can be no seemlie thing to make the Church of God lesse free in the Reigne and Government of Christian Princes then shee was in Pharohs time Let us now see and examine the reasons which you bring for proofe of your first Proposition For you pretend and alledge That Exemption of Ecclesiasticall Persons and their Possessions is onelie established and granted by mans Law and that your opinion in that point is more conformable to sacred Scripture to the holy Doctors and to the Histories of the Church then the contrarie opinion Orthodox You demand the reasons of my Doctrine in verie good time Hâ—trodox For in truth we are now come to the golden Key that opens the Closet and Cabinet of my Catholique Doctrine Howbeit Sir before I shall alleadge proofes of his Doctrine First it will be needfull to declare by certaine Propositions in what points your opinion dâ—ffâ—â—s from theirs who are commonly cited under the name of Heretiques which to be plaine iâ— likewise my opinion 1. There is a great difference betweene these two termes not Subject and exempt For the man is not subject unto any Prince Propositions foreâ—aid for grounds of the defence following over whom the power of the said Prince doth not extend and stretch Take this for Example An English man usually and commonly dwelling in England is not subject unto the French King For the French Kings power extends not over the English who have their common habitation in the Realme of England But in case an English-man dwelling in England shall not obey the King of England and his Lawes and shall not be conformable to the Statutes of England it must not be said that he is a Refractory because he is not subject unto the King of England but because he is exempted either by Almighty God the Lord of all or else by the King of Englands most Royall and gracious Priviledge So that whereas I affirme that Ecclesiastick Exemption and Immunitie is not in force de Jure divino by Gods Law my meaning is not in Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall causes cases or delicts For in cases of that nature and kind we cannot say that Clerics are excempt from the power of their lawfull and naturall Priâ—ce but we onely pronounce they are not subject unto the said Prince Then it remains that my meaning is in such Goods in such Causes in such Delicts as properly fall within the termes of Princely power not only to take due cognisance thereof but also to set and appoint due order in the same and what can such things but meerely Temporall and Politicall matters This hath begot and bred the Errour in some writers and your Error Hetrodox in particular In that whereas I contend that Clerics are not exempt from the power of their Naturall Prince by Gods Law you in all hast inferre thereupon Ergo Princes have power to make Lawes for saying Masse and for the marriage of Priests Certes Hetrodox this consequence hath no weight like a scive that holds no water they are not exempt from Temporall Power Ergo in Spirituall Delicts and causes they are subject Such equivocating Arguments of double sense and construction which are and ever have beene the precipitating of many simple spirits into erroneous conceipts ought by all meanes in so grave and weighty a subject both carefully and curiouslie to be avoided When I therefore speake of Exception Exemption and Immunitie from Secular power I must of necessity be conceived and taken to meane in such Causes in such Goods and in such Delicts wherein without all priviledge both Divine and Humane of God or man a man should of necessitie be subject unto the Secular Prince 2. There be foure opinions laid to the charge of Heretiques and rejected in this Argument as condemned and cursed with Bell Booke and Candle The Fathers of the first opinion are Marsilius of Padua and Jandunus These are charged and challenged by some to teach that Christ paid Tribute Necessitate coactus as one enforced by necessitie The next is Calvins opinion He dreames that Clerics are subject unto the Temporall Prince Ex debito in all Causes except onely such as are meerely Ecclesiasticall The third opinion calls Peter Martyr father He makes no bones to pâ—ofesse that it rests not in the hands it lyes not in the power of Princes to grant any such Priviledge of Exemption unto Clerics and in case they shall grant any such Priviledge they shall run into the snares of sinne because every such Grant is repugnant and contrary to Gods Law The fourth is the opinion of Brentius and Philip Melancthon they contend that Clerics are subject unto the Secular Prince even in causes meerly Ecclesiasticall All this verbatim is taken out of Card. Bellarmine Lib. 1. cap. 28. de Clericis It was therefore either out of affected Ignorance or else out of Supine Malignitie that one hath charged my Doctrine to be sprinkled or dipt in Brentianated Calviniated and Marsilianated holy water For I neither affirme with Marsilius of Padua if neverthelesse Marsilius was culpable of any such condemned opinion that our Lord Christ paid tribute as enforced by necessity but onely to shun the rocke of giving scandall Neither doe I teach with Calvin that in all Causes and Criminall Delicts Clerics are subject and ought so to be but in such onely wherein they have not beene exempted which Exemption stands not in force by Gods Law but by Princes Priviledge Neither doe I contend with Peter Martyr that Princes can grant no such Exemption but rather the contrarie that such Exemption may be granted Neither doe I lastly maintaine with Brentius that Clerics are subject in Spirituall Causes For I distinguish the two Powers the Temporall and the Spirituall And when I speake of Subjection or Exemption of Clerics I speake onely in Temporall matters over which the said power extends and stretches out her mighty arme and not in meere Ecclesiasticall matters and Spirituall save onely by Accident 3. My opinion is this that Clerics