter as upon one for all to declare the unity of the Church or the Church to be but one By all these passages with many more in the ancient Fathers and Catholic Doctors it is cleare concerning the authority given to S. Peter that in a like and equall degree it was conferred upon all the Apostles and the Church It shall suffice thus briefly to have touch'd that you argue not upon a certain and infallible ground when you have thrust upon us the words pasce oves to have been spoken only to S. Peter and not also to the Church because aswell the promise of dabo claves I will give the Keyes as the fulfilling of the promise in pasce oves feed my sheepe is no lesse applyable and appropriate unto the other Apostles and unto the Church then unto Peter himselfe in the judgement of the Fathers But I proceed to point out more of your palpable errors 8. The Pope saith Hetrodox hath no power to alienate any one Province from his Papall and spirituall jurisdiction Why sir the Pope is not Lord over the people of this or that Province as they are Inhabitants of the said Province he is onely their Pastor as they are Christians In regard whereof he hath no power to alienate any one province or anyone single person First because all provinces are not belonging to Christians neither in Freehold tenure nor in sockage tenure nor in any other lawfull tenure Secondly because howsoever a large part of Christendome takes knowledge of the Pope as of their superior and lives within the vergerie and precinct of his papall power neverthelesse that superiority of the Pope is not founded nor grounded upon any right of dominon And where no dominion there no alienation I speak of such Princes as are not subject unto the Pope in Temporalibus And is the chief Bishop no Lord when he parteth stakes with Christ himselfe in the honourable Title of our Lord and without addition is called our Lord even as Christ himselfe is called our Lord No doubt he is a great Lord according to the opinion sense and service of his devoted creatures But let his height and elevation be taken by the staffe of that common Title and ordinary style that he honours himselfe withall in his letters pontificiall when he writes himselfe Servus servorum the servant of those that serve God and where then is his Lordship or what is then become thereof What dominion in the servant of servants No we are to hold and beleive the contrary because our sweet Saviour Jesus hath delivered and taught us the contrary Said he not unto his Disciples and Apostles once upon a time at contention Luk. 22. which of them should be the greatest The Kings of the Gentiles doe raigne over the Gentiles but amongst you my Disciples there shall be no such matter but let him amongst you that is greatest be as he that serveth To the same purpose he said to his Apostles John 20. As my Father hath sent me so send I you and how that forsooth not in great power and pomp not in any altitude or excesse of high majesty as he shall appeare himselfe at his second comming but in great humility as himselfe came at first as Saint Bernard speaketh Ser. de Ad. Yea S. Peter himselfe teaching the office of Pastors in the Church commands them to feed the flock of Christ which dependeth upon their charge caring for the Flock 1 Pet. 5. not by constraint but with a willing mind not for filthie lucre but of a ready mind not as Lords over Gods heritage but as fair ensamples to to the Flock of Christ Vpon which passage Ad Eugen. p. p. that good Father hath built and founded this Aphorisme Apostolis interdicitur dominatio indicitur ministratio The Apostles are prohibited to lord it over the Flock and are expresly charged to walke in the state or quality of servants to the Flock Hence it is that when the Lord Christ spake to Peter he said not Pasce oves tuas Feed thy Flock but Pasce oves meas Feed my Flock For Christ alone is the chief Pastor the onely high Priest having as the Apostle speaks Heb. 7. an everlasting Priesthood He alone is the soveraign Judge There is but one Law-giver and Judge who is able to save and destroy Jac. 4. As for the Pope himselfe and other Ecclesiasticall Prelates they are dispensers or disposers of the secrets of God 1 Cor. 4. the Pope therefore who hath nothing of his own and proper or essentiall to his Chaire Jure pontificatus only and simply as Pope or in right of pontificall Priesthood hath no power at all to make alienation of any thing whatsoever but rather forasmuch as his power is a spirituall power and over soules he can make no alienation of soules from the dominion of Christ who is the head of the Church but by making them Apostates