subject unto the higher Powers Now higher powers are men placed in high and honourable dignities to whom by law and order of justice we owe subjection Submit your selves to al manner of Ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether it be unto the King as supream or unto Governours as unto them which are sent of God And whereas S. Paul saith To the higher powers it is a kind or manner of speech indefinite meaning that we must be subject unto all such persons Ratione sublimitatâ— officii in regard of their high office and place though the men themselves are evill Servants be subject unto your masters not only to the good and courteous but also to the froward Thus farre Thomas Aquinas a Religious who for all his religious orders made no bones to say Oportet nos c. We must be subject His words doe neither admit nor need any comment or glosse he speakes not with a Barre in his throate but with a clear voice and like himselfe the Prince of scolastick and catholique Doctors And who dares deny S. Chrysostome to be a catholique Doctor His clear verdict upon this passage of S. Paul is extant with generall aprobation and applause Facit hoc ideo c. It is the Apostles purpose here to teach that Christ hath not brought his Lawes into the Church of any intent or purpose to repeale to reverse to annull or abolish the lawes and rules of politick government but rather to reduce the order and frame of civill government unto a better forme of institution S. Paul therefore speaks there of politick or civill power not of all power in generall as you Hetrodox are pleased to avouch comprehending therein the Popes power and I wot not what powers besides but only of secular power And how foule an errour it is to expound holy Scripture according to a mans own private spirit or fancy yea contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers I referre you to the councell of Trent Session 4. And whereas you strive for the Popes power to be immediate from God and not mediate by election of Cardinals but in a certaine correspondence to the immediate power of Moses Aaron from the Lord If you can shew and prove that God at any time hath spoken to the chiefe Bishop elected by the Cardinals face to face in a fiery-bush or in a rod as he hath spoken of old to Moses and Aaron it shall be subscribed and confessed for my part that not only the Popes power but also his election is immediately from God But if God in former times hath spoken and yet speaks to the chiefe Bishops when they are elected as you Hetrod would bear us in hand let me be answered to this one question How then are the Conclaves necessary What need so many ambitious plots and practises What need so many hot and vehement canvases What need mighty Princes by their Agents to intercede to mediate to shuffle and cut with Cardinals for the election of some one or other of their own Subjects Patriots Favourites or Creatures What need many other strange devices and stratagems to be so pragmatically and preposterously coined as instruments to hasten the untimely birth of many partiall and precipitate Elections In a word what an idle and superfluous convocation of Lord Cardinals is that wherein the Popes election is made when his Holinesse is immediately elected of God just to an hayre forsooth as Moses and Aaron were elected What new doctrine is this Almighty God as the prime and supream cause permits the second causes to act and worke in their kind and according to their efficacy And howsoever in the election of Popes and other Princes he is assistant after a more speciall and particular manner for a common and generall good yet he never violents or enforces the liberty of elections Nay rather he expresly shows and makes known I speake of Gods ordinary course Quando de revelatione non constat when there is no manifest and apparent revelation that his divine will and pleasure is to have this or that individuall person to win the spurres and to prevaile in the election before all others as it pleased him to provide and take order in the case of Moses and Aaron yea sometimes for the punishment of our sinners Almighty God suffers a wicked Prince and as wicked a Pope if not much worse and more wicked to be advanced by course and order of election but when the election is once consummate God then gives the Pope as we Catholiques professe a Vicars power of Christs own institution and gives the Prince that power which was instituted by the author of mans nature with nature it selfe nor can I here see any such difference as you Hetrodox do seem to inferre That Princes are elected by men and the Pope is not elected by men but by God as Moses and Aaron were elected And whereas Chrysostome speaks clearly of Princes and politick Magistrates of whom also S. Paul himselfe speakes which I have sufficiently explained before you spare not Hetrodox which is your next grosse errour to affirme that Chrysostome there handles not power of the said Princes and Magistrates in particular but speaks only of power in generall Now Sir can it stand with any probability or possibility that where S. Paul himselfe treats of secular Princes and their power in particular there S. Paul's most faithfull expositor doth make the subject of S. Pauls discourse to be of power in generall Secondly those powers whom S. Paul tearms higher powers Chrysostome thorow his whole Sermon calles by the name of Princes and Magistrates I mean such Princes and Magistrates as enact politick lawes bear the weighty burthen of the Common wealth to whom Tribute is due and by the Apostles precept is to be given upon what ground of reason Forsooth because they are the chief workers and preservers of peace and plenty to the whole land they make and maintain warres in the Subjects defence they see and cause due punishments to be inflicted upon all seditious and disordered breakers of the Kings peace debaucht and wicked persons Tell me Sir who are those by whom thâ—se worthy workes and the like are done but secular Princes and the civill Magistrate Thirdly Doth not Chrysostome directly testify that whereas the Apostles were famed and defamed rather to be seditious to preach disobedience unto Princes and to the common lawes S. Paul therefore by way of precept hath delivered all the dogmaticall points couched in the said Chapter Fourthly Chrysostome affirmes that aswell here as in other places S. Paul commands every subject and servant in the whole State to be subject no lesse unto his lawfull Prince then servants in Families are subject unto their private masters Fiftly what meanes Chrysostome by those words Facit autem hoc ideo c. It is the Apostles purpose and scope to teach That Christ hath not established his lawes in the Church thereby to nullifie civill States
