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
reason I now presse you Hetrodox to expresse what you mean by force of reason I suppose you understand with Bellarmine and all other Authors the law of reason to be the law of nature This now supposed and granted to be their meaning and yours Thereupon would very fain learn what need so many monitories To what end so many thundering Cannon-shot of excommunication Wherefore some few yeares past have not many Priests and other Ecclesiastics of the Venetian state stooped and yeelded obedience unto the particular demonstrations Lawes and reasons of State published by that most illustrious and renowned Republick which all Christian Princes have judged and approved no lesse reasonable then honourable The law of nature is a farre stronger binder then the lawes of Magistrates and therefore it neither will nor can brooke and admit any kicking or spurning against the due obedience thereof but you say In case the Law be transgressed it is not for secular Princes to rake any cognisance of Clerics faults and to rake in the sink of their facts but all transgressions or delicts of Clerics are punishable only by the power and authority of the Keyes Now I answer This cuâ—s not off the power of Christian Princes and Magistrates to enact and establish Lawes Politick which may bind Ecclesiastics to the good behaviour in the politick and civill Government by the sword For in your verdict Clerics are bound at least by force of reason to keepe and observe the said politick lawes And to wade yet somewhat deeper into these waters what ward have you Hetrodox for this blow He that hath power to give life soul and being to any Law hath no lesse power as the supream and Soveraign Judge to punish every transgressour of the same law how thinke you Hetrodox is it not so Hetrod Very good Orthodox bee it so Orthod And who if not secular Princes have power to make Lawes which may bind Subjects of any calling condition or quality both in temporalls and in conscience besides The secular Prince then is armed with power to judge and with a Sword to cut off or to bring in all sorts of Subjects who like Outlawes and Rebels forsake their assigned Quarter and fly out of the pale of lawfull obedience A Cleric of any Order by the character thereof is made subject unto his Prelate say wee in all duties essentially annexed to his holy Order and Function But for a man born a Princes naturall and lawfull Subject so soon as he hath gotten any degree of holy Orders on his back to be made free exempted from the subjection of his Prince That in my understanding is a very Monster and prodigious creature not in Evangelicall doctrine alone where humility and subjection are prized and valued at a very high rate but also even in the light of nature which were all written Lawes in the world for ever lost and the light of the same totally extinguished would perpetually stand and remain to us a positive law Rom. 2. But suppose your assertion in this point is grounded upon invincible truth tell me now Hetrodox wherefore is it not consonant and agreeable to Gods law that Clerics may not live in wedlock Would you have it rest in the Popes power to slate in these dayes the roof of that old Fabrick or frame which Boniface 8. projected and attempted in the height of his Papacy to erect and raise not sparing nor fearing to remove every Stone for the purpose You know he declared by his Buls and Breeves that all such as had received the first sharing and shaving with all others entered into the foure inferior Orders should stand in subjection to the Church as his vassals though they had assumed the state of wedlock a constitution of such a dangerous exorbitant strain to supream States that all christian Princes by the vigour and rigour of their most holy and wholsome lawes have prudently and politicly laboured to quash and nip it in the crown For as then it might have been to Boniface so now it might be to his Holinesse a fit silver stirrop whereby to mount into the golden Sadle of perpetuall patronage dominion and lordship of all Christendome even in temporall estate How so Forsooth by causing all degrees of People to be sheared or else to undertake some one or other of the foure inferior Orders This liberty Hetrodox is removed and distant all the degrees in the Zodiack from Apostolical subjection I mean from that state of subjection which the Apostle S. Paul hath described and prescribed To make short work Howsoever the Levites in the old Law had their high Priest Aaron by name neverthelesse in temporall matters causes and judgments of Court still they remained under the authority of Moses their temporall Prince as right well is proved by Couaruvias Hetrodox How now Orthodox A fling at Moses too Cap. 31. qq Pract. concil 2. Rob Moses of his right of his honour Was not Moses high Priest even together with Aaron Was he not by Gods own Ordinance and extraordinary disposition greater then Aaron I know Couaruvias descants upon this plain song with unperfect cords yea with flat discords I therefore do esteem his musick not worth a blue point I credit divine Scripture and holy Fathers farre above Couaruvias by great odds who in matter of jurisdiction is caried with full sayles of partiality But heare me a little Psal 98. Exod. 40. Is it not extant in fair and faithfull record that Moses and Aaron were among his Priests even the Lords Priests That Moses offered incense unto the Lord which was the high Priests principall office and chiefe charge That Moses as high Priest and in quality of high Priest consecrated his brother Aaron made the Sonnes of Aaron Priests and offered sacrifice at their consecration That Pen to a most learned Hebrew honours Moses with stile of high Priest King and Prophet That Gregory Nazian stiles Moses Priest of priests and Prince of princes That Augustine avertes how both Moses and Aaron were high Priests That Hierome comes not an ace behind all the forenamed Authors That before all these Fathers and writers Dion Areop leads the dance and sings the same note So that Moses being high Priest it is no marvaile the Levites who were the onely chiefe Ecclesiastics of those times were subject unto Moses as unto their own proper Head and peculiar Judge Orthod You need not Hetrodox to put your selfe in so great a heate when you deal with any well grounded Catholique to prove by the authority of Fathers that Moses was either Priest or high Priest Levit. 8. and before himselfe was in the order and calling of high Priest invested Aaron in the office of high Priest viz. That he might the better apply himselfe to the exercise of the civill government surely this point is not denyed neither by Couaruvias himselfe nor by the Author whom I defend whose word is Rimasero the Levites remained subject unto