and Run-agates from the faith of Christ for the Pope hath none other power over soules but spirituall power to convert and to direct soules unto life eternall Which kind of superiority howsoever it is of spirituall jurisdiction and of the greatest eminency yet forasmuch as it is not indowed with dominion the Pope for that reason and in that sole respect if there were no more hath no power to make alienation of any one Christian soul or sheep belonging to the Fold of Christ whereas the secular Prince hath power to dispose of his own Teritories Crown Lands Demeasnes and other possessions by way of alienation because he holds them as things alienable howsoever he hath no power to take any such extravagant and exorbitant courses in cases of hault importance and consequence Nisi in evidentem utilitatem
word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but once Hee thereby expounds that one word with two words which without all doubt signifie Pasce Feed Nay the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies to feed and by a Metaphor to rule and governe as in the aforesaid Text as in this Text of St. Johns Revelation All this makes much against you Hetrodox and nothing at all to favour your cause Will you now give mee leave to make good my Exposition of the word Pasce Feed with Authority of the holy Fathers Hetrodox Proceed at your pleasure Orthodox Ter dictum est Pasce c. Three times over the Lord Christ repeated the word Feed to St. Peter And wherefore thrice Forsooth to intimate that all such as are charged with cure of soules are bound to feed their People triplici Pastu with a three-fold Dyet namelie with the Food of Gods heavenly word with Food of good Example in life and with Temporall Aid so far as their meanes are not wanting But alasse this three-fold Feeding is now adaies changed by unconscionable shepheards into a three-fold polling and pelting of their Flocks by pilling and pinching their Subjects with intollerable burthens of exactions without anie due regard at all to the said three-fold Feediâ—g Thus Chrysostome Hom. 87. Perpende verba Pasce agnos meos c. weigh these words of Christ well Feed my Lambes that is Feed my faithfull Flock not thine use them not as thy proper Possession but as mine I therefore asked if thou lovest mee O Peter because I have a purpose to recommend my little Flocke to thy Feeding and to bee kept of thee as mine owne Goods and Cattells that love which thou bearest my selfe in profession I would have thee shew and practise towards my tender Lambes Fat not pamper not up thy selfe like those unfaithfull Shepheards of whom the holy Prophet cryed Ezech. 34. Vae Paestoaibus woe to the Shepheards of Israel that have fed their owne bellies That man that feeds himselfe who gapes after his owne gaine who hunts after his owne glorie who removes every stone for his owne commodity never sâ—eking for the benefit of the Faithfull over whom hee beares rule never aiming at Gods glorie in exercising the state and office of a Ruler Tract 132. in Ioannâ—m Thus far St. Augustine Qui hoc animo pascunt ones c. Such as feed the Flock with a mind to make the sheep their owne and none of Christs doubtlesse beare no love at all to Christ himselfe St. Augustine againe Ibid. Sicut oves meas Pasce non sicut tuas Feed the Flock as my sheepe and not as thine owne Cattle in them seeke my Glory my gaine and neither thine owne gaine or thine owne glorie This Peter himselfe hath also taught Feed the Flock of God which dependeth upon you 1 Petr. 5. caring for it not by constraint but willingly not for filthy lucre but of a ready mind not as if ye were Lords over Gods heritage but that ye may be examples to the Flock These be the exercises of the true Shepheard and thus the words Feed my Lambes are to be understood and not that the Popes Feeding should be a Temporall reigning over all Temporall Kings The holy Fathers you see Hetrodox teach the contray namely that hee ought carefelly to shun and avoid all filthy Lucre Acquists Glory Dominion c. 13. Againe by Quodcunque solveris whatsoever thou Peter shalt loose you understand every thing And by this means the Pope shall have power to untie all knoâ—s to set open all prisons to transferre all Kingdomes to deliver all the slaves in Turkie at his pleasure nay to solve all difficulties in all matters whatsoever What man doth not perceive the fâ—lsity of this Doctrine Our Lord Christ câ—me to deliver Soules from sinne and as the onely Redeemer So teach all Divines The Pope by like shall worke the same effects hee shall cooperate in this great worke of Redemption he shall bind and loose the