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
Councels as of others and the notable evidence of a goodly vintage will manifestly appeare so as it may be reckoned for a wonder that after so great a vintage there be found some few clusters or bunches of Grapes which make for the honourable Rights and Titles of our most gracious Princes This way if it shall be followed long will prove the high way to crack the credit of all Scripture and to bring the whole Church of God to finall Ruine 16. Againe In the text of the ancient Breviaries you tell us the word Animas was never extant These eyes of mine have seene Manuscript Breviaries of more then 200. yeares antiquity with some Breviaries printed of more then an 100. The word Animas is extant in both and were it not extant yet I say it ought for the removing of all occasions of discord there to have a place 17. Last of all you confound the word of Disobedience with the word of Obstinacie This I hold for a certaine Position the man that disobeyeth a Law cannot incurre the censure of Excommunication This likewise for no lesse indubitable the man obstinate in sinne cannot be excommunicated when he hath not beene admonished of his fault or offence before But I never so much as dreamed to affirme the one or the other of these Positions I have hitherto onely affirmed that for the enwrapping of anie man within the most sore bands of Excommunication two things are of necessity to be presupposed the one that hee hath fallen into some sinne the other that being admonished thereof divers and sundry times hee hath not repented And what else is that but obstinacie in sinne For if any man shall commit some sinne and afterward being thereof admonished shall truly repent he ought not at any hand to be Excommunicated but for his persisting after he hath beene duly admonished he may and must beare the most heavy Censure of Excommunication So that obstinate persisting in sinne is the last cause of Excommunication of which obstinacie it is a manifest signe that being admonished he hath not beene reformed and become a new man So that all Disobedience is not a materiall cause of Excommunication nor yet all obstinacie but onely that obstinacie which presupposes Admonition Of this I speake of the same speake all the Doctors and therefore this Doctrine is neither new nor false But now Hetrodox t o insist over long upon matters most cleare and manifest it is but a manifest folly let us for this time part good friends after so sharpe a fray and prepare for the next encounter to morrow morning Hetrodox It pleaseth me right well The fifth daies Conference upon the fifth Proposition Orthodox YOu are later arrived this morning worthy Hetrodox then at any of our former meetings Hetrodox Not in any weakenesse of Spirit want of courage or disposition of mind to avoid this daies combat but as constrained by extraordinary impediment and unexpected restraint For in good and sober sadnesse my fingers have itched ever since peepe or breake of day to have your fifth Proposition by the eares Orthodox In good time you shall have not onely your Fingers but also your Hands full of skirmishing this day and yet shall not be able to draw one drop of the blood of my fifâ—h Proposition though I know you to be a most expert and skillfull master at the shâ—rpe Hetrodox Well Sir let us leave complementall prefacing and fall roundly to the matter Your fifth Proposition goes upon these same legs if I well remember the termes That aâ—â—â—it some Authors you know not upon what good ground be of opinion that as well the persons as the goods of Ecclesiastics are by Gods Law exempted from the secular Princes power neverthelesse the contrary opinion that such exemption is grounded upon mans Law is the sounder the more agreeable and consonant unto Divine Scripture unto the writings of the holy Fathers and to the file and thred of Histories Orthodox I have no reason to except against your memory you have hit the naile on the head my fift Proposition runs in the very same straines and forme of termes What exception have you to make against it in whole or in part Hetrodox If you did beare the least sparke of reverence to holy Church you surely would never have this used lavish and absolute affirmative that as well the Persons as the goods of Ecclesiastics have obtained Exemption and Immunitie from the Sâ—cular arme only by mans Law Sess ult cap. 30. In the Generall Councell of Trent it is cleerely declared That Immunitie of the Church and of all Ecclesiasticall Persons was instituted by Gods Ordinance and by Ecclesiasticall Decrees What Christian is he that dares give the affront or contest against so high so sacred Authorit e Par. 9. cap. 20. Before the Tridentive the Councell of Câ—lâ—y'â— declared the same in these words Ecclesiasticall Immuniâ—â—e pleads upon termes of great Antiquity and got good footing in the Church Jure divino pariter humano as well by Gods Law as mans Law Sess 9. In the Laterane Councell under Leo X. it is determined that Laics have no power over Ecclesiasticall persons neither by Gods Law nor by mans Law which words are directly and properly contrary to your Assertion that Layick Princes by mans Law have power over Ecclesiasticall persons Must not you Orthodox be some new Goliah who in the height of your tenâ—erity dare set your face and foot against so many Squadrons of the Lords Armie that is against so many Vniversall Councels Cap quamque de Consibus Before the said Counsels Pope Boniface left in good Record as a matter notorious and of none denyed that Church-men and Church-goods are not within the Circle but free and exempt from the reach yea from all touch of Secular Power and that even by Gods own divine Ordinance Before Boniface John VIII hath testified That Priests and other Cleries might neither be admitted into Orders Gratia Dist 96. Caâ— si Imperator nor judged by anie Secular Power but only by Popes according as Almighty God himselfe had appointed and ordained And the verie same that John left written of the persons Pope Simmachus long before together with all the III. Councell held at Rome in his presence hath witnessed of their goods That which I tell you Orthodox hath not anie stitch of Inconformitie with sacred Scripture The Patriarch Joseph exercising the Office of Vicar Generall to King Pharoh Gen. 47. exempted the Priests and freed them from the burthens which the rest of the people were enjoyned and enforced to beare 1 Esâ—r 7. Artaxerxes King of Persia exempted likewise all the Priests of the Hebrewes because the light of Nature which immediately shineth and cometh from God plainelie declares it is a thing most convenient Pope Alexander III. upon this ground uttered this worthy Sentence in the Later an Councell Cap Non minu s de Immun Eccl. It