are not exempted from the power of Secular Princes by Gods Law but onely by Princely Priviledge either expressed or at least in tacite grant I mean after Canons lawfully published received as also after many laudable and approved Customes for such purpose Now that my Doctrine herein is Catholique it is confest by Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe in the place last cited For in his last Edition he holds that Exemption is by Gods Law forgetting by like what he had taught like a Doctor out of his Chaire in his other Bookes to the contrary of the same subject As where he writes of Medina and Conarruuias two Catholique Authors and both of them resolute in my true opinion for this point For he takes them downe in a round Censure terming them bold and hardy speakers in these words Sed operae pretium erit C de Restit q 15. ad eas objectiones breviter respondere quas Didacus Conarruuias Joannes Medina
is no lesse partiall for the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction It serves my turne and makes much for my purpose that Couaruvias holds both touch weight with other sound and Catholique Doctors that he passes currant coyn for an Author that builds not onely upon the strong foundations of most solid and valid arguments Inno. de major obed C. 2. Ferrar. in pract tit de confess plenam Col. 1. Bellar. lib. decler cap de immunitatib but also upon right authenticall testimonies of diverse famous writers Victoria and Sotus have sung the same note with Medina and Couarruvias pre-alledged yea Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe harps now and then upon the same string But what need I to make muster of many Authors when your selfe Hetrodox howbeit I suppose full sore against your will have sufferred no lesse and the very same to drop and slip out of your own learned lips before Namely that Clericks are exempted at least by mans law as it is held by all Catholique Authors in which words you grant and acknowledge by a kind of tacite and implicite confession that all Catholique Authors hold exempting of Clericks not warrantable by Gods Law with all the former Authors Chrisostome concurres or to say better he precurres them all Manifestum est quod ista omnibus imperentur c. Who doth not see that all sorts and degrees of Subjects not onely Seculars but also Regulars and Priests are included within the circle of this Precept and must come under the Lee of this Apostolicall Rule So that neither God himselfe nor his divine Appostle who treats of Secular Power from the mouth of God hath exempted or excepted any sort or degree of Subjects from the lawfull power of secular Princes But what quarrell have you to pick or what exceptions can you take to the word immediately Hetrodox Not few Orthodox and more perhaps then your Eares are well able to brooke or your Stomach to digest For this word may be taken two manner of wayes First it may signify that Princes as they are Soveraigns and Superiors have a superlative and absolute power immediately from God to command their Subjects that is the commandement of Subjects due obedience to their lawfull superiors and liege-lords is immediately descended or derived from God himselfe Now this I grant is true and of no good Christian to be denyed or gainsaid For how can he be Supream Lord of Subjects who hath no lawfull power from God to command his People or he a Subject who is not lyable to the bond of due obedience This duty the Lord himselfe commands in holy Scripture The light also of naturall reason clearly shewes the same duty that every Subject should render and yeeld entire obedience to his own lawfull Superior But now again Orthodox the same word immediately may import and beare this other signification that secular Princes challenge this or that People for their own People and Subjects by the immediate grace and gift of God For example The most Christian King doth or may challenge the French in this latter sence The most Catholique King doth or may lay claim to the Spanish in the same con-construction The most illustrious Re-publique of Venice doth or may pretend the right of Domination over the Venetian in the same signification of the word So that by consequence all the said three most renowned States are invested immediately from God with absolute Power over their severall Subjects and native People Now this latter construction of the word is dipt in a deepe die to carry a base tincture of manifest falsehood I appeal herein Orthodox to some of your own premises for in the opening or dilating of your Proposition you fairly affirmed before that Principalities and Kingdoms fall to great mens fortunes and shares foure severall wayes namely by Election Inheritance Donation Law of Armes or right of Conquest Now these Titles all men know are not divine or of God but humane or of men If any one therefore shall aspire and ascend to the summity or sublimity of temporall dominion and power over this or that People by the steps or degrees of those Titles the said power falles not as it were into his lap or to his lot immediately from God with some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but by mediate proceedings and actions of State namely by meanes of Election as in the case of German Emperours and Kings of Polonia or by meanes of inheritance as in the case of Spanish and French Kings or by meanes of Donation as in the case of Princes holding their States in Fee or by meanes of just Warre and Conquest as in the case of Duke Godfrey and other Christian Princes Conquerers of the Holy Land by the dint of Sword If the most Christian King were now questioned by what right he holds the Crown and Kingdome of France would he answer by right from God No verily but by right of hereditary succession If the Venetian Duke were interrogated by what right he claimes the Government of that most illustrious Principality and State would he answer