sinnes of 〈◊〉 you have no reason Hetrodox to cast such colours on your false opinions whereby to make the Pope Lord and Patrone of every thing with a Quodcunque whatsoever For â—â—ere is no such matter as you conceive in your dreames 14. Againe the word Soule is understood and taken sometimes for the whole man and sometimes for the Spirit of man above according to the matter handled Now your Argument is drawne from one place to another For St. Paul speaks of Temporall Dominion The word Omnis anima every Soule in understood of power over mens bodies and in Temporality But because our Lord Christ gave Spirituall Power to Peter the word Animas Soules which is used in the Prayer of the Church doth signifie the Spirit or Soule of Man and not his Body in Spirituality forsooth and not in Temporality 15. Those who wiped the word Animas out of the Breviâ—rie were inspired as you believe by the Holy Spirit of God I never yet read or heard that Gods owne Spirit is the Author of Dissention strife or Discord But well I wot Peace is one of the Gifts or Fruits of the Holy Spirit The makers of the foresaid Prayer aymed at the Exposition of these words Quodcunque ligvaeris whatsoever thou shalt bind by the word Animas and by that other Text Quorum remiseritis peccata whose sinnes ye remit as a just exposition of the word Animas because all sinnes to speake properly are bred and hatcht up in the Soule not in the Bodie And this they did to a speciall end and purpose namely to drive certaine Opinastres from their Tenent or hold That Popes are Domini in Temporalibus Spiritualibus the absolute Lords over mens goods their Bodies and Soules with a power to bind and loose all things as it seemes your selfe Hetrodox is of the same opinion This Exposition they made by the word Animas and by the same exposition they produced an excellent remedy against all Discords which might grow betweene the Pope and other Princes about Meuâ—â— Tuum about Mine Thine whereas on the other side those who last spung'd the Breviarie by taking away the word Animas have ministred new Tinder and Match to kindle the Coales of great contention discord and litigious quarrels Besides it is not unknowne to the World that in the Bookes of the Councels of the Canons and of other Doctors yea downe so low as to the very Breviaries and Missals many matters recorded and registred in favour of Layick Princes have beene blotted and still are scraped out of the ancient Rolls and all to make experiment if after long travaile and sore labour that huge mountaine of opinion de illimitatâ Potestate Pontificis in Temporalibus touching the unboundable power of the Pope in Temporals might be brought forth reared up and established in the Church of God Conferre the Bookes printed in 30. and 50. with Bookes printed in these daies as well the Bookes of
Councels as of others and the notable evidence of a goodly vintage will manifestly appeare so as it may be reckoned for a wonder that after so great a vintage there be found some few clusters or bunches of Grapes which make for the honourable Rights and Titles of our most gracious Princes This way if it shall be followed long will prove the high way to crack the credit of all Scripture and to bring the whole Church of God to finall Ruine 16. Againe In the text of the ancient Breviaries you tell us the word Animas was never extant These eyes of mine have seene Manuscript Breviaries of more then 200. yeares antiquity with some Breviaries printed of more then an 100. The word Animas is extant in both and were it not extant yet I say it ought for the removing of all occasions of discord there to have a place 17. Last of all you confound the word of Disobedience with the word of Obstinacie This I hold for a certaine Position the man that disobeyeth a Law cannot incurre the censure of Excommunication This likewise for no lesse indubitable the man obstinate in sinne cannot be excommunicated when he hath not beene admonished of his fault or offence before But I never so much as dreamed to affirme the one or the other of these Positions I have hitherto onely affirmed that for the enwrapping of anie man within the most sore bands of Excommunication two things are of necessity to be presupposed the one that hee hath fallen into some sinne the other that being admonished thereof divers and sundry times hee hath not repented And what else is that but obstinacie in sinne For if any man shall commit some sinne and afterward being thereof admonished shall truly repent he ought not at any hand to be Excommunicated but for his persisting after he hath beene duly admonished he may and must beare