which executes the Jurisdiction of the Prince in Venice and not the Duke 10. You say the Authority of the Republic over his Subjects iâ— derived from men and the Popes Authority from God Rom. 13. Sap. this Errour hath been dasht out of countenance before by the expresse text of St. Paul and other Scripture 11. You affirme the Republic taking his beginning when Ecclesiastics were exempted before she could not be divested of that wherein she was never invested In this point Hetrodox you should have drawn some plain Demonstration that Ecclesiastics were exempted in those times of the Republics birth Whereas you alledge but one priviledge of Frederick II. not worth whistling but a new upstart instance in a manner of two daies old and such as with Ecclesiastics doth not deserve to beare any sway For after the said Priviledge he was excommunicated and deposed from the Empire by Gregorie IX and so by consequence all his Constitutions were annulled But Sir the Lords of Venice have run still at all times by the File and have cut their cloth by the thred of the most holy Emperor Iustinian whose Novell was de-cryed like false and adulterous Coyne and never spoiled Ecclesiastics of any Exemption which they formerly enjoyed but rather endowed them with other new Priviledges 12. You affirme againe that vi characteris by vertue of the Character due to the order of Priests the Prince is deprived of his Authority over his owne Subjects Touching which point I answer thus much and say no more If the Character of Baptisme hath no vertue Quaest 15. de Restitu Cap Novit de judiciu Notab 6. no force or power to free any man from Subjection to his lawfull and naturall Prince much lesse the Character of Clericall Order You know this valide Argument of Medina which you also know Navarrus holds to be insoluble 13. You pretend that Scripture the Law of God Canons and Councels have granted Exemption unto Ecclesiastics I answer it is not commanded in Divine Scripture nor taught in the Law of Nature which is likewise Divine No such matter is defined by the Councels nor by the Canons tanquam de Fide as before hath been declared As touching some other Canons of Exemption made by Popes I acknowledge that where they have been lawfully published and received in those Kingdomes Countries and States they stand yet in their full force and that except in case of extreame necessity to speak in the termes of Sotus and Conarruuias by any ordinary means or for any ordinary cause they are not sufferable of Derogation or thereunto lyable as hath beene defined in matter of Priviledges But Sir this makes nothing to the purpose of our present case touching the Venetian Lords who never yet received any Canon which was contrary to Lawes of their own making in these present daies and times 14. You produce the Canon Si quis suadente c. If any thorow the Devils instigation shall offer violence and lay violent hands on a Cleric and here you presuppose without either grant or thankes for your paines the Venetian Lords by Satanicall perswasion have with violent hands attempted and assaulted the persons of Clerics But you must be answered with a godly resolution to your Diabolicall presupposition The said Lords have not done any such Execution by the suggestion of Satan but by the perswasion of God and of honourable Justice As for your famous Canon that speakes of private wrongs and offences Otherwise the Ecclesiasticall Judges themselves in like manner should be fetcht within the power and penalty thereof So that in the Venetian Territorie the Canon is duly observed For in case a private person by the Devils instigation shall cast violent hands on a Cleric and thereby tumble into the strong Net or Toyle of Excommunication his Absolution is procured 15. The Republic you say is not in the possession of the Judicature that she exerciseth or of the Lawes that she causeth to passe in public The most learned Father Paulus in his Considerations hath most excellently proved this Assertion to be most untrue Two things only will I here annexe The Law named upon this matter was first made in Anno. 1333. and not in Anno 1536. as you have alleadged Secondly the Prince hath Authority to enact Lawes to renew Lawes or to dilate Lawes but not because Lawes are sometimes not observed For the same authority whereby a Law was made at first gives the Prince sufficient power to renew to dilate c. the said Law 16. You attribute unto the Duke that which is the Order of the whole Republic For only the Republic hath such power ad vim vi repellendam to resist force by force and to provide that by Heresie the State be not infected And therefore both because the Republic stands upon a sure ground of certaine knowledge that the Popes present Censures are in the condition of meer Nullity whereof she makes not so much as the least doubt as also because it pleads possession time out of mind she justly pretends the interdict hath never been observed in her Dominion 17. It fills not Monasteries with Souldiers as you object That 's but an old wifes tale whosoever is the Reporter much more a meer fable that she exerciseth public persecution of the Church No surely What she doth is done in favour of the Church If it be not so Hetrodox tell us what one Heresie by name is protected or so much as never so little countenanced by the Republic which pretends none other matter but only to defend and maintain her owne 18. Moreover you have matched the Republic with Arrian Princes Even so doe the Cardinals Bellarmine and Baronius I cannot forbeare to tell them and you once for all you thinke to scarre us like little Children with I wot not what Bugs I mean with Epithets of Heretiques Schismaticks The World knowes what Heresie what Schisme is well enough And might we once be so happy to have a generall Councell called of the whole Church which cannot erre it should soone manifestly appeare who is an Heretique who is a Schismatick In the mean time the Republic is neither the one nor the other and that for this time shall suffice 19. Againe you confesse the Lateran Councell is not generall and the Tridentine treats not of that Exemption which is maintained by the Authors of the contrary opinion and neither the one Councell nor the other hath come in this case to any Definitive Sentence de Fide with what face then have you affirmed the said Councell are of equall Authority to that Canon whereof it is written visum est it hath seemed good unto the Holy Ghost and unto us c. 20. I have not given the former Epithets to such as hold Exemption in large manner of Construction that is by way of comparison and similitude to be by Gods Law But onely to such as affirme it is by Gods Law as commanded in holy Scripture