by divine right No such matter but by election of the Senators And herein lyes the difference between the Ecclesiasticall Principality of our holy Father and all other secular or civill Principalities the Pope hath power over all Christians not onely by the universall right of Gods holy ordinance whereby superiors have right of rule and command over their Subjects but likewise because by the immediate gift of God he is Lord of all Christians as of his right and proper vassals And howsoever he is advanced to the sublimity of St. Peters Chayre by the immediate suffrages and election of the most illustrious Lords the Cardinals yet his power is not derived from the said Lords as water is derived from a Spring by Pipes or Channels but immediately from God the perpetuall and inexhaustable Spring or Fountain of all Power who said to Peter Pasce Oves feed my sheep the reason because the Pope may go whistle for any the least power to alienate any one Province or City or individuall person from his Apostolick Primacy neither is it possible for the Pope to be true Pope and not superior to all degrees of Christians as Christs Vicar the reason because the Title of his power is divine On the other side Kings and secular Princes may be deprived of their Subjects in whole or in part t is in their own power hand and free liberty to make alienation of some City or whole Province to bring the same under some forraign Prince his yoake and thereby to strip themselves of all power over the said City or Province The reason because they have no just and true title to their power from the immortall God but only from creatures of mortallity In like manner no mortall creature no sublunary power is able to pull so much as one feather out of the Popes powerfull wing It is neither the Colledge of Cardinals nor generall councell nor Pope
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
other untruth be it heresie or errour howsoever I am directly of this minde it is flat heresie to stand upon termes of contradiction against so cleer a text of the divine Apostle Paul And lastly know this Hetrodox that man is a spider who weaves a spiders web to catch flies and poysons the springs or fountains of wholsome doctrine with venome of his own corrupt and false exposition know you moreover that Orthodox who now like the Bee sucks from the sweet flowers of Saints and chiefe pillars of the Church the most delicious honey of truth will never take pepper in the nose to heare himselfe blamâ—d on this wise sometimes your sweet honie Hetrodox turnes to bitter wormwood yea to deadly poyson to make false and erroneous doctrine burst all her bowels Hetrod Well Sir have you any more gall to spit up any more to say in confirmation of your first Proposition Orthod It is not I that will say the rest but Paul the Apostle who thus proceeds and subjoynes in the sacred text Rom. 13. Whosoever he be that resists the Power the same resists the ordinance of God here is clearly to be seen the authority of secular Princes to make lawes in any matter cause or subject whatsoever lawes obligatory to bind all degrees and sorts of persons Quicunque whosoever he be c. in full conformity to the words of God himselfe speaking thus in his own person By me Kings raign and law-givers or Princes decree justice From hence have sprung as from the prime roote many lawes in the Code made by Iustinian and Theodosius most christian Emperours concerning Ecclesiasticall persons their lands goods c. All which lawes the Apostle commands to be obeyed without resistance for so much as all that resist shall purchase and receive to themselves condemnation they runne and tumble into mortall sinne wherein if they shall finally depart out of the body without repentance in this life they shall be adjudged and condemned to eternall flames of hell Hetrod Where did Paul ever write or witnesse That secular princes have power to make Lawes in all matters and causes Lawes to bind all sorts conditions and qualities of people what shall Princes make Lawes for the manner and forme of saying Masse for binding Laics to say Masse and to make the vow of chastity for binding Priests to marry and instead of a Breviarie and a Portuis to weare a Fauchion a Skaine or a Sword Shall not all these be bound to shew and performe obedience if Princes have authority to make Lawes in all causes and in all matters yea binding Lawes for all persons iâ— when Lawes were enacted by Heathen or unbeleeving Princes that all people Nations Tribes and Kindreds should renounce Christ and offer sacrifice to Idols were they not bound then under the penalty of mortall sinne to obey the said Heathenish Lawes and Ordinances They were doubtlesse to my understanding though all Princes then were Infidels when Paul commanded the said obedience to Princes And yet Orthodox according to your new interpretation from Pauls precept or Apostolicall Canon it is forsooth to be collected That secular Princes have authority from God to make Lawes in all matters and lawes to bind all persons It may seem your wits are gone on wool-gathering that you perceive not how many errours flow from the source of your last speech and passage And yet you stick not here to come in with a strange and uncouth addition That your doctrine hath due and requisite conformity with King Solomons verdict in the Proverbs not discerning that Solomon there nips your new device in the crown or rather strikes it stone dead For he there bringing in the wisdome of God using these words viz. By me Kings raigne and Princes or Law-makers decree justice doth manifestly declare and shew That none but just Lawes doe proceed from the wisdome of God and that other Lawes many times enacted by Princes in matters which nothing at all concerne their dignities and imperiall places or established against persons not subject unto their secular authority or otherwise unjust lawes are but like