the most heavy Censure of Excommunication So that obstinate persisting in sinne is the last cause of Excommunication of which obstinacie it is a manifest signe that being admonished he hath not beene reformed and become a new man So that all Disobedience is not a materiall cause of Excommunication nor yet all obstinacie but onely that obstinacie which presupposes Admonition Of this I speake of the same speake all the Doctors and therefore this Doctrine is neither new nor false But now Hetrodox t o insist over long upon matters most cleare and manifest it is but a manifest folly let us for this time part good friends after so sharpe a fray and prepare for the next encounter to morrow morning Hetrodox It pleaseth me right well The fifth daies Conference upon the fifth Proposition Orthodox YOu are later arrived this morning worthy Hetrodox then at any of our former meetings Hetrodox Not in any weakenesse of Spirit want of courage or disposition of mind to avoid this daies combat but as constrained by extraordinary impediment and unexpected restraint For in good and sober sadnesse my fingers have itched ever since peepe or breake of day to have your fifth Proposition by the eares Orthodox In good time you shall have not onely your Fingers but also your Hands full of skirmishing this day and yet shall not be able to draw one drop of the blood of my fifâ—h Proposition though I know you to be a most expert and skillfull master at the shâ—rpe Hetrodox Well Sir let us leave complementall prefacing and fall roundly to the matter Your fifth Proposition goes upon these same legs if I well remember the termes That aâ—â—â—it some Authors you know not upon what good ground be of opinion that as well the persons as the goods of Ecclesiastics are by Gods Law exempted from the secular Princes power neverthelesse the contrary opinion that such exemption is grounded upon mans Law is the sounder the more agreeable and consonant unto Divine Scripture unto the writings of the holy Fathers and to the file and thred of Histories Orthodox I have no reason to except against your memory you have hit the naile on the head my fift Proposition runs in the very same straines and forme of termes What exception have you to make against it in whole or in part Hetrodox If you did beare the least sparke of reverence to holy Church you surely would never have this used lavish and absolute affirmative that as well the Persons as the goods of Ecclesiastics have obtained Exemption and Immunitie from the Sâ—cular arme only by mans Law Sess ult cap. 30. In the Generall Councell of Trent it is cleerely declared That Immunitie of the Church and of all Ecclesiasticall Persons was instituted by Gods Ordinance and by Ecclesiasticall Decrees What Christian is he that dares give the affront or contest against so high so sacred Authorit e Par. 9. cap. 20. Before the Tridentive the Councell of Câ—lâ—y'â— declared the same in these words Ecclesiasticall Immuniâ—â—e pleads upon termes of great Antiquity and got good footing in the Church Jure divino pariter humano as well by Gods Law as mans Law Sess 9. In the Laterane Councell under Leo X. it is determined that Laics have no power over Ecclesiasticall persons neither by Gods Law nor by mans Law which words are directly and properly contrary to your Assertion that Layick Princes by mans Law have power over Ecclesiasticall persons Must not you Orthodox be some new Goliah who in the height of your tenâ—erity dare set your face and foot against so many Squadrons of the Lords Armie that is against so many Vniversall Councels Cap quamque de Consibus Before the said Counsels Pope Boniface left in good Record as a matter notorious and of none denyed that Church-men and Church-goods are not within the Circle but free and exempt from the reach yea from all touch of Secular Power and that even by Gods own divine Ordinance Before Boniface John VIII hath testified That Priests and other Cleries might neither be admitted into Orders Gratia Dist 96. Caâ— si Imperator nor judged by anie Secular Power but only by Popes according as Almighty God himselfe had appointed and ordained And the verie same that John left written of the persons Pope Simmachus long before together with all the III. Councell held at Rome in his presence hath witnessed of their goods That which I tell you Orthodox hath not anie stitch of Inconformitie with sacred Scripture The Patriarch Joseph exercising the Office of Vicar Generall to King Pharoh Gen. 47. exempted the Priests and freed them from the burthens which the rest of the people were enjoyned and enforced to beare 1 Esâ—r 7. Artaxerxes King of Persia exempted likewise all the Priests of the Hebrewes because the light of Nature which immediately shineth and cometh from God plainelie declares it is a thing most convenient Pope Alexander III. upon this ground uttered this worthy Sentence in the Later an Councell Cap Non minu s de Immun Eccl. It