forreigners and not upon those of the City according to Titelmannus You resolutely affirme this tribute whereof we now speak was the tribute of Augustus but you give us no reason of your assertion and yet besides you seeke to put out mine eye with a false text of Iosephus with a reiteration that Augustus his tribute was the tribute of the Temple Again I buckle my selfe to the true exposition that Christ was not bound to pay tribute because he was the sonne of God and sonnes use to pay no tribute required or exacted in the name of the King their Father But you Hetrodox from this my negative against all the rules of Logick will draw the affirmative and charge me to hold that Christ as man was bound to pay the said tribute Now Sir If any affirm the People of Rome ought not to withstand the commands of his Holines as he iâ— Christs Vicar of this will you inferre and conclude the people of Rome ought doubtlesse to withstand his Holines as he is a temporall Prince The very Pesant of mean common capacity would be ready to hisse the conclusion out of the Laic Schooles Qui unum negat alterum non affirmat he that denies one thing doth not forthwith affirme another when the said things are not contrary but only dispared as in our present case but I very well perceive your fetch Hetrodox it was to fetch in Marsilius of Padua and you have fetcht him in with a witnesse for you have pulled him into the Stage by the eares and out of all due time sufficient it is for me to alleadge the reason alleadged by Christ himselfe that as the Son of God he was not bound to pay any tribute to untie the knot of the argument produced to the contrary not by me but by others and neverthelesse I do not affirme that Christ our Lord was bound as man to pay the said tribute 6. Again our Saviour Christ stands upon this reason to prove his exemption from tribute because he was the Son of God But you Hetrodox do take a stride nay more then one stride further and stick not here to affirme that S. Peter also was exempted because he was of Christs own family who was the Son of God but Christ as all mâ—n know there spake not a word of the family but only of the Sonne Christ kept no servants he was only followed by certain Disciples And howsoever the servants of the Kings sonne should be exempted from tribute so long as they are employed in his service yet doubtlesse the Disciples of Christ were not servants of Christ Non dixi vos servos sed amicos non veni ministrari sed ministrare I have not called you servants but friends I came not into the world to be served but rather to serve others And moreover the exposition which you here set down Hetrodox is directly flat against the text For the Publicanes presupposed they tooke it for granted they put it out of all hunger and cold that S. Peter was lyable to tribute for his own Poll and therefore they only asked Peter not whether he himselfe whether his master was in the check-roll of tributaries for his Poll whereupon Christ forthwith gave order that Peter should make present payment on the nayle for them both for himselfe that he might give no cause of scandall to the Publicans and for Peter because he was liable to the law of tribute wherein first I observe that Peter then was neither Priest nor Pope Secondly that in case of necessity even ecclesiasties exempted saith Thomas Aquinas privilegio Principum by Princely priviledge ought in duty to pay tribute because Peter found the Statere or Sicle wherewith he paid tribute in a fishes Belly to notifie that men ought by way of Subsidie and â—id to their Princes to pay tribute of those goods which they have got and received of fishes that is by the almes of charitable and faithfull Christians 7. Againe you are not pleased nor disposed Hetrodox to apprehend the pith and force of my argument For to prove that Christ never exercised any temporall dominion it sufficed to affirm that Christ himselfe said Give unto Cesar the things that are Cesars But because there are some who frame that argument not against the words Give unto Cesar the things that are Cesars but against the whole discourse in generall to prove that Christ was a temporall King because he said that he was not bound to pay tribute I therefore answer that Christ spake not so in regard that he was a temporall King but in regard that he was the Sonne of God For this Hetrodox you forsooth would have me reputed an Heretic such a marvellous desire you and some others doe shew 〈◊〉 Luk. 16. to have us burnt for this heresie Ex abundantiâ cordis â—s loquitur the mouth speaks out of the abundance of the heart Nauseat anima eorum super cibâ— isto lâ—vissimo Num. 21 their soule loatheth such light bread and yet my Religion to me is a heavenly Manna But surely we are not such and by the grace of God we will never be found such as you and some other doe seeme to desire 8. Againe you play false in citing S. Jeroms Text for you shall find his words cleane contrary and thus in true termes Dominus noster secundum carnem secundùm Spiritum filius Regis erat vel ex Davidis stirpe generatus vel omnipotentis verbum patris ergo tributa quasi Regis filius non dababat sed qui humilitatem carnis assumpserat debuit adimplere omnem justitiam nosque infoelices Christi censemur nomine nihil dignum facimus tantâ majestate Ille pro nobis crucem sustinuit tributa reddidit nos pro illius honore tributa non reddimus quasi filii Regis à vectigalibus immunes sumus Our Lord was the Son of a King both according to the flesh and according to the Spirit either as bred of the stock of David or as the Word of the Omnipotent and Almighty Father and therefore as a Son descended borne of Kings he did owe no kind of tribute but he who took the basenesse of our nature was to fulfill all righteousnesse We wretched creatures mark how he reckons himselfe in the number then being a Priest and according to some Authors a Cardinall are inrowled in the censorian tables of Christ and yet we work nothing of so high majesty and honour He for us hath born the Crosse and paid tribute shall not we then for his honor pay tribute but as if we were free born the Kings naturall sons scape altogether Scot-free from all manner of tallage poundage customes tributes aydes and subsidies In this place we see S. Ierome not only doth not affirme that immunities are De jure divino by Gods Law but he also grievously complaines as Iansenius testifies that Ecclesiastics did not pay the required and imposed tributes for
Quarta Excommunicatio est nulla sive invalida quando continet intolerabilem Errorem quem habet illa quae datur contra aliquem ex quo rectè aliquid fecit Excommunication is none or of no force when it containes an intollerable errour and such is that Excommunicatory Censure which is denounced or given against any man for well-doing or after he hath executed some good Act or done some good work 5 Quinta Excommunicatio invalida seu nulla nihil operatur in foro interiori sive exteriori c. Invalide or no Excommunication workes none effect neither in the inward nor in the outward Court save that it bindes the excommunicate person to the observation thereof untill the people may be really perswaded of the nullity thereof for the avoyding of scandall 6. Sexta Idem dicendum de suspensione interdicto nullo quod dictum est de Excommunicatione nullâ The same is to bee pronounced of invalid suspensions and interdicts that hath been asserted and averred of invalide Excommunications Now the Venetian Prince having commanded an Action of vertue namely the non-observing of a non-interdict quod vergebat in periculum Divini cultus Religionis which tended to the manifest hazzard and danger of Gods Worship and Religion Surely they have not sinned but have observed the Doctrine of Navarrus to a haire 18. None of us deny the Pope or chiefe Bishop to be the Vicar of our Father in Heaven for Spirituall Causes but wee say moreover The Prince is the Father of the People in Temporall Causes and withall That as the Son hath reason to disobey the Father who seekes to deprive him of his own particular goods and portions to him appropiated either by reason of Dowry or otherwise Even so the Prince ought not to obey the Bishop howsoever he goes for the Princes Father in Spirituals when the Bishop pretends to deprive him of his Temporall Goods and Jurisdiction 19. The Lord Cardinall Baronius hath assumed and presumed the Venetian Republic to be decrepit and in that consideration a blind Buzzard or dreaming Dotard And you Hetrod ox from the Lord Cardinall Bellarmine have learned on the contrary to call the Venetian Republic so young a Child as it hath need of Paedagogues I tell you Sir the Republic is not decreipt or an old fool much lesse a child to be taught his Primmer she is the Queen of Cities a Prince of perfect age When this Prince collective determines any matter case or law they do it with great and singular wisdome they alwayes aime at Justice and Piety they have no need of any to teach them lessons in Temporall Affaires or in the Government of their States and Subjects they are over all Christendome