received it of men 5. All Subjects that live say you Hetrodox within a Kings dominions are not his lawfull Subjects immediately by Gods holy ordinance but all christians are immediately the Popes vassals Now you know and no man better that Correllatives are simul natura in a condition of relation by their proper nature the one to the other If therfore the secular and laic Prince have any power to command his naturall Subjects to live in the state of Subjects immediately from God then Obligation of all his naturall Subjects to yeeld their due Prince all due obedience of lawful Subjects is in like manner imediately from God And as the title of a subject to this dominion or breaking of some penall Statute or committing some notorious offence within this dominion makes me subject unto my Soveraign Lord the King or the State So the character of a christian makes me a subject unto the Pope at least as we Catholics believe and teach And as this man is not my King or Prince but by his inheritance election c. So none can be saluted and stiled Pope but by Canonicall and authenticall election of the Cardinals Now then as the character of Baptisme say we markes a man for the Popes lawfull Subject in spiritualibus Even so for a man to be born or to break a penall Statute for example within the Venetian dominion and State markes a man for the Venetian Republics lawfull Subject and to be born or to break a penall Statute within the Kingdome of France marks a man for the French Kings lawfull Subject 6. Again you have put down and vouched one point for positive and certain which is by catholic Doctors held to be dubitable and questionable namely whether the Popes power and authority when he is gone the beaten way of all flesh doth rest in the Church or whether the Church remaines void of such authority and power so soon as the Pope breathes out his last gaspe Surely those who stand tooth and nayle for the Romish opinion that I may take up the Stile of Navarrus C. Novit will have all power whatsoever in the Roman Bishops to be wholly derived from the Pope so that when the Pope dyes all the Bishops are at a stand or non-plus rather not able to break nor so much as once to bend or bowe the point of this pressing consequence ergo when the Pope dyes the Prelates of the Roman Church are cut off and barred of all their former authority whereupon they wheel and go round about the Bush maintaining with might and main as if Hanibal the Carthagenian Generall were ad Portas in Leaguer before the very gates of Rome that in the Church the foresaid Power is not inherent and yet is inherent in the Church which is to utter and poure out darke riddles or Delphian oracles and to broach mysteries not intelligible Yea it is cleer that Cardinall Bellarmine holds very firm and stiffe that when the Pope dyes the said power vanisheth like smoak out of the Church for he contends that when the Prince dyes the regall authority lives and rests in the community or whole body of Peers and people at least for those Princes who are mounted to Kingdomes or other States by election but when the Pope dyes then the papall authority lives not in the Cardinals by whom the Pope is elected nor yet in the Church This opinion howsoever defended and maintained by Cajetane and those of Rome is encountered and crossed with a contrary opinion held tooth and nayl by the Parisians by the whole Sarbone in generall and in particular by Johan Maior Ja. Almanius Gerson Cap. Novit de Iudi. Notab 3. as it is testified by Navarrus yea Navarrus himselfe marshals this opinion in the rancke of doubtfull Assertions howsoever Cardinall Bellarmine there sets it down for certain whereas in other passages he leaves it as doubtfull 7. You stand much for the word pasce oves feed my sheep as expresly and personally spoken to Peter alone and not likewise to the Church or by name to the rest of the Apostles But I must now tell you Hetrodox that many Doctors do stand not onely for the said words pasce oves feed my sheep but also for the words dabo claves I will give thee the Keyes to be spoken both alike without all question unto Peter howbeit in the person of the whole Church as the Parisians doe both strongly and perspicuously prove Nor can it be a good consequence that because feed my sheepe and I will give thee the Keyes were both spoken to Peter therefore the same words were not spoken to the rest of the Apostles for it is generally confessed and granted of all that all the Apostles were of equall authority howsoever Peter for his faithfull confession made of Christ as also for bearing a most remarkable excesse of love and affection to the person of Christ might seem perhaps to deserve some title of preheminency and prerogative of dignity above the other Apostles The plain verity hereof appeares by that famous passage in the Gospell where Christ having most gracious and heavenly communication with all the Apostles together Mat. 18. and as it were in a knot vouchsafed to use the very same words unto them all that he had used unto Peter before Quaecunque ligaveritis whatsoever yee shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven Lib. 1. de Rom. pont C. 12. and whatsoever yee shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven of which passage the most illustrious Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe hath advisedly been pleased to afford this fayre exposition est igitur communis c. It is the common exposition of S. Jerome Anselmus Hilarius with diverse other writers upon this passage Tract 22. 49. in Ioh. as also of S. August that our Lord there speaks concerning the power of the Keyes whereby the Apostles and other successors of Christ do bind and loose sinners which power a little after the same Lord Cardinall affirmes to be understood both concerning the power of order Mat. 18. and also concerning the power of jurisdiction promised to the Apostles in the foresaid passage but fully and actually given to all the Apstoles by Christ when he said to them all Joh. 20. Peace be unto you As my father hath sent me so do I send you whereas the power of order was given in the last Supper Now that pasce oves feed my sheepe and tibi dabo claves I will give thee the Keyes when both were spoken to Peter Tract 50. in Joh. were in like sort addressed to the Church S. Augustine makes it manifest by his luculent authority and testimony worthy of all credit Si in Petro non esset Ecclesiae Sacramentum c. If the Church was not in Peter sacramentally for certain the Lord Iesus would never have said to Peter I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of heaven And if these