Gods Divine-Will who had made known before that he would bring the posterity of Heli to a finall end for so the Scripture hath subjoyned ut impleretur sermo Domini quem locutus est super domum Heli that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled which God had spoken touching the house of Heli in Siloh Besides the Acts or Deeds of Princes goe not for Lawes But now Sir that before Iustinian there was no priviledge of Exemption in the Church that is I would have you know is apparently untrue For the Emperour Constantine who raigned more then 200. yeares before Iustinian and was the first Emperour that cleerely made profession of Christianity presently declared Ecclesiastics to be free from the common burthens of the Common-Wealth as we read in Constantines owne Epistle to Avilinus Eâ—l Histor l. 1. cap. 7. Cod. Theodâ—s cap. 31. Quaest Pract. recorded by Eusebius But besides this Priviledge of Constantine there be many other Priviledges of Emperours more ancient by odds then Iustinianus as your owne Darling and Minion Conarruuias by you cited makes report Orthodox I last alledged certaine Examples which I now perceive have put your learning to some plunge For hitherto your Discourse hath beene onely from Exemption of Tributes and such Exemption you say is taught in Scripture by the example of Pharoh and Artaxerxes But whereas you dare to make good proofe and cleere Demonstration How Clerics are exempted in Criminall Causes from which they are not exempted no not by Iustinian himselfe in the Novell I find you puzzel'd perplexed and as wee say in more then a peck of troubles as appeares by these your particular Errours 1. You tell me you have proved in the first Proposition that Moses was high Priest Surely this I have not denyed But I have affirmed that howsoever Moses did withdraw and retire himselfe from the exercise of the high Priest-hood and setled Aaron in that high Office neverthelesse he still judged the Levites And this argues he did it as a politicall or Civil Prince and not as high Priest because if it had appertained to the high Priest no doubt Moses would have committed that charge to Aaron who was the type of the high Priest of the Church and not Moses 2. He that will read the Text shall cleerely see that Solomon proceeded against Abiathar Viâ ordinariâ by the ordinary way and not by any particular Revelation and yet as the Minister of Gods Justice For every secular Prince is Minister Dei in iram ei qui malè agit the Minister of God to take vengeance on him that doth evill 3. You expound these words after your owne fancie and to serve your owne turne ut impleretur Sermo Domini that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled as if the Lord had bound Salomon by especiall charge and particular precept so to thrust Abiathar out of his pastorall charge But you must not be suffered to dazle mine eyes with any such slubbered Exposition For the wisedome of God reacheth from one end to another VVisd 8.1 and comely doth she order all things that is to say by ordinarie waies and meanes quando de extraordinariâ Revelatione non constat when there is no full assurance and certaintie of extraordinarie Revelation to alledge Examples and Anthorities after this manner is to flie unto those answers whereof the Poet saith Nisi Deo dignus vindice nodus inciderit Except some difficultie shall grow and arise which requires not mans wit but Gods Wisedome to unriddle 4. The Acts of Princes you say are no Lawes No more be the Acts of Popes especiallie of such Popes as have come too short of Solomons Wisedome when he judged Abiathar which doubtlesse was before Solomon fell into his Apostacie or Defection But besides it smels verie stronglie of Errour for anie man to affirme as you seeme to doe that Solomon who was endowed with a Spirit not of Angelicall but of Divine Wisedome and in particular to give right Judgement of all matters did stumble by erroneous Judgement in Abiathars case 5. Lastlie Whereas I according to the matter as also from antecedent and consequent examples doe treate of Exemption from the Court and of all Ecclesiastics you turne it into the generall I doe not denie that Constantine and some other Emperours before Iustinian have granted previledges of Exemption unto Ecclesiastics because it appertains unto Princes