not only reputed but also renowned for most wise and prudent Senators What is written by some Authors on their behalfe is written by the said Authors of their own simple and voluntary accord in defence of the truth and the just cause of their Prince 20. You confound the name of Paedagogue with the name of Doctor whereas by Cicero in his Dialogue de Amicitiâ they are distinguished For the name of Paedagogue notes a servile exercise of such as attend and wait upon Children the name oâ— Doctor signifies a liberal and noble exercise in teaching Ex Cathedrâ out of the Doctors Chaire I know not one Paedagogue that hath set pen to paper in the defence of the Republics cause but many famous and eminent Doctors with whole Colledges have taken the paines to write in their favour 21. The example of King Boneslaus is nothing apt nor accommodated to the case King Boneslaus was an impious and most wicked person infamous and notorious for many fowle crimes The Republic is a Pack if I may so speak or an united and uniform knot of pious and Catholic Senators great lovers of Justice and renowned Zelators of Religion 22. If all that have not observed the Interdict and have prohibited the observation thereof should have so miserably ended their dayes as King Boneslaus dyed or should have been so unhappily poysoned as Bavarus was not dying of any sudden death as you pretend I wonder how the most Christian Kings Philip the Faire and Lewis XII could escape the like miserable deaths and unfortunate ends nay how their whole Kingdome did not perish in like manner Now that not falling out in the same unfortunate manner it is a manifest signe That all those by whom the observation of the Interdict is inhibited or not observed in their own persons shall not be taken away by the like miserable and sudden death 23. Now I come to the conclusion of this my Defence with two other Examples of Popes for as much as you Hetrodox have been pleased to gall us as you imagine with two Examples of Temporall Princes what can you say for Iohn XII Hee excommunicated the Bishops by whom his cause had been discussed by Commission from Otho 1. Emperour The Bishops did not obey they declared the Nullity of his Excommunicatory Sentence Have you read at any time that any one of that Councell perished by a miserable death And have you not read how the said Pope came to a death so infamous and so miserable that I think it neither fit nor lawful to story the same first wandring no lesse then Boneslaus for some space of time thorow the wild woods with wild and savage Beasts The other Example is of Pope Boniface VIII He excommunicated the French King Philip the Faire and interdicted his whole Kingdom the King scorned the Popes Bull or Breve of Excommunication The Pope thereat â—o stampt and storm'd so far took pepper in the nose for a medicine that it burnt up and consumed his Entrails as may be supposed his Bowels and his very Heart so that he dyed at last a miserable death of whom Platina thus Moritur hoc modo c. Thus dyed Boniface He whose care and study was to tame and trample upon Emperours Kings Princes Nations and People with terrors rather then to teach them holy Religion He that presumed to give to take away Kingdoms at his discretion He that went to drive men out of their habitations and to bring them back again He that above measure thirsted after gold and treasure ransacking the Coffers and ripping up the Bowels of all Exchequers Let all Princes therefore learn by his example as well secular as religious Princes not proudly and contumeliously as this man of whom now wee speak to rule their Clergy and People but in a holy and modest manner of Government as Christ and his Disciples with all other his true and faithfull followers ruled and chuse to be loved of the people rather then feared which will justly be the down fall and break-neck of all tyrannous Princes So that by these two Examples you may see Hetrodox that your Argument ab exâ—mplâ— drawn by name from the example of Boneslaus and Bavarus is of no force but weak as
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
and Regiments but rather to ground and establish them upon a more perfect and rectified forme these words do plainly testifie that he speaks of secular Princes in particular unto whom all Subjects owe their obedience according to the politick lawes of the State Lastly Chrysostoms conclusion so stops up all passages that you are not able to take your heeles and make any faire escape Ostendem quod ista imperentur omnibus c. S. Paul doth teach that all sorts or degrees of Subjects not only seculars but also Priests and Monks are lyable to this Apostolicall charge yea so much is punctually set by the Apostle at his first entrance into the matter when he saith Let every soule be subject Supereminentibus potestatibus unto the higher powers And who those higher powers be over and besides all that hath been delivered by him before the same Father declares in tearming them sometimes Princes and sometimes Magistrates At last he doubles his files re-inforces the argument and payes it home with etiamsi Apostolus c. Be thou Apostle Evangelist Prophet or what may be else for such condition degree or state of subjection is no engine to worke the subversion of piety or christian religion Thus Chrysostome to stop the mouth of all such as conceived in mind or gave out in speech that obedience to secular powers Princes was out of the square the rule the levell of christian professors where the holy Father doth not affirm that Princes are in any state of subjection to the Apostles In temporalibus and yet makes no bones of the matter he is nothing squeamish to determine that the Apostles who were all in one and the same height and altitude of power were in state of subjection to secular Princes And let me Hetrodox tell you more to prove that subjection to lawfull Princes is exceeding profitable unto all sorts of Subjects the same Father after his usuall manner and method of teaching makes demonstration to this purpose that generally subjection of inferiors to their superiors is never without speciall benefit and singular fruit As for instance and by name The subjection of the wife to her husband of the sonne to the Father of the scholer to the instructer of the younger People to their elders of which remarkeable profit and benefit not only the Foules of the ayre which fly after one guide as he comes in his vicissitude and turne to make the flight but also the Fishes in their streames are partakers after their severall kinds And it is not unworthy of observation that whereas the holy Father in the said enumeration might have taken into his tale the Subjects unto ecclesiastical Prelates yet he advised himselfe to leave them out of his list perhaps thereunto induced upon the same ground of S. Bernard inspired by the holy Ghost Apostolis interdicitur dominatio indicitur ministratio the Apostles are forbidden to exercise rule and enjoyned to serve Howbeit Chrysostome takes not up the said enumeration to shew that S. Paul there treats of power in generall as you Hetrodox are pleased to give it for indubitable but only to signifie that subjection of inferiours to their superiors being so profitable as appeares by all the former particulars forasmuch as the Prince is the superior and the Subjects are his inferiors the Prince is faithfully to be served and obeyed of his own Subjects in all things You aleadge that Clerics are not bound Vi legis by force of law but only Vi rationis by force of reason to yeeld subjection and obedience unto secular Princes or unto their wholsome lawes But how great untruth lyes in this your distinction which as it seemes you have borrowed of Cardinall Bellarmine let S. Paul be judge in these words Whosoever he be that resists the power he resists the ordinance of God then do well thou shalt have the praise of well doing but if thou do evill feare For he is the Minister of God to