provoked to censure with Excomunication Deposition and deprivation of his imperiall Crowne and Robes at least as wee Catholiques would have the world to believe Such a Frederick you put in the ballance to make weight gainst such a Iustinian of whom Adrian 4. gives this honourable testimony Ep. ad Fr d. 1. Filius noster incedat c. we would have our Son so he writes to Frederick 1. tread in the same steps which Iustinian and other Catholic Emperours have taken before for by their example well imitated our son Frederick shall heape up all treasures of honour in earth and eternall felicity with all glorious happinesse in heaven See you not here Hetrodox how Pope Adrian himselfe hath testified that Iustinian was not only a Catholic Prince in his life but now lives a Saint in heaven This Epistle of Adrian is both cited and approved by Cardinall Bellarmine 13. Be it granted that Friderick 2. had an humour to derogate or detract from the vertue vigour and validity of Iustinians constitution and was graciously pleâ—sed to affect and honour Church-men with all gracious priviledges possible be it likewise granted that Basilius or whosoever beside after Iustinians time hath declared himselfe no lesse gracious to the Church in the same kind tell me with what reason you câ—n hence inferre that before Iustinians time there was in the Primitive Church any such distinction of Court as Iustinian hath constituted in his Novell 14. Albeit Basilius passed his Act In odium Nicephori either in some spleen against Nicephorus or to draw Nicephorus into some hatred of others yet in reversing or nullifying the law of Nicephorus he gave pith and strength to the Law of his own father and Grand-father much more prejudiciall to the Church and Churchmen then was the Law of Nicephorus himselfe Moreover Emanuel Conmonus as Nicetus hath left upon authentical record annulled the said revocation of Basilius and confirmed the other foresaid law of Nicephorus which puts me into a marvaile that your selfe Hetrodox a man so much delighted and so greatly conversant in the spacious field and file of all history have not as it seemes once vouchsafed to touch the same the Tract of Nicetus is couched thus at some length Templum D. Irenae c. Lib. 7. after that Emanuel had taken in hand to re-edifie the most spacious and beautifull temple of Irenae a structure built at first by the Emperour Martianus and after consumed by fire having raised certain eminent parts thereof even from the foundation he gave over that goodly worke and so left it unperfect in the ruines and reliques of combustion then he founded and built a Monastery in the mouth of Pontus at a place called Catescepe in the name of the Arch-duke Michael In this Monastery he planted and setled certain Monks of most eminent worth for their giâ—â—s and reputation there to lead a solitary and a quiet life free from all the thornes and sharpe vexations of worldly cares for seeing right well that Monkes in those times endowed with great earthly possessions and entangled in the snares of worldly solitude fell either shamefully or unhappily from the happy state of internall tranquility neglecting also the worship and service of the Almighty he therefore assigned or laid out neither Vineyards nor Lands nor Demesnes nor yearely possâ—ssions to the Fraternity or Brotherhood of this Monastery which things their holy profession did neither well admit nor greatly require what did he then He onely appointed and apportioned a certaine stint of allowance and certain Pensions to be yearely paid out of his treasury or exchequer to wit such poore pittances as were necessary and might serve only Ad victum et Cultum for dyet and atrire It seemes this noble Emperour much misliked other Princes his Predecessours in their immoderate desire to found or build Monasteries was pleased by his Princely patterne to informe all Posterity how Churches and Temples were to be instituted and erected as also what strict rules and orders and courses of life should be proponed or prescribed to poore Hermits abstracting and sequestring themselves from the heavy burthens Legges and Clogges of terrene affaires yea so farre was he from commending or affecting their courses who making profession of Monastic life do swimme neverthelesse in the sweet waters of worldly wealth and are more distracted with multitudes and whole worlds of cares then such as are daiely fed with all the delicacies and sweetest morsels of this life that he revoked as it were from dishonourable exile the sanction of Nicephorus Phocas that most valiant and single hearted Emperour formerly abolished whereby Monasteries were inhibited all augmentation and suffered likewise some abatement or paring of their yearely revenues or demesnes Nor was he any whit meal-mouthd to forbeare or spare his own father Grand-father or any other of his Royall stock and bloud by whose princely bounty and largesse the said Monasteries had been endowed with Mannors Farmes and yearely revenues of no meane value or size And this he did not because they consecrated the said portion of their treasures unto the Lord but because they were misled in the mannageing and executing of their pious project For whereas Monkes were to be provided of Habitations and Cells in Deserts recluded and abstruse corners in Dennes and Caves of the Earth or upon the crownes of high hills and were to shunne the glorious light of Constantinople the imperiall City as the Syren-songs their common practise walked not in the old and beaten way of their ancient and first institution but mounted aloft and flew a farre higher pitch For being tickled with a pleasing itch of vain glory they erected Princely Sepulchres and Tombes of diversified Marbles ingraven or impost stately Monuments gilded and enameld or at least pargered and laid all over with rich rough-cast of Parvis lapis to the common view and vulger aspect of all commers yea they would be seen after they were dead lying ad rned in their Tombes with Crownes or Coronets on their heads as it were with a vive aspect or countenance of living creatures thâ—y built Monasteries in Market places and other public passages in which without any respect unto gracious gifts and vertuous endowments they harboured and shut up as it were in Cages or like Hawkes in their Mewes many such as were without any expresse markes or representations of religious Monks except it were a shaven crown an exchanged habit a stuffâ— and strutting paunch and a side beard For these causes and reasons either to underprop monasticall sanctimony then as it were nodding and loose in all her joynts ready to fall in pieces or to speake in more true and avouchable tearms then laid on her backe upon the bare ground or else fearing to be famed or defamed rather to fall into the same errors which in other Princes he had reproved this glorious Emperour Emanuuel Coâ—menus forsaking the course and way of his Ancestors fairely and nobly addressed