puddle waters which run from the corrupt fountaine of their owne braine so not flowing from the spring which riseth in Gods bosome neither are the said lawes approved of Gods divine wisdome To the other addition which you make that Iustinian and Theodosius enacted lawes concerning ecclesiastical persons their goods lands Church-government or discipline it hath been already answered that in such their practise they exceeded the termes and limits of their power and whereas you affirme the Apostle commands obedience to their lawes you affirm a most large and no lesse manifest untruth or falshood for the Apostle there speaks in generall that he would have Subjects obedient to their superiors and whereas a litle after the Apostle brings in the example of secular Princes he speaks of Princes who in his time were Infidels and is not so to be taken or understood as if he did advise and teach Christians to obey such Princes I mean in lawes that concern the service and worship of God or the discipline of his Church but in civill and politick lawes alone and in temporall matters which lawes it was necessary then for christians to obey for the preservation of peace and unity as also to the end the Gentiles might not be carryed away with mis-credence or false beliefe and perswasion that Christian lawes or the lawes of Christ are opposite and repugnant unto the rules and reasons of civill or State government Orthod You thought my wits were gone a gadding and now I think your mouth runs over but I will stop the Fistula or the running issue of your mouth with a tent or two My meaning is this That Princes have power to make Lawes in all causes and matters Temporall but onely for the Public and Civill good and benefit provided alwayes their Lawes be just For it is alwayes presupposed That obedience is never due nisi justa praecipienti but when the Prince or State or other Superiors command things just and lawfull So that your late Consequences grow from a certaine misprision or wrong conception of my project purpose position and proofes For when I teach That a Temporall prince hath power to make Lawes in any or in all cases I meane such Lawes and such cases as are just conformable and agreeable to his power as also after the pattern and practice of his predecessors and other just Princes This was ever my meaning As for your exception taken to Justinians Lawes and those of Theodosius it shall suffice thus to answer in a word Their Lawes are sacred and have ever been reputed irreprehensible they were contrived and penned partly upon temporall grounds and subjects partly for the more strict observance of spirituall Canons and Orders partly for public benefit and yet did never any chiefe Bishop or High priest so kick and spurne against either of their Lawes as you Hetrodox have now
like Acts of the Romane Bishops in which Indirectè miscuerunt se negotiis secularibus they have thrust a hand up to the Elbow in wordly affaires they alwaies require and stand much upon the parties interested upon which point doubtlesse the Principall Authoritie to exercise Dominion in anie Temporall matter doth leane and not upon jus Pontificatus not upon any right of Pontificall power 3. You affirme that Alexander made such Division as Head of the whole Christian World but so speaking against the common opinion concerning the same Act you bring us no proofe at all of your bold Assertion Besides to divide and share the Countries of Infidels hath no congruitie or correspondence with your supposed Head of the whole Christian Church For Quid ille de bis aqui foris sunt judicare what gâ—eat priviledge or warrant hath our Holie Fathers above Paul himselfe to judge those who are without For he was Head in Spirituals not in Temporals 4. I have most sincerely and faithfully cited what is written by Historians concerning the Act of Pope Leo III. and you taxe me for an Heretique in Historie because I touch upon a string of Illyricus Harpe Behold herein your errour First what Heresie can there be in a prophane Historie which neither smacks nor smels of holy Scripture Next wherein have I approved the Doctrine or opinion of Illyricus whom I have not vouchsafed so much as once to name Lastly How can yon make it good that I have alledged the Answer ex propriâ sententiâ as out of mine owne Judgement but onely to make proofe by Demonstration that what was done by Leo was not acted by any Right of Pontificiall Authoritie seeing the Historians therein are not all of one minde 5. Tract de transl Imperis You make supposition with Cardinall Bellarmine to have proved that Leo his Act was authentically done Jure Pontificatus by Right of his Pontificiall power and yet you see the Historians produced by your selfe and by his Lordship the words of all his Emperours and all his Popes have not a word of the Right but only of the Fact Besides a great part of the same Historians that I may not so speake or thinke of all may well be understood of the Vnction or Annointing of the Coronation of all other Ceremonies and Sacred Rites performed by Sacred persons at Kings Coronations The Arch-Bishop of Remes by ancient Priviledge sets the Regall Crowne on the most Christian Kings head but by that Act of Coronation he properly neither creates nor makes him King of France The Patriarch of Constantinople crowned the ancient Emperours of the East yet no man ever affirmed that he made them Emperours Besides be it said that Leo concurred with all the Romane people to call and salute Charles by the name of Emperour and which is more to give Charles the Title to the Empire yet can it not be concluded that Leo did these things de jure or by anie proper Authoritie of his owne so to doe Concerning which point in the case it shall be lawfull for me I hope to lay open my minde in all sinceritie verie certaine it is that Leo was full bent and had spirit enough withall to shoot the Emperour of