take vengeance on him that doth evill Here S. Paul speaks of all Subjects without exception of any one whereas you quit and free from subjection whom you list as if you had a better patent or warrant from Almighty God then the divine Apostle Paul himselfe but for my part I give more credit heare me with patience to S. Paul to the tongues and Pennes of the holy Ghost then to all other Pen-men and Writers in the world Produce but one cleane authority out of the holy Evangeli or out of the canonicall Epistles or out of any other like Bookes and writings for the disobliging of Clerics in temporalls from due obedience to the Lawes of civill Magistrates where the said Clerics have not first obtained some priviledge of exemption from the civill Magistrates as I have in a manner stricken you stone blind with a cleer and punctuall text of S. Paul to the same sence expounded by S. Chrysostome by S. Augustine by S. Thomas and others that is to say Clerics are bound to such obedience as they all affirm and teach dabo manus and I will yeeld up my weapons with open confession that you have driven me not like a right bred Cock of the game but like a ranck bastard or dunghill Bird out of the Pit That Clerics are to be freed and exempted in spirituall and ecclesiasticall causes we Catholics do maintain it stands with reason but in secular and civill causes I see not with what force of reason it can be born out Is it because Clerics have received the Clericall and Priestly character Surely no such matter no more then a man that receives the Sacrament of Baptisme the caracter thereof is thereby freed quitted from the subjection of his Prince a pure Pagan or a man who standing in the state and condition of a slave is freed from subjection and vassallage due to his absolute Lord so that a fortiori all such as are naturally born or otherwise Ratione delicti for some notorious crime or grievous offence committed become as it were accidentally the Subjects of some Forraign Prince are not loosed and set at large from their subjection by any reason or in any regard of their clericall character For this old axiom stands without all controule Si non de quo magis ergo neque de quo minus where the More is not consequent and firme the Lesse is never good and valuable The reason whereof is grounded upon these words of Chrysostome Neque enim pietatem subvertit ista subjectio This degree and state of subjection is no Ramme or other Engine to batter and beate down the Walles or Bulwarks of Religion It stands moreover without check upon the former doctrine of Thomas That Christian liberty is altogether spirituall and against Sin it is not carnall or of the flesh it is no freedome or exemption from secular jurisdiction But be it said though not granted that Cleries owe subjection obedience not by force of Law but by force of
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
act play his part or handled his weapons like a skilfull master of defence halfe so well you have indeed to deale plainly and truly puzzâ—ld my wits a litle and put my reading perhaps to some stagger If you can play the man and lay about you as well in the other seven Propositions for the second whereof in token of challenge I here cast downe my glove as the Appellant calling for your personall appearance to answer the challenge in this place to morrow by sun-rising you may perhaps work more with my present opinions beginning to waver then you are aware Orthod I refuse not your challenge but in signe of acceptation I take up your glove and will not faile to be in the field at the houre assigned Interim I wish you good rest for this night and sharper weapons for the next morning The second dayes Conference upon the second Proposition Het A Good morrow to you Orthodox worthy Champion Defendant you come well armed I make no doubt at all pieces Orthod The same salutation to you Hetrodox noble Champion Appellant whose armes I wish to be more pungent in the conflict of this day then I could find them in our late former skirmish Hetrod Be pleased then without further delay and more losse of time to lay forth your second Ground or Proposition Orthod Nothing pleaseth me better Then mark well the words and contents thereof Christ our Saviour as the Sonne of God equall to the Father is King of Kings and Lord of Lords and yet all the time that he was clothed with our mortall spoyles not onely before his bitter death but likewise after his most blessed and glorious resurrection he never exercised the least power of a secular and temporall Prince Hetrod Make that good and you shall win the spurs or carry away my weapons out of the field Orthod Then sure it shall goe very hard but I will here leave you unarmed in the place For Christ our Saviour was never invested or inthronised in any temporall Kingdome Pilate makes the question to Christ Art thou a King Christ gives the answer Thou sayest I am a King But know O Pilate howsoever I am a King yet my Kingdome is not of this world that is not a temporall Kingdome When that multitude of people who had been miraculously fed and sated with five loaves and two fishes were minded and purposed to make him King he stept aside that he might not be taken by them and so made King He never took upon him to sit as Judge or Umpire in any mans cause Tho. Aqui. in ep ad Roman but answered those who required him to give sentence in a certaine litigious matter Who made me a Judge over your persons or your causes Yea he directly acknowledged Pilate Caesars deputy or Governour to be his lawfull Judge Thou couldst not have any power over me if it were not given thee from above Hetrod This your second Proposition seems to shoot and have a fling at matters of State in present question and no meane garboyles But in sooth it doth not so much as touch the same for they treat not of temporall Kingdomes but of Ecclesiasticall affaires so that your Proposition serveth onely to bewray your own bad affection and erroneous conceit I therefore must give you thus much to understand Very certaine it is that Christ as he was Man mortall did never exercise any power of a temporall Prince in this world For his comming into the world it is his owne testimony was to suffer to serve to teach men contempt of worldly wealth and honour as also by his humility and obedience to chalke out and make plaine the way or path which leadeth to the celestiall Paradise before the face and eyes of all proud and rebellious or disobedient people The Sonne of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life for the redemption of many Mar. 20.28 The Sonne of Man hath not whereon to lay his head Learne of mee that I am meek and lowly in heart Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ Luc. 9.58 Mat. 11.29 2 Cor. 8.9 Phil. 2.8 that he being rich for your sakes became poore He humbled himselfe and became ebedient to the death even the death of the crosse But your Proposition should carry this one joynt or branch more That Christ even as man in case he had been so minded might have assumed to himselfe the dominion of all temporall causes or matters and made himselfe a King or an Emperour Jam. 11. Heb. 1.2 which of the two he would The Father hath given all things into his hands and hath made him heyre of all things Againe It should not have been put down in your Proposition that Christ after his Resurrection exercised no power of a temporall Prince without addition of this clause that Christ after his Resurrection even as he is man hath obtained the government of the whole wold not as a temporall Prince but as an Eternall Prince Reve. 1.5 Mat. 28.18 farre superiour to all temporall Princes as the first begotten of the dead and Prince of all earthly Princes and to whom all power is given both in Heaven and in earth Which power is not properly temporall bâ—cause it is eternall and yet is above all things both temporall and eternall But now againe that Christ acknowledged Pilate for his Judge as you affirme I must be bold to tell you Orthodox It smells somwhat ranke of errour For Christ even as man was the High preist with power of excellencie yea he was the head of men and of Angells so that he had no superiour upon the face of the whole earth neither could he be judged of any other I meane de jure by right Philip. 