himselfe to follow another tract and better path Now in this large discourse diverse things occurre and concurre worthy of observation in favour of the point which I here maintaine The first by name that Emanuel is honourably commended and highly praised by Nicetas for a most noble and pious Prince The next is that for the reformation of monasticall discipline he revoked the repealed and annulled Act or law of Nicephorus which was not done out of passion or out of any envious or venemous humour against the Church but only out of a religious disposition to worke and effect a timely reformation of the Church The third is that Emanuel renewed the law of Nicephorus annulled by Basilius because Nicephorus was directed guided by most prudent consideration to enact and establish the same Law which because Emanuel did set on the own first feet again therefore Nicetas gives him the honourable adjunct and stile of Cordatus Imperator an Emperour of an upright right couragious and right sincere heart The fourth is that never any man opened his mouth to complaine or to declare himselfe grieved-or offended against Emanuel for the re-establishment of the said law The last is that as well by this Act of Emanuel as by the Acts of Nicephorus Basilius and other christian Princes it is lawfull and free for christian Princes as it is now practised in act at pleasure to establish and re-establish the like lawes and that immunities whether passant or dormant do grow and flow Ex privilegio principum from the sweet spring of Princely priviledges I passe over diverse matters Hetrodox as namely that you pick out of Authors and scrape any thing together which may but seem to make for your purpose and omit or leave out all that makes against your cause as also that you build and worke upon texts of no weight or importance upon priviledges cassed and annulled in like manner that you disclaime and reject authorities of the most noble and christian Emperours their most holy Lawes and priviledges never yet annulled neither by custome nor by any superior power Hetrod I feare Orthodox you will breake your wind or at least runne your selfe out of breath in this argument if you may be suffered to have your own swinge I will therefore take down and coole the heate of your discourse as it were with a sprinkling or two of holy water Answer but one example and you shall give me more then meane satisfaction when certain Processes were preferred and presented on a time to Constantine the Great against sundry ecclesiasticall persons what was his gracious and Princely response Vos à nemine c. No mortall man hath power to judge you of the Church but you are to be judged by God alone Orthod What aime you to inferre upon this one instance Hetrod That Clerics or Churchmen are not subject unto secular Princes Orthod You shoot both too farre short and too farre wide of your marke That Princely response was only a kind of excesse wherein the noble Emperour endeavoured to demonstrate an over-weight of his exceeding benignity and piety towards the Church the gracious eye of his internall judgment lookt another way then you seeke to inferre For if that response had been true and according to his inward perswasion or beliefe thereof then Clerics without all question might not be judged by their own Prelates For Constantine there saith Ad Dei judicium reservamini you Churchmen are exempted by the benefit of reservation to be judged by God alone which doubtlesse is a blurre to your learning and a grosse Non sequitur to inferre Hetrod Beleeve me Orthodox you labour to crown the great Emperour Constantine with garlands of homely praises and perfumes when to make him renowned and glorious for his benignity and piety you paint him forth as a masqued and cunning lyar But Sir to the end you may plainly see in what heighth and elevation of the Pole Hist Eccl. lib. 10. c. 2. the words of Constantine deserve to be placed have patience whiles I turne word for word what Ruffinus hath recorded Constantine said to the Bishops Almighty God hath given you the Order of Priesthood with power to judge us Princes wee therefore of right are to be judged of you Priests and you may not here below be judged of men stay then wait and expect in suites commenced by men of your own Coat and Order the time when you shall be judged by God alone keepe your suites to be tryed quarrels to be decided at his Barre are you not given to us of God as Gods on earth Is it not a great and a shamefull fault for men to 〈◊〉 and to judge their Gods Is not he alone to hold the great assizes for their tryals of whom it is written Deus stetit c. God standeth in the Assembly of Gods Where it is to be noted that as temporall and secular Princes are Gods in respect of their People so Priests are Gods in respect of Laics though they be Princes as Constantine sticks not here to affirme and upon this foundation the great Emperour very safely grounds his conclusion that Priests have power to judge Emperours but Emperours have no power at all to judge Priests Now if this great Emperour of the world hath acknowledged that he held Priests as in the ranke of Gods that he could be no judge of Priests and yet might himselfe be judged by Priests how much more ought other inferior Princes and States confesse the same in word and acknowledge the same in fact Nor doth it follow in right consequence that Priests cannot be judged by their own Prelates but rather the contrary for ever and at all times the superior judgeth in Gods name from whom he receiveth authority and power Nay rather God himselfe then sitteth in judgement by the mouth of his lawfull Minister for the exercise of judgement So when a Bishop judgeth some inferior Ecclesiastic or when the Pope himselfe judgeth a Bishop it is God that judgeth by the Ministery or mediate worke of his appointed and approved servant This was therefore great Constantines beliefe and perswasion that Bishops who in respect of Laics are Gods cannot be judged by Laics who are but men and not Gods in respect of Priests Again that it resteth in God alone to judge Clerics viz. by the interposition or mediat act of his great Vicar as in like sort secular Princes who in respect of their secular People and Subjects are Gods cannot be judged by the said People being but private persons but only by God by meanes of his Vicar the Priest who in that regard is called God to wit in regard of the secular Prince In that only sence the Lord said to Moses I have made thee Pharaohs God namely to judge to chastise that cruell King with my rodds my sore judgements And for some good proofe of Constantines beliefe that power to judge censure Bishops is in the hand of the Pope