Constantinople in the head and to take from him the Title of Westerne Emperour for the greater good and benefit of all Christendome as the Lord Cardinall pretends that Leo did without jesting and in great earnest But ought not Leo first Canonicallie to have given the Emperour admonition and to have cited the Emperour viis modis by all the ordinarie waies and meanes Was anie such Canonicall and Legall course ever taken with the Emperor Secondly was it not needfull for giving the Title to whom hee pleased that Leo himselfe should first be possessed of the same Title And verily that was he never For as Pope and in right of the Popedome hee was never Patron or Lord of anie such Titles and none of his Predecessors had ever made incursion or breach into the safe inclosures of so high and civill affaires Thirdly was it simply necessarie for the better maintenance of Christendome to give CHARLES the said Title Nothing lesse For to make him a mighty Ruler and worthy Governour of Christendome sufficient it was for him to be the greatest Monarch and highest Catholique King in all the West as hee was before Besides the Title makes not a King to governe his People and Subjects the better but his Power his Prudence and his Religion Fourthly had Leo anie power to take away the Title from the right and lawfull Emperour to whom in all right it properly appertained Farre be it from anie man so to judge For non eripit mortalia qui Regna dat Coelestia he that gives us Heavenlie Kingdomes takes not away by violence the possessions of mortall men It remaines that Leo when he saw as all men did that Charles was alreadie become Lord of the West Iure belli by the Law of Armes because hee was obeyed by all howsoever hee had not stood in termes of open Warre and Hostilitie with all Nations when hee perceived in particular that it was determined for a finall conclusion Scito Populi Romani by full and effectuall Decree of the Romane People then upon request of the people hee crowned and annointed CHARLES Emperour of the Romanes This was Leo induced saith Platina with other Authors Sutâ— Populi Romani Precibus by the Romane Peoples Decree and earnest request But howsoever this was done by Leo for all these respects yet I hold that King Charles himselfe was not in conscience thorowly setled and secured nor yet possessed the said Title de Iure by anie good Right untill about some twelve yeares after this Act of Leo hee was called and acknowledged Emperour of the West by Letters patent of Michael Emperour of Constantinople who in the said Letters freely voluntarily and without all other mediation or Intercession resigned and transferred over all his pretensions to CHARLES Whereas Michaels antecessours before this time had given to Charles none other Title but onely of King Now then If this Reason without anie the least straine or breach of Christianitie of Justice or of Law may aptlie be alledged for this translation of the Empire what need men to runne to mendicate or beg anie strange and extravagant Doctrines Neither need men to marvaile that in the beginning of this Translation the waies of Justice tooke not such effect as was convenient For all beginnings of Empires and Temporall Titles when they are transferred Invitis Dominis against the Will and liking of the right Lords and owners are usually found to be blemished and stained with such defects For all which neverthelesse there be wholesome Remedies as either by peaceable possâ—ssion or by consent of such as are interested therein But whether afterward that Resignation or Cession of Michael was any Declaration that from thenceforth in all after times and ages the Pope
or the Romane people or anie other should be invested with power to create the Emperour of the West I see no Reason to argue upon that maine point in this place or at this instant 6. You lay to my charge that I utter contradictions to the sayings of Popes and the Decrees of Councels yet you know there is no such matter I onely averre that Leo did what he then did not by anie Right annexed or inherent in his Pontificiall Power whereas the said Popes and the Councell speake de Facto of the fact it selfe and perhaps de alio jure humanâ— of some other humane Right whereof I make no manner of mention 7. You made no bones to affirme in your former objections against my first Proposition that Authoritie to chuse the Prince in case of necessitie resteth in the Subjects or People and now you denie the Romane people had any power to chuse Charles for their Emperour 8. You stick not also to approve the Election of the Emperour made by the Armie and Romane Militia which was a violent Election Augustus was honoured with power of Tribune after Caesar the lawfull Prince of the Romanes he was not elected by the Armie but by the People from whom he obtained the consular Power though hee was afterward confirmed therein by a violent Election of the Armie to which the Romane People not of Power then to beard or brave the Armie were glad to give faire Aime and to make way by condescention As for St. Jerome by you cited Hetrodox he speakes onely of the Fact hee doth not affirme that way and none other was the lawfull way of chusing their Emperours And this I must now tell you Hetrodox is most certaine that Vespasian had no humour to be elected but by the votes and suffrages of the Romane People with the verie same power of Augustus I appeale to that famous Marble in the Capitoll with title of Lex Regia c. 9. You give approbation to the violent Fact of the Souldiers in Armes who shew Maximus Balbinus because they had beene elected by the Senate whereas the Election was fastne by the Lawes and sowed to the peoples arme because the Romane Government was Democraticall 10. Platina with divers other Authors hath testified that Charles the Great was onely declared Emperour by the Pope with a loud voice and that Leo crowned him Scito precibus Populi