2.8 howsoever perhaps de facto by fact he might be brought coram nobis upon his owne sufferance and permission For it was he that humbled himself viz. because he would be so humbled by the death of the Crosse And as for his words to Pilate Thou couldst have no power over me O Pilate if it were not given thee from above where Christ seems to take Pilate for his Judge this answer I make By power in those words is meant Permission and so the sense of that passage results to this reckoning That Pilate had never been able to stir either one foot or finger if it had not been by Gods permission In the same sense are these other words to be taken Luc. This is your houre and the power of darknesse And this is the answer of the holy Fathers Chrysostom and Cyril in their Expositions upon the 19. of John In 13. ad Rom. But whereas Thomas understands the same place of Iohn of the power that Princes have from God it likes me well to confesse and say that Pilates power as the Minister of Cesar was from God from whom all lawfull power descends Howbeit with your favour that such power in
remaines then that by authority of Scripture he was a temporall King albeit he never exercised his temporall power But in holy Scripture not a word of any such temporall Kingdome but only of his spirituall Kingdome Thus the great Father S. Augustine and thus Maldonate Tract 115 in Joan. agreeable to the opinion of al Divines of the best rank whereupon he concludes in this notable manner Quâ verô parte Christus homo erat non erat universi orbis terrarum temporalis Rex ut Augustinus eo loco quem modò nominavimus omnes boni Theologi sentiunt Aut enim naturali aut divino aut humana jure rex esset naturali non erat quia regis filius non erat quod est naturalem esse regem Divino non erat quia omnia sacrarum literarum testimonia quae de ejus loquuntur regno ut August aâ—t et omnes boni theologi affirmant de spirituali intelliguntur humano non erat quia non fuit orbis terrarum consensu res electus et cum Iudaei vellent eum rapere ut regem facerent aufugit So that Christ as mortall man then having no temporall dominion he could never exercise the same For Non est actus ubi non est ulla potentia ad illum actum no exercise where no power to bring forth such exercise This must be understood of Christ as he was man and mortall man For as God no doubt as before hath been said he was King of Kings Lord of Lords As for the eternall power of Christ our Lord for so you call it which was given him after his resurrection there was no need to make any speech or motion thereof because the present question is of temporall Power and not of eternall which eternall power for certain Christ our Lord hath not given and left unto his Vicar 3. Your third errour lyes in a mis-interpretation of two severall texts this for the one knowing that his Father hath given al things into his hands and this for the other whom he hath made heire of all things For you understand them both of his temporall power whereas Maldonate by the authority of S. Augustine and of all the best Divines affirmes they are to be understood as they ought in very truth of Christs spirituall Kingdom which in the Gospell is called the Kingdome of heaven Joan. 19. For if the said words might be understood of Christs temporall Kingdome then Christ himselfe had not forborn which God forbid to rap or breathe out a lye when he said My Kingdom is not of this world againe My Kingdome is not from hence For he had by that means denied what holy Scripture had affirmed he was indeed that is a temporall King But say still that Christ as man had temporall dominion yet still it remaines good that he did never put such temporall dominion in practise or execution which as you have already confessed so it is sufficient for my purpose Joan. 19.11 4. That place in S. Iohn Thou couldest have no power over me except it had been given thee from above you say is not understood of the Judge or Lord Governours ordinary power but of a permissive power In good time Sir but were it so as you interpret surely then Christ had proved himselfe but a bad Logician to answer the governour clean from the purpose for Pilate spake of his judiciary power Joan. 16. when he said to Christ Knowest thou not that I have power to loose thee c. Secondly not Pilate alone but likewise all the Iewes had the same permissive power of which permissive power your text before cited is to be understood this is your houre and the power af darkenesse which for this reason is called the power of darknes because It is not given from above 20. Jac. 1.17 even from the Father of lights Thirdly permissive power cannot be called a power given but rather a power not denyed or not letted hindered from above Non data sed non negata vel non impedita desuper Fourthly that is called permissive power whereby God permits and suffers a sinner to fall into sinne but God gives no such power from above for if he give it from above then he himselfe concurres with sinne and is the author of sinne which doctrine is even as false as God is true and as truth is no lye S. Thomas therefore saith and you Hetrodox confesse the words are understood of the Judge Pilats ordinary power as the Minister of Cesar yea S. Augustine upon the same words thus Discamus ergo quod Christus dixit quod Apostolum docuit quia non est potestas nisi à Deo quidquid sit de actu malè utentis eâ quia plus peccat qui innocentem occidendum potestati livore tradit quam ipsa potestas si eum timore alterius potestatis majoris occidit talem quippe Deus dederat illi potestatem ut esset etiam sub Caesaris potestate Learne wee then saith S Augustine as first Christ himselfe said in person and after taught his Apostle Paul there is no power but of God be the act of the person by whom the said power is abused what it will And learn wee withall that he commits the greater sinne who for envy delivers up the innocent unto the higher power to be executed then the Magistrate himselfe commits who for feare of some other Power higher then himselfe puts the innocent unto death For God gave Pilate such power as might be many degrees under Cesars absolute and supream power And here I will touch another of your errors a twig of the same branch in attributing that unto Pilats ignorance which Augustine with all the rest have ascribed to his feare of purchasing to himselfe Cesars heavy displeasure and indignation To my purpose I have this also from Saint Bernard Romani presidiis potestatem Christus super se quoque fatâ—tur fuisse ordinatam In Ep. ad Archiep. Senoven Our Saviour Christ was not ashamed to confesse that over himselfe the Roman President had lawfull and ordinate power And in the same Epistle to the same Archbishop Quid secularitatem contemnitis Secularior nâ—mo Pilato cui Dominus astitit judicandus Non haberes in me potestatem nisi tibi datuâ— esset desuper Iam tunc pro se loquâ—batur quod post per Apostoloâ— clamavit in Ecclesiis Non est potestas nisi à Deo Wherefore set you so light by Secularity who ever was more secular then Pilate before whose Tribunall and at whose Barre the Lord Christ himselfe stood indicted to receive judgement and sentence of death from his mouth Thou couldst not have any power against me saith Christ except it were given thee from above Even then there Christ was his own Advocate even then and there he pleaded his owne cause even then and there he had sensible experience of the same thing in his owne