to grant such priviledges But I speake of Exemption from Courts and publike Judgements with a Distinction of the said Courts by a Law In corpore Iuris in the bodie of the Law as hath beene shewed in the first Proposition which was never acted by anie Emperour before Iustinian And for this point having read the Code not in a sleight or superficiall course I trust I may affirme without ostentation that I cannot be deceived in so cleere a matter But leaving these youâ— Eâ—râ—nâ—s I now proceed St. Paul saith Act. 25.10 11. I stand at Caeâ—aâ—s Judgment Scâ—â—e I â—ppeale unto Caesar And to pâ—ss◠〈…〉 Exampleâ— In the liâ—e of the most Christâ—an Empeâ—our Otho I. We read that Otho Authoritate proprâ—â by his own Au hoâ—iâ—y dâ—posed Pope John XII because he was notoriâ—usly wiâ—â—â—d In Summa sua lib. 2. cap. 96. Hetrodox This Argument ivâ—â—nâ—ed and framed by certaine Heretiques of old iâ— we l â—aken off by the Card. de Turre cremata namely that Sâ— Paul wâ— constrained to appeale unto Caesâ—r and to â—gnâ—zâ— him for his Jâ— gâ— de Fâ—cto non de Jure in Fact but not in Right because â—he power of Peter in those times was neither believed nor knowne And therefore if St. Paul then had answered that hee knew no other Judge but Christs Vicar hee had moved the Jewes bâ— whom he was accused Act. 28.19 and the Gentiles by whom hee was judged to breake forth into some loud laughter Paul himselfe saith coactus sum I was constrained to appeale unto Caesar As touching the Historie of Pope John and the Emperour Otho I observe a double falsity and errour in your briefe relation First of all those two words Authoritate propriâ by his owne Authority are most false both for the Fact and also for the Right In point of the Fact how Because Otho well knowing that himselfe being Laick had no power at all to judge an Ecclesiasticall person he referred the matter to the Councell then assembled in Rome to determine what was therein to be done Sancta Synodus quid decernat edicat let order be set by the Sacred Councels Decree Thus Otho to the Councell so that Otho deposed not Pope Iohn by his owne Authoritie but by the Councels Authoritie and Decree Likewise for point of Right because you find not in any Catholique Author that Popes can be deposed by Emperous but on the contrarie that Emperours may lawfullie be deposed by Popes as Otho IV. by Innocentius III. and Frederick II. by Innocentius IV. In Summa l. 4. p. 3.
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
your Actions when the Lords are certain and sure their Actions are not sinfull doubtlesse the Lords would stand to his Judgement because it is Divine and infallible Wisedome But for as much as his Vicar may erre and hath actually erred in judiciis Facti in certaine and evident matters who doubts there is no standing to his judgment No man ever affirmed the Popes judgement concerning sin whether a thing is or is not sin should be interposed in certain matters but onely professe that in matters doubtfull men should stand to the judgement of their Superior And who that Superior may be according to the diversity of occurrences I referre myselfe to the judgement of the Doctors 5. The question in controversie betweene the Lords of Veâ—â—â—â— and the Pope you say is dubitable It is not dubitable to the Lords for matter of Fact but certaine And albeit some Doctors should hold the contrary that neverthelesse doth not make the question doubtfull unto the Lords For ita prabent assensum um parti ommino denegons alteri parti they in such wise give their assent unto the one side as they make sure work to keep it back from the other side And this makes the opinion certaine at least probable and not doubtful For every authority or apparent Reason doth not make an opinion doubtfull but â—â—â—ly such Authorities and Reasons as are thought and esteemed marchable to the contrary Reasons and grounded upon 〈◊〉 common Doctrine of Conscience Now because the Reasons produced and brought against the opinion of the most illuâ—â—â—â—s Republic are not able any way to make it a doubtfull opinion it shall be needlesse to runne unto the judgement of any other Superior One pause more Hetrodox for a short rest and so to the third Race The sixt daies Conference upon the Eight Proposition Orthodox HOwsoever it goes for a true Rule or Principle of St. Gregorie the Pope Sententia Pastoris justa sivè injusta timenda the Sentence of the Ecclesiasticall Judge or Pastor be it just or unjust is to be feared yet doth it nothing serve the purpose in this case For there is a great difference betweene the unjust sentence of an Ecclesiasticall Judge