done with much disgrace and contempt As to that which you say touching the cause for which Christian subjects were bound to obey Infidel and unbeleeving Princes I will content my selfe to make use of Saint Pauls words for a sufficient and full answer thereunto You must be subject and obedient not onely because of wrath but also for conscience sake Rom. 13. Item Whosoever resists the power he resists the ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves condemnation In so cleere Texts and passages of Scripture what need you or any other fly to the shifts of any new expositions with danger to fall into infidelity or mis-creance and notorious Heresie especially when Chrysostome hath decided the matter before by so strong an argument from the lesse to the greater in this forme If the Apostle enjoyneth obedience to Heathen and miscreant Magistrates how much more ought we to performe and yeeld all due obedience unto beleeving and godly princes Thus Chrysostome Hetrod The Sunne is now declined many degrees and now ready to depart out of our Horizon Are you Orthodox as neere to the period of your first dayes labour and taske as the Sunne is to the full end of his Journall or Diurnall motion Orthod I am indeed as you shall presently perceive Saint Paul commands all men to pay Tribute unto their lawfull Soveraigne because he that dischargeth such duty makes good payment unto God himselfe Give Tribute unto whom you owe Tribute Custome unto whom Custome fâ—r they are the Ministers of God This passage is expounded by the Angelicall Doctor the great Master of Divines and onely Sunne of the Catholic School This great Clark saith you know full well That in case Clerics be free and exempt from payment of Tribute doubtlesse they are endowed with such freedome and exemption not by Gods Law as by divers it is thought and taught but by speciall grace and priviledge of secular princes who beare not Gladium the sword for nought seeing they are Gods Ministers to take vengeance c. See you not here the authority of Secular Princes to punish poena sanguinâ—â— with losse of blood or with corporall death Now the same authority Ecclesiasticall Prelats have not from God and therefore when they have once degraded a Cleric for some capitall crime or scandalous and notorious offence whereby they declare the party criminall to be devested of his Clericall degree and holy orders they take no course nor care at all for any further proceeding to his execution but for punishment by death tradunt brachio saeculari they refer and poast him over to the secular power And to the end it might not be conceived that Pauls words are not uttered by way of precept but onely of counsell Behold to make good his assertion he strengthens the same words with a very substantiall sinew Ideo necessitate c. Wherefore ye must be subject not onely because of wrath but also for conscience sake So then we are bound by Saint Pauls holy doctrine as it were with a forcible chaine of necessity O portet ye must to serve and obey the secular Prince in all such matters and cases as have been discussed and insisted on before Hetrod How now Orthodox play the lazie Poet Faile flag and faint in the last Act of your first dayes Conference Coyne or at least corrupt Scripture at your pleasure and for your purpose where find you this word in S. Paul For they are the Ministers of God Ad tributa to receive tribute or this word For he is the Minister of God Ad vindictam to take vengeance The sense of the latter words I grant is found in the Apostles Text but whensoever men cite the words of Scripture which indeed are Gods owne words it is but a sacrilegious trick to chop and change the right words especially when the genuine sense proclaimes it selfe to every meane capacity For example in the first sentence For they are the Ministers of God to receive tribute Paul doth not say That Princes are Gods Ministers to receive tribute but rather by all meanes to provide for and to procure the tranquility of the whole body So the words are expounded by Chrysostome and other holy Fathers Ministri Dei sunt in hoc ipsum servientes For they are the Ministers of God to the very same purpose that is to provide for and to procure the tranquillity of Gods people Yea the same Thomas also whom you so highly magnifie and upon whose testimony as you think and suppose you build so sure is of the very same judgement or mind For he reckons and ranks Tributes in the nature of Salaries given to Princes for the laborious taske surmounting the twelve labours of Hercules which they daily undertake for the good and happy government of their Subjects And who doth not know that no salarie can be given to God Princes therefore are not Gods Ministers Ad tributa to receive tribute but rather to bring their subjects unto a statâ— of blessednesse under a good and happy government Againe touching Thomas Aquinas whom you quote for another purpose namely to prove That Ecclesiasticks have been freed from payment of tribute by the most gracious charters and speciall priviledges of Princes it is in good sooth the assertion of Thomas and conformable to Historicall Truth But you impose and father upon Thomas more then he sets downe to wit That Ecclesiasticks are not so endowed and priviledged by Gods Law whereas Thomas affirmâ— the cleane contrary For thus he saith Princes by gracious priviledges have exempted Ecclesiastics from tribute because it stands and agrees well with naturall equity He means that Princes in so doing confirme the law of nature which doubtlesse is the Law of God To be short whereas in your last point you deny the power of the Church to punish by death I know not where you have pulled that wild and sowre grape except it be in the Desarts of certaine Hereticks as the Valdâ—nses Hussites Marsilius of Padua or the like who denyed the Church to have any right unto the power of both swords True it is the Church never strikes with any materiall sword nor doth punish criminall malefactors by death But wherefore what is it because the Church wants power in that case No verily but because it seems neither convenient nor suitable to Ecclesiasticall meeknesse in regard whereof the Church is well contented and apayed to leave all such criminall offenders in the hand of secular justice Vterque igitur Ecclesia c. Both swords therefore the spirituâ—ll and the maâ—eriall of right belong to the Church the materiall to be unsheathed in the Churches defence the spirituall to be drawn by the Churches arme the spirituall to be used by the Priest the materiall by the Soldier but yet when the Priest holds up his finger and the Emperour commands or sends out warrant for the purpose This doctrine of S. Bernard was afterward made authenticall by Pope
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