any man because he is a Thiefe or an Adulterer except first he be admonished and then he wilfully denies obedience But betweene disobedience and obstinacie there is a great difference For a man may stand stubborne and obstinate in some sin whereof he hath never beene advised never admonished by the Church This man for all his obstinacie cannot be stricken with a Thunder-Bolt of Excommunication On the contrary a man may be disobedient and for his disobedience may be Excommunicated albeit afterward he persist not obstinate in Disobedience The words of Christ if he will not heare the Church do signifie disobedience and to speake properly not obstinacie Orthodox Fie Hetrodox that a man of your deepe learning should be so shallow I will not say idle in a matter so serious So clear is the light of this fourth Proposition that I much wonder how you have devised and raised any matter against it whereby to make opposition Now to frame the sounder answer it will be necessary to make some Explication of the Proposition it selfe I speake not here of all the powers which Peter had from Christ our Lord as his Vicar in Earth for they were two the one of Order the other of Jurisdiction In this place I meddle not with power of Order I onely define the power of Jurisdiction and this power I say is meerly Spirituall First because Christ our Lord never practised any Temporall Jurisdiction but this jurisdiction which Christ gave to Peter is part of the same Jurisdiction which was practised by Christ himselfe Ergo it is no manner of way Temporall but meerely Spirituall The Major as it is called hath beene proved before at large the Minor is cleere by the words of Christ himselfe As the Father hath sent me so I send you the consequence therefore or conclusion remaines indubitable Ioan. 20. that this Jurisdiction is no manner of way Temporall Secondly This Jurisdiction or Power is not all that Power which Christ himselfe had as Head of the Church For he never according to all the Doctors communicated to his Apostles the Power of his Excâ—llencie much lesse the power of his Spirituall Kingdome which by Cardinall Bellarmine is called his Power Eternall yet such as had a beginning though it shall continue and last for ever with which Power by secret meanes he governes his Church For that power he practiseth and exerciseth in Heaven by himselfe alone It is therefore a Branch of that power whereof our Saviour saith Data est mihi omnis Potestas All power is given unto me the power of Christ whether as high Priest or as King is meerely Spirituall Ioan. 20. as it is proved by the Authority of St. Augustine and of all the best Divines the Branch therefore of the same power namely that Branch which was given to St. Peter is meerly Spirituall Thirdly The power given to Peter is to Loose and to Binde that is to absolve and not absolve sinne the power to absolve or not absolve sinnes is meerely Spirituall Ergo the power of Binding and Loosing given to Peter is meerly Spirituall Fourthly Hee that defines a Habit from the end thereof drawes the best Definition Thus hath Aristotle defined vertue virtus est quae â—onum faecit habenteâ— vertue is that which betters her owner and possessour the end of the Popes power according to all is life eternall and that end is meerly Spirituall Ergo he that affirmes the Popes power is meerely Spirituall produceth a right affirmative because he defines the Popes power by the right and proper end thereof Lastly If the power of Jurisdiction which Christ gave unto Peter had not beene meerly Spirituall but Temporall doubtlesse he would have taken up materiall Kâ—yes and would have said unto Peter and the rest of the Apostles take ye these keyes whose sinnes c. But Christ having done that Spirituall work breathed on them all and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost and saying these words receive ye the Holy Ghost or the Holy Spirit he undoubtedly declared it was no Temporall power that hee then bestowed but a power meerly Spirituall And this Hetrodox is that which before I have pronounced that as well by the Act which our Saviour did as also by the words that hee spake it is aptly gathered that for certaine the said power is meerely Spirituall Now I purpose to draw a Picture of your particular Errours 1. You argue from the Genus to the Species in this manner The Popes power as Orthodox affirmes is meerely Spirituall Orthodox therefore hardly believes the Pope to be some simple Priest or common Curate just as if I should frame this Reason Hetrodox affirmes that a Lion is a creature therefore Hetrodox affirmes that a Lion is a little Ant or Pismire or this Argument Hetrodox affirmes the power of the most Christian King is Temporall therefore Hetrodox affirmes the most Christian King is the Father of a private Familie with power oeconomicall were it not a very abusive straine a wrong intollerable if I should make Hetrodox the Father of so ridiculous Ergoes worthy to be hissed knocked and stamped out of all Theologicall and Philosophicall Schooles If Orthodox pretends and avouches that Papall power is meerly Spirituall he doth not forsooth thereby avouch that Papall power is restrained to a private Familie and without all Jurisdiction like the power of every simple and common Curate but Orthodox grants it is a power over all the Soules that are subject unto the Popes power 2. Againe Sir you are pleased to terme it Heresie for any to affirme that Papall power is meerly Spirituall and I must make bold to tell you Hetrodox the contrary Doctrine hath no great conformity or congruity with divine Scripture and by name is not conformable to that faire Text Sicut misit me c. As my Father hath sent me Ioan. 20. so I send you my Apostles the power which our Saviour himselfe being sent of his Father exercised in this world was meerly Spirituall Ergo the Popes power being a Branch of the same power which Christ himselfe exercised is likewise meerly Spirituall True it is that his power as we must hold extends and spreads it selfe Jure Divino by Gods Law over all his owne Subjects which Article being denied by the foresaid Authors whom you have remembred before they were thereupon condemned but not because they maintained the Popes power to be meerely Spirituall For it is one thing to maintaine the Pope hath no Jurisdiction and another thing to affirme that his Jurisdiction is meerely Spirituall 3. You alledge Navarrus to this purpose That Papall power is not meerly Temporall as if he had said the Popes power is Temporall but accessorily Spirituall Thus much is noted by these words is not meerly Temporall But know Hetrodox that Navarrus was never so much overseene to suffer so grosse an Errour to drop out of his learned braine or painfull quill Navarrus affirmes the full contrary take the file
Secondly he should have a holy designe to attempt and enterprise the hardest labours of all other as to tumble the great Turke downe from his Imperiall Throne to pull his Regall Crowne from his Royall Head or to convert all the Indies or to reduce the whole World to the unity of the Church and such like matters of the highest stuffe which because the Pope neither will nor can performe it is easie for all men to judge that his Holinesse for all your sayings doth not governe all Kingdomes as God himselfe doth 7. Moreover you faine would make men believe that as God governes all Kingdomes not depriving any of their Free-hold whether it be Kingdome or Power so the Pope governes Kingdomes and takes not power from Kings First because those words of the Church are spoken of Christ man and not of of Christ God as the Lord Cardinall saith of whom Herod was afraid that he would spoile him of his Kingdome Hostes Herodes impie Christum venire quid times O ungodly enemie King Herod what ayles thee to be afraid of Christs comming Then Secondly because no man is to busie himself like a Polypragmon with exercise of Temporall power within the Dominions of any other Prince as a Prince Independent neither can any man exercise the said power therein without robbing the said Prince of his lawfull power within