Romani by Decree and upon the suite of the Romane People Now to the same Dâ—cree you bring this fine interpretation that doubtlesse the people did not decree that Leo should publish proclaim and crown him Emperor but only they should request Leo to doe it propriâ authoritate by his Papall authoritie A man that lookes not well into this quaint device and slie tricke may thinke and say the Romane people passed the same Decree in a certaine conceit or dreame that such power was devolved to them in case of necessitie and not otherwise by Right But you against reason and right sense of the words will have the Fact attributed to the Pope who by right of Popedome could worke no such effect and so you forsake the ordinarie waies for approbation of the Fact seeking the refuge of extraordinarie waies not intelligible 11. You produce that for a Reason which resteth in the Question For as you pretend and contend to translate Empires and States it is enough for one to be Pope This you confirme because some Popes though but a few have had the spirit and face to worke such fâ—ats and to play such prankes The most of those few have indeed given the attempt but I beseech you Sir with what successe And albeit some few but verie seldome have not missed of their marke this makes no proofe that anie Pope either doth it or can do it as he is Pope For Arguments drawne from the Fact to the Right are not worth a blew point especiallie when the right is contrarie to the Fact For the Pontificiall See as it is the Pontificiall See not having the exercise of anie such Dominion annexed thereunto neither by the example of Christ our Lord or of all the Popes for many hundred yeares nor by any Text of holy Scripture whensoever the Pope hath exercised any such Dominion to render a Reason thereof it shall not be needfull to run or flye to the Popedome but rather to some humane constitution or violence or Title 12. Last of all you declare a strange vaine of distemper in telling me this Doctrine that no exercise of Temporall Dominion is annexed to the Popedome by Gods Word is an errour in Theologie and an Herefie in Historie You must now be contented if I pay you in the same Coyne that for any to say the contrarie it is an Errour in Historie and nothing conformable to Theologie as before hath beene declared Have you now anie new tire of Ordnance to discharge Hetrodox Not against your third Proposition Orthodox But have at your fourth to morrow morning Orthodox Agreed Hetrodox The fourth daies Conference upon the fourth Proposition Hetrodox WEll met valiant Champion Defendant Orthodox And you mighty Champion opponent Are your Peeces for batterie readie to discharge Hetrodox At first sight of your Sconce Orthodox Here it is in all Dimensions and Delineations That Authoritie which Christ our Lord promised to St. Peter under a Metaphor of Keyes is meerly Spirituall I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven hee saith not of any earthlie Kingdome For in what manner the Temporall Kingdome and Monarchie should be governed the Plat-forme was drawn and the Foundation was laid from the beginning of the World by God himselfe great Monarch of the universe So that Christ our Saviour never founded the Temporall Monarchie it remaines then that he was the Founder of the Spirituall And that 's most evident in St. Johns Gospell Ioan. 20. For after he had said all power is given unto mee both in Heaven and in Earth Ioan. 20. at anie hand he would give the same to Peter and all the rest of his Apostles with a certain limitation He breathed on them all and said receive the Holie Ghost to whomsoever ye shall remit sinnes they shall be remitted and whose sinnes whosoever ye shall retaine they shall be retained From whence it is to be gathered both by the Act of Christ and by his words that all the authoritie of the highest Bishop is meerly Spirituall over sin and onely over the Soule which power as hath beene said is a limited power Qui beato Petro animas ligandi atque solvendi Pontificium tradidisti who hast given Peter the Dignitie and Power of Pontificiall estate to bind and loose innumerable Soules Mat. 18. Thus the Church you know in her Orisons yea the Authority to excommunicate given to Peter himselfe is tyed to a condition If thy Brother shall sinne against thee and shall not heare the Church let him be unto thee as a verie Ethnick and
as a Publicane where our Saviour gives Authority to Excommunicate but with a supposition of sin and of obstinate persisting in sinne Hetrodox Verily Orthodox you seeme to paire the nailes of Pontificiall power so near that you give me just cause to suspect you believe that our holy Father the Pope is but simple Priest or Curate without any lawfull Jurisdiction and that hee can doe no more but exhort to the obedient keeping of Gods Law as every ordinary Preacher doth or Baptise and confesse the people as every common Curate doth And so it seems you seek to revoke and to renew the Heresie of the Valdenses or Lionists of Wickliffe Mansilius of Padua and Iohn Huss which blind and pestiferous Heresie is caressed or embraced by all moderne Heretiques But I must come to a more narrow sifting of your words First You say the Popes power is meerly Spirituall To what end serves your meerlie was it not enough to say it is a Spirituall power was it not better to say it is principally Spirituall Navarrus whom you so highly commend Cap. Novit de judiciis and exhort all men to reade with diligence and great attention saith vâ—ry well that surely the Popes power is not meerly Temporall but he never saith it is meerly Spirituall as if the Pope could not in any sort shuffle and cut the Cards of Temporall affaires Nay hee further termes it a most eminent power which in it selfe being Spirituall and by consequence far Superiour to the Temporall both can and ought also to set the Temporall strait when it growes crooked or goes out of