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
partly Excommunicate to reduce and bring them unto the lap of the Church and now behold they departed from the Faithfull unjustly excommunicated and interdicted Fiftly that if all the Religious had followed the example of those few in abandoning their Pastorall charges the Venetian Dominion should have beene left for a Country of Paganisme without any Priests that Woolves at pleasure might have run together on heaps to woorrie and to glut their paunches with the blood of the silly sheepe and Lambs of Christ Last of all the occasion of this great scandall was augmented by some temerarious and over-confident Bravodoes in speech cast out by the said Religious that his Holinesse the Pope is the Monarch of Christendome and ought in all things whether Temporall or Spirituall to be obeyed by whomsoever These are scandals to speake truth inexcusable which in case they doe not spring from the blindnesse of those by whom they are given it may well and truly be averred their Actions are so much the more culpable and the more to be condemned 4. You grant obedience to the Naturall Prince and concurrence in his Defence is by Gods Law and the holy Fathers sentence by mans Law and neverthelesse without any reason you denie the consequence that Subjects have done well and taken the right course in obeying their Prince rather then the Sentence of the Pope The instance which you induce is of no more force or weight then your first Answer For thus you inferre If it be according to Gods Law for Subjects to defend the Liberty of their Naturall Prince on Earth much more it is according to Gods Law to defend the liberty of the Church the Spouse of the Prince in Heaven It is a true Inference I confesse but nothing pertinent or proper to the present case because the Lords of Venice never pretended to rob the Church of any Right or Libertie whatsoever For the Lords leaving all things in their entire strength doe enact most just Lawes and ordinary judgements touching Delicts and Goods which are subject unto their power This they have alwaies done time out of mind and yet never anie of this present Popes predecessors hath taken stomack against our Lords for such their Acts but rather by connivance or tacite silence hath yeelded gracious consent to their just operations So that in Venice there being none that goeth about or seeks to deprive the Church of anie Libertie how can the Ecclesiastics there have anie occasion to defend the said Libertie 5. You againe confound the word Duke and the word Prince The Duke doth not anie thing of him selfe in the Venetian State the Prince that is the Republic sets downe all Orders the Prince makes all the Lawes To what purpose then should you seek to draw the person of the Duke into any odious hatred by putting the Duke to be the Author of those Acts which are to be attributed unto the whole Republic as unto the true Father and Mother of the said Acts. 6. You affirme the Prince of Venice commits to prison such as have ho ranke amongst his owne Subjects The contrary hath been already proved that Clerics in grievous Delicts which touch not so much as the hemme of Spirituals are not exempted so that by consequence they are in the ranke of Subjects as also it hath beene shewed before that the liberty left by Christ our Lord unto the Church is the libertie of the Spirit and from the bondage or slaverie of sinne 7. The Lawes now in question made by the Lords of Venice you say are against Justice and Pietie For this Opposition I will turne you over and referre all indifferent Judges to Antonius Quirinus a most noble Senator of the State in his Aviso and to F. Paulus of Venice in his Considerationi 8. You put us in mind that Ecclesiasticall Sentences as touching power are by Gods Law This will not be denyed or gaine-said so long as they marshall themselves within their own bounds and territories but when they fall to range out of their owne Religion or Limits and to lash those who justly stand upon the practise of their owne Temporall and lawfull power then they are not onelie by Gods Law in respect of their power but directlie opposite unto the Law of God and flat against all reason 9. You grant and confesse the present Controversie stands not in point of Faith but in matter of Manners Then you subjoyne that which neither your selfe nor anie other hath not proved nor shall ever by Gods grace be able to prove that in the Bookes written by such as hold and maintaine the opinion of the Republic there are to be found sundrie Errours in Faith An Error in Faith is when one affirmes a point of Doctrine contrarie either to sacred Scripture or to the definitive judgment of the Church which cannot erre tanquam de Fide This no man living shall be able to prove hath at anie time been taught by such as have defended or now doe maintain the cause of the Republic When matters are debated of so great importance it is not lawfull to hang a Priest in generals If the Disputant seeke or think men should give him Faith and Credit without all hesitation he must come to the particulars In the meane time so long as the parties offended are reproved by others and no just cause at all shewed of the said Reproofe they have reason to believe the said Reproofe will result and turne to their favour 10. You confound the Principles and the Conclusion which is virtually contained in the Principles The Principle from which the opinion of the Republic is derived is touching Faith and in St. Paul Omnis anima c. Let every Soule be subject unto the higher Powers but the Conclusion is a certaine opinion grounded upon all that hath beene said before I have not said the Principle taught by St. Paul is an opinion but have onely said that opinion is most certain which is grounded upon a Principle of Faith taught by the Divine Apostle And so the sharpe subtiltie or subtle sharpnesse of this your opposition vanisheth like smoake in the vast Region of the Aire 11. St. Pauls text Obey them that have the over-fight of you and submit your selves for they watch for your Soules as they that must give account for your Soules you understand to enjoyne obedience unto Spirituall overseers in all things or matters whatsoever whereas the Apostle by whom this lesson had been taught before concerning Temporall Princes Let every Soule be subject unto the higher Powers to the end he might not goe crosse or speake in termes of contradiction that former Principle is understood by all writers on that place to the Hebrewes to treate of Spirituall power and over Soules This appears by the account which the said Prelates must render unto God namely an account for the Soules of the people not for their Goods or other Temporall matters 12. I never speake of the Head in