his owne Dominions what man ever enriched himselfe without impoverishing of some other 8. Again you make it a crime no lesseheinous then Herefie for any man to teach the power of Jurisdiction given to the Apostles is the very same power which Christ himselfe gave My reading tels me not a word of any other Text where our Lord Christ hath given his Apostles the power of Jurisdiction Ioan. 20. yea all the Doctors nay Christ himselfe doth not furnish mee with any other Text but in the same he teacheth us three things the first is Data est mihi omnis potestas in Coelo in terrâ All power is given to me both in Heaven and in Earth And this he speakes to teach that his good will and pleasure was to communicate some part of his entire and absolute power unto his Apostles The second Sicut misiit me Pater ego mitto vos As my Father hath sent me so I send you that is my Father sent me to take away to cancell all bonds for sinne and to worke all that which Hetrodox and Cardinal Bellarmine hath produced and alledged conatrry to the foresaid second Proposition and in like sort I send you now O my Apostles to doe and performe the said workes In which words our Saviour Christ made not his Apostles entercommoners with himselfe in his whole Spirituall Power â— No no such matter for hee communicated not unto them the power say we to absolve without Sacraments nor power to institute Sacraments c. nor the power of his owne Spirituall and Heavenly Kingdome so that Sicut the word As must be taken in a limited sense and not without some dooles and bounders of Limitation The third that Christ breathed on the Apostles and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose sinnes ye shall remit c. There our Saviour Christ likewise limits the word Sicut As That is to say I give you Spirituall Jurisdiction over Soules and over sinnes O my deare and faithfull servants Can there be any doubt or question hereof No verily For here the promise is fulfilled What promise The same that Christ made to Peter and the rest of the Apostles under the Metaphor of Binding and Loosing of locking up in Prison with Keyes and of delivering from Prison by the same Keyes This runs currant and so shall runne so long as the houre-glasse of old Father Time hath a drop of water or a crum of sand to let fall That for certaine the servitude or bondage from which we are delivered by Christ is the slaverie of sinne so that our liberty must needs be the liberty of Grace Mat. 18. And that is the reason wherefore the promise of Christ made in Metaphoricall Speech is expounded in these plaine and proper termes whose sinnes ye shall forgive Ioan. 20. c. For to locke and to deliver with Keyes to bind and to let loose to forgive and to retaine sinnes are phrases of Speech importing and signifying one thing partly according to proper and partly according to Metaphoricall Construction 9. You maintaine that Pontificiall power is unlimited but I cannot see your Assertion backt with any Reason or Authority neither can I find with what Leggs it walkes or upon what stumps it stands For the Lord God alone is cloathed and armed with unlimited power The Principall himselfe is invested with unlimited power but so is not his Vicar or Vice-gerent And besides to speake out of the teeth be you never so loth to heare it I cannot see how it is not repugnant unto Christian Faith to affiâ—me the whole power that Christ had himsâ—lâ—e as Head of the Church and that now he retaineth in Heaven hee hath communicated to the Pope which doubtlesse whosoever affirmes if your selfe be the affirmant he affirmes who affirmes the Popes Power is without limitation Ioan. 20. 10. Againe You have heard me onely stand for the power of Jurisdiction which our Saviour gave in these words Receive ye the Holy Ghost and you now urge the word Pasce Feed which word wraps in both powers not only the power of Jurisdiction but also the power of Oâ—der 11. I have not restrained the Popes Power to this or that kind of Subjâ—cts but have onely spoken in generall and have yeelded to the Pope all that Spirituall Jurisdiction By like Hetrodox you thinke that you talke and conferre with a man of Wood with a stock that hath not so much as the least sparke of Discourse or of Religion upon the Subject now in conference But you shall find your selfe deceived and that you have to deale with an Antagonist neither stock-like nor block-like 12. Without any occasion you passe over the River to the Pastures I meane to the word Pasce Feed and here you say that in the originall Greeke it signifies Peter governe and rule my Lambes Now Sir I doe not deny that Christ is the Spirituall King and Pastor of the Church or that as Temporall Kings in Scripture are called Pastors Feeders and Shepheards in Temporals even so Christ himselfe the Pastor is likewise King in Spirituals Nor doe I deny the Pope to be Christs Vicar and vice-roy with a limited Power in Spirituals a power every way most eminent as extending over Christian soules But from this can you Hetrodox well collect and gather that our Holy Father the Pope is a Temporall King much lesse a Spirituall King as Christ is himselfe and least of all that hee hath any Temporall Power by right of hiâ— Pontificiall Dignity and Authority St. John takes up the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice and the
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
water First because your comparison of the Princes is impertinent and inâ—pt Secondly because I would haue you know that if some Princes interdicted and excommunicated have met with a miserable death some Popes in like manner Interdicters and Excommunicators of others have drunk of the same cup and have been scourged with the same whip of a miserable death By all that hath been hitherto dilated in our sixe dayes Conference concerning the Doctrine of eight Propositions five in Thesis three in Hypothesis the same Doctrine is manifestly declared to be found Catholic and trâ—e conformable to divine and holy Scripture to generall Councels to sacred Canons to imperiall Constitutions to the example of holy Popes of most prudent Kings and Emperours to the Doctrine of the holy Fathers I and of those Catholic Doctors who have written and printed since the sacred Councell of Trent by name Navarrus Medina Couarruvias Victoria Sotus Cornelius Jansenius That all those three Propositions which make up the main of the controversie are most certain and true Catholic and most firmely founded as extracted from the sweet Fountain of holy Scripture from the goodly great Rivers of Generall Councels of sacred Canons of Imperiall Constitutions of unreproveable Histories of worthy Saints and of Catholic Doctors The three Propositions be these 1. The chiefe Bishop Nudus a Donariis Privilegiis Principum jure Pontificatus as Navarrus writeth and St. Barnard that is to say stript and left naked of Princes Donations and priviledges and only measured by the right Pole of his Pontificall Priest-hood or high Priestly Dignity nullam habet laicam Potestatem can claime or challenge no kind of Laic-power neither in the highest degree nor in the middleward nor in the lowest ranke neque actu neque habitu neither for Fact nor Habit. 