the right path And whereas our Saviour Christ said I will give thee the Keyes not of any Terrene Kingdome but of the Celestiall Kingdome or the Church of Christ hath said he that gives the Celestiall Kingdome takes not away Earthly Kingdomes or your selfe Orthodox hath said the Temporall Monarchie was founded of old from the beginning of the World surely none of all this makes either for the fortifying of your Sconce or to the weakening of my Campe For herein you affirme thus much and no more The Kingdome of Christ whereof Peter the Apostle received the keyes is no Temporall Kingdome which one cannot acquire but some other must lose but it is a Kingdome which governes all other Kingdomes without spoyling any man of that Dominion which by good just and lawfull right he holds Otherwise you might say as well that God himselfe hath no power over Temporall matters because God himselfe the giver of Heavenly Kingdomes is no robber and spoiler of mens Earthly Inheritances Againe you say Christ gave his Apostles and Peter a power but yet restrained Ioan. 20. and not without limitation that is a power over sinnes because he breathed on them all and said Receive the Holy Ghost c. This you cannot be ignorant is the Heresie of those who rob the Pope and the Church of all Jurisdiction an Heresie condemned by Christ himselfe in the very same place a little before the words now cited For before the words Quorum remiseritis c. whose sinnes ye shall remit shall be remitted he saith Sicut misit me Pater as the Father hath sent me into the World so doe I send you forth in which words he gave them absolute power and without limitation to governe the Church in his owne roome Hereupon Divines teach that in these words he gave the power of Jurisdiction in the other the power of Order And when afterward he said to Peter in the Chapter next following Pasce oves feed my sheepe doubtlesse he restrained not power to Absolution from sinne but hee gave a most ample power to rule and governe the whole Church For the word Pasce Feed is the very same in the Greeke language wherein St. Iohn did write his Gospell which is used in St. Iohns Revelation he shall rule them with a rod of Iron Apoc. 19. Mich. 2. as also in the Prophet as is translated by the Septuagint Ex te mihi erit Dux qui regat populum meum Israel out of thee shall come a Captaine unto me that shall rule my people Israel Mat. 16. So that by the usuall phrase of Scripture to make St. Peter a Shepheard or Feeder was to make him Ruler Governour and Prince of the whole Church So when Christ said to Peter whatsoever thou shalt loose or bind he restrained not the power unto sin nor unto the persons for he said not Quemcuuque but Quodcunque not whomsoever but whatsoever thou shalt binde or loose His meaning was to signifie and expresse an universall power of Binding and Loosing that is of commanding of making Lawes of Dispensing as it should be found needfull for the leading and bringing in of the Faithfull into the Kingdome of Heaven with most full and ample authoritie to enjoyne every man what he should believe and likewise to labour and to remove all the rubs blocks and impediments whereby they might be crossed in the way of Salvation as Cardinall Bellarmine hath declared at great length You give me thirdly to understand that our holy Father the Pope hath power onely over Soules and this you draw from that Prayer of the Church Deus qui Petro animas ligandi c. O God who hast given Peter the power of Pontificiall Dignity to bind and to loose the Soules of men If this Reason hath any force then secular Princes must have no power but over the Soules of their Subjects because Paul saith Let every soule be subject unto the higher powers And so either you make your selfe too simple as one who doth not consider that in Scripture the soule is taken for the whole man or else you seeke to catch the simple with words of holy Church not right understood And therefore perhaps the Divine providence to take away the like deceitfull sleights and flie shifts hath inspired the Reformers of the Breviarie to lib and geld the said Prayer of the word Soules which of old neither was found in the said Prayer nor ought at all there to be read because that Prayer was founded and formed upon the foresaid words in the Gospell whatsoever thou Peter shalt binde and whatsoever thou shalt loose Last of all you contend that power to excommunicate is conditionall presupposing sin and obstinacie in sin This Doctrine is both new and false you are not able to produce any Author that ever so taught Sinne I confesse must be presupposed for Excommunication is a punishment and the most grievous the most dreadfull of all other so that no sinne committed no punishment by Excommunicarion can be inflicted Disobedience also otherwise called contumacie is I confesse againe presupposed a sinne and to Excommunicate every sinne gives not sufficient warrant but only that sinne which is cloathed or clogged rather with Contumacie For Christ saith Si Ecclesiam non audierit If he will not heare the Church The censure therefore of Excommunication cannot be denounced against
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