and a sentence which is no sentence Navar. de censuris Eccl. cap. 27. Sotus 4. Sent. Dist â—2 Thus Navarrus thus Sotus and that an unjust sentence is to be feared but a No-Sentence is not to be observed The Censures therefore published by our Holy Father Paulus V. being of no force or vertue but vaine and void as hath beene declared before because they are like a manâ— writing in the Water or in the Ayre I am in this opinion service that Ecclesiastics in Venice ought not in conscience to 〈◊〉 the same Censures not to innovate any thing in their Church For albeit Navarrus discoursing in the place left 〈◊〉 and alledged of Excommunication which hath no vâ—â—â—â—ty â—â—â—t â—â—pure nullity hath pronounced in these 〈◊〉 Seâ—â—â—â—ti â—â—â—â—lida seâ— nulla nihil aliud operatur in for◠〈…〉 iâ—â— quam quod obligat Excommunis atâ—â—â— ad 〈◊〉 aâ—â—um 〈◊〉 quâ—â—d Populus sibi persuadâ—â—t vel persâ—adâ—re 〈◊〉 cauâ—as nullitatis propter Scandalum the invalid and void sentence he meanes of an Ecclesiasticall Judge is of no force to worke any effect either in the secret Court of Conscience or in the open Court of Judicature but onely to bind the person Excommunicated to the observation of the said Excommunicatorie sentence untill the people be wall perswaded or at least should be perswaded touching the nullitie thereof and that for the avoiding of public scandall yet for certaine this Doctrine of Navarrus â—â—â—es very strongly for our present Cause And wherefore Forsooth because the Reason of the Nullitie hath beene made manifest unto all the Venetian people And suppose it is yet not manifest unto some they ought doubtlesse to have taken it for manifested by that course which the Venetian Prince hath taken for the manifesting thereof unto all men in all their solemne Edicts and publike Proclamations So that in this case there is no publike scandall to be feared I goe further and say more that some Religions by Order can by no meanes be excused who erring perhaps by their little knowledge or perhaps out of some other sinister affection have chosen to leave the City rather then to persevere in ministring the holy Sacraments and celebrating the Divine Service as for the good of Religion and of the Common-Wealth by their Prince his Ordinance they were enjoyned wherein they have offered scandall unto all because Ipsi sibi fuerunt Lex they have been a Law unto themselves and have not followed the example of the Cathedrall Church of all other most holy and most ancient Religions as like wise of all the other parish Churches To which Religious persons in a straine and fit of godly zeale I say with our Saviour Christ it had beene better that a Mill-stone had beene hanged about their necks I forbeare to say the rest and they cast into the bottome of the Sea then to have given so great a scandall unto any of these little ones Besides to defend the liberty of their naturall Prince the maintainer preserver and upholder of Peace Liberty and Religion to all the people is a Principle grounded upon the Law of Nature that is Law Divine or the Law of God whereas all Ecclesiasticall sentences are grounded upon the Law positive which ought alwaies to give place unto the other and most of all when 〈◊〉 have a Constat of the Nullitie Some therefore deceive themselves who take this controversie to be de Fide for it is only a Moribus And if any thing be expresly set downe in holy Scripture which makes this Controversie to stand in matter of Faith it is the opinion of the Signorie which they have grounded on the expresse Doctrine of St. Paul Let me here freely deliver my mind most learned Hetrodox I could wish and would exhort all the Clergie of the Venetian Sâ—â—â— if they were now present not onely to celebrate Divine Service and to communicate or administer the Sacraments but likewise to performe all other Ecclesiasticall Duties which before the publication of these late Censures they have beene accustomed to practise in their Church both for that I am in good hope they are all fixt already upon that Resolution and likewise to avoid scandall not onely because Sententia nulla minimè est observanda cùm constat de nullitate a void Sentence binds none to the observation thereof when the Nullity is apparent but also because they ought at no hand to rend themselves from their Head the Prince without any reason or cause in controversies of Jurisdiction yea I am of opinion for the same reason ther all such as shall not heare Masse at least upon Holie daies during the time of this Interdict shall commit sin because they refute so to doe without any lawfull cause and reason the sentence being void