2. In temporall matters and in other Delicts Temporall quae Spiritualia non attinent having nothing to doe with Spirituals for that phrase is used by Couarruvias Ecclesiastics are not exempted from the secular Prince his power in the whole or for the whole and by the Law of God but only for some Delicts and in some cases or matters and that either by the priviledges of Princes themselves or by Pontificial Canon which the said Princes have received and admitted or else by custome long approved 3. That a void and invalide Sentence when there is a cleere Constat of the Nullity ought neither to be observed nor so much as feared So that of all the former Doctrine in this whole Defence that may be averred of the Venetian Republic which the Holy Ghost hath spoken of the white Dove in the Canticles Et macula non est in te and thou art without spot most of all in those her two wings I mean in the defence of her Catholic Religion and of her liberty which two Prerogatives proper to her self and to this day pure Virgins we hope and trust so much in the favour of our Lord God that he will be graciously pleased to conserve in their Virginity without spot for ever The Sun is now setting the three Races run and high time to repaire to lodging and rest Glad would I bee to understand Het how you rest satisfied with my Defence of these eight Propositions but however in your approbation of my Discourse or my contrary resolution I am resolved to rest ever at your service Hetrodox know this to be my resolution Orthodox I must be I will be semper unus idem ever one and the same I depart in the same beliefe wherein I came the first day to this Campe-fight or single Combate Howbeit common civility commands to render due thankes for the merit of these Discourses and Christian Charity much more commands Hetrodox or Card. Bellarmine which you please the Champion of Rome even to wish nothing but good and happinesse to Orthodox or Ioannes Marsilius Neapolitanus the worthy Champion of Venice and yet with a Salvando la querela with a saving this learned quarrell conference or contention FJNJS
Pilate was extended and stretched over Christ it grew out of Pilates ignorance who never knew the super-excellent dignity of Christ and gave sentence against Christ as against a private person of the same Country or Territory whereof then under Cesar he was L. President or chief Governour As if a Priest in these dayes under the name of a Laic and in a Laic habit should be brought by warrant before a Secular Magistrate or Judge he might be judged by the same power whereby he judgeth all other Laics yet doth it not follow that Priests are to come under the judgement of Laics or that Christ was to submit his neck under the yoke of Pilates judgement Orthod You deny that in the present garboyles at which you wrongfully charge me to aime there is any reference to the temperoll Kingdome and yet because you needs will draw me to the scanning of that point I say it is most notorious that in a manner the best Freehold of all temporall Kingdoms is thereby drawn into debatement I let passe your Thesis and will stand upon the Hypothesis Say the Pope now sends forth prohibition to any Christian King or temporall State that he or they shall not meddle with judging Ecclesiasticall persons running into delicts of nature meerly temporall and no way reflecting upon spirituall matters Againe that he or they shall not frame particular Provisoes or Lawes concerning Lands not hitherto acquired or accrued to Ecclesiasticall dominion In quae bonae nondum ipsis est jus quaesitum I now demand By what authority the Pope sends forth any such prohibition I hope not by any authority of Temporall Princes or States for he is not Lord Paramount in Temporalls of their Dominions and Territories By like then he doth it by his authority of universall Pastor Now because that authority of Universall Pastor as we hold he holds as the Vicar of Christ it was not impertinent or superfluous for me to shew but necessary to demonstrate what authority Christ himselfe exercised in temporall causes For Christs authority must be the onely rule of the Popes authority witnesse the words of Christs owne mouth As my Father hath even so doe I send you forth Joan. 20. In which words Christ communicated the authority of jurisdiction to Peter and the rest of his Apostles as by Card. Bellarmine himselfe it is confessed And moreover for so much as the Disciple is not above his Master nor the servant above his Lord Luc. 6. it serveth to draw from those words Paseâ— oves Feed my sheep That as Christ himselfe was no Pastor in Temporals but in Spirituals in like manner the Pope Iure Pontificatus in his right of Popedome hath do authority or dominion in temporall matters and in particular when the lawes temporall Non impedunt cursum ad vitam aeternam are no hinderance in the way to life eternall but establish a civill peace are directed and leveld to the maintaining and preserving of that State of that Liberty of that Dominion wherin particular profession is made of Christian Religion and of Piety as also to the conserving and upholding of publ que justice Now then if I to bring proofe of all this have laboured in the first place to shew what power our Lord Christ himselfe exercised in temporall matters then sure I have spoken home to the point and nothing from the purpose as you cavill Now I will have a bout or a course at your errours not as in a May-game or light skirmish but with Champion-like devoyre 1. You confesse that Christ never exercised any temporall power in this world and it is all that I either have affirmed or can desire to be confessed Neverthelesse you take upon you to teach that I looked not before I leaped because I should have subjoyned that Christ if it had been his good pleasure might by his power have exercised the said temporall power Now as I freely canfesse and acknowledge that in this point you are not our of the right way that if Christ had been so pleased he lawfully might have exercised the said power because he was not only man but also God natures being united in one person and actions according to that rule in philosophy Sunt suppositorum idiomata communicantur according to that rule in divinity neverthelesse whereas you pretend that all I have delivered of this point before is to litle purpose and from the purpose you are to take this for a short but yet for a sufficient and full answer that our present question is de facto a question of the fact non de possibili not a question of what might be or what was possible to be done Forasmuch as the Popes authority being founded upon Christs example the supream Pastor it sufficed to shew what actions Christ himselfe used for the feeding of his little flock and not medle with another new question what actions he was able to do if he had been willing For doubts any man that Christ was able by extraordinary power to worke the conversion of the whole world To sanctify the whole stock and race of mankind in the twinckling of an eye without shedding one drop of his precious blood Is there any thing impossible with God Luc. 1.37 But well assured that arguments drawn from possible to fact are of no force therefore I would not be so idle before to talke of what Christ was able to do in temporall matters but what he hath done in very truth 2. This again you have supponed that our Lord Christ as mortall man had lawfull dominion in temporall matters But Moldonate a learned Jesuite of your own Order in his exposition of these words My Kingdome is not of this world In cap. 27. mat hath learnedly and effectually proved the contrary it may by some perhaps be collected that Christ had the temporall dominion of the world three wayes as he was man 1. By right of inheritance 2. By right of creation 3. By authenticall testimony of Scripture where in many places he is called a King and that as he was man which in effect is thus much That Christ was King of this world either jure naturali by the law of nature that is by the right of inheritance or jure humano by mans law that is by right of election or jure divino by Gods law that is by authority of Scripture But first by right of inheritance I say Christ was no such King for albeit he was descended from the royall stock of Judah yet wee know that Kingdome according to the fore-threatning of Almighty God ended and came to the last period in Jeconiah and was a kind of particular reigning neither was Christ lawfull heire apparant unto any other King Next he was no King by election for it is not known that ever he was chosen King by the People but rather that he gave them the slip and went aside when he knew they intended to make him King It