Superior and now being Duke doth acknowledge his Republic for his Superiour 4. Whereas againe in the Answer no mention is made neither of the Word Duke nor of his person nor of the least matter to him or his Dignitie appertaining you not onely make use of the word Duke for your turne but besides albeit against all reason you draw the Dâ—â—es person into your Discourse and so doth Cardinall Bellarmine This hath moved some of our contemplative Spirits to argue and not without good ground that his Lordship rashed not into his Errour by chance but of set purpose partly that he might have the fitter opportunity to draw the Author of these Propositions into hatred with a Republic right jealous of her liberty in saying that he made the Duke her Lord and partly so to triâ— or to tâ—â—â—ice rather the person of the Duke that hee might breed and stirre up in the minds of the whole Republic some sinister conceit either of Potencie affected or of Religion corrupted This the Lord Cardinall â—ppâ—â—ently shewes in his Discourse who hath none other time or scope but onely to sow Discord Evill will and Sedition 5. You lay to our charge that wee affirme the Duke hath made Lawes of the State we have delivered neither by word nor writing any such wicked assertion It is the Prince of Venice that is the Republic which makes Lawes we never made any mention of the Duke 6. You say moreover that in the State of Venice divers Lawes have been passed prejudiciall to the Church Bring but one Text or Scripture produce but one definitive sentence of the Church tanquam de Fide to prove the Lawes enacted by the Venetian Republic that Ecclesiastics may not be committed to Ward for Secular Delicts or the Pope in right of Pontificiall Dignitie may thrust his hand into matters and affaires of such nature and then you shall have us ready to confesse the said Lawes are contrary to the Law of God But for so much as the Prince is invested with Temporall Authority from God and the same an absolute Authority according to St. Peter St. Paul the holy Fathers the Definitive Sentence de Fide of Pope Nicholas I. which Authority cannot be restrained by the Pope in matter of Temporall Delicts as hath been proved In Epist ad Mâ—chaelem and of which Authority the said Prince hath never been bared or deprived his Actions are not prejudiciall to the Church whiles he walkes within the Circle of his owne Confines and goes not out of his own Bounds It might rather be conceived and alleadged that his Holinesse ranging and roving farre from the Terrier of Spirituall power may perturbe the peace and quiet of Temporall Princes Nay more It would be requisite for his Holinesse oftentimes to beare in mind the words of the devout and godly Father St. Bernard Apostolis interdicitur Dominatio indicitur Ministratio Petrus quod non habuit dare non potuit the Apostles are bar'd from all the Degrees of Lordship and commanded to walke in the state and calling of Servants What Peter himselfe never had Peter could never give to any other The same Peter who said Gold and Silver have I none but I give thee what I have to give Likewise to remember that other of St. Bernard Quid alienos fines invaditis Si voles utrumque perdes utrumque Wherefore do you rush into the severall inclosures of other men if you presume to be Lord both of Spirituals and Temporals thou shalt be saluted neither Lord Spirituall nor Temporall And when men discourse to his Holinesse of this immunity it were also requisite for them to look unto the Root whereon it growes whether it be grounded on the Scripture on the Fathers on the Priviledge of Princes or on use and Custome and to remember the Customes and priviledges of Countries are much different And finally seeing the proper end of the Venetian Lords is excellent good not only not contrary to life eternall but rather conformable thereunto for the better maintaining of a Christian and Catholique Republic in her entire strength and power as also for the better execution of Justice and for the better brideling of Clerics when they know the Lawes have provided for the mature and severe punishment of their Civill Delicts to approve the Actions and Lawes of the said Venetian Lords with silence For even the very same Authors who give the Pope Authority to intrude himselfe sometimes indirectly in Temporals do give him the said Authority in case of extreame necessity and when the people are stopped in the right course to life eternall Now for so much as the Actions and Lawes of the Venetian Lords are not only no hinderance to their Subjects in the course to eternall life but rather make the way more facile and bring the same as it were to a shorter cut what necessity can his Holinesse have whereby he should be moved to restrain those publike Lawes which are out of his owne Element and not under the Lee of his Jurisdiction 7. It is your manner and a slie trick of your cunning to make shew that you do not see the force of our Argument we draw not our Argument from that power which the Prince hath from God in the generall but from that power the lawfull exercise whereof the Prince never lost neither by Priviledge granted nor by Canon received nor by long Custome which is a Law to prove that his Acts done conformeable to his power are good and lawfull Now you Hetrodox from these particular Acts of the Pr nce would prove the Prince hath none other power from God at all The Prince hath power from God over all Temporall matters but his power is exercised in some and not in other because he hath exempted some from his power by Priviledge and not some other Now this doth imply or signifie that his power is not granted from God with a certaine limitation as you contend but rather that he himselfe limits his own power by his Priviledges granted For the Temporall Princes power in Temporals no arme of flesh can limit provided it be not a Tyrannicall power neither hath it any Superiour but God alone much lesse when it is exercised ad optimum finem to the best end 8. You make us to affirme the Duke hath power to punish power to dispose power to make Lawes we neither take up the word Duke nor the word power for this matter we only speake of the Prince that is of the Republic that he the Prince or she the Republic doth punish doth dispose doth make Lawes there is great difference you know between Act Power betweene power to enact Lawes and enacting of Lawes 9. You harpe much upon this one string that we sp ak still of the Duke it is nothing so we tell you again we speak only of the Republic which only hath the Authority and the same in Temporals which the Duke hath not For it is the Republic