IS the wind in that doore Orthodox? Are you become so deplorately blinded, and yet honoured with the reputation of a wel-founded Roman Catholique? Is it possible that any Roman Catholique can swallow the sweet Pill (but most deadly poyson) of hereticall Pravity, to assevere so distinctly as you have now done, and to believe withall so confidently as you now pretend, the power of secular Princes, or of our Holy Father himselfe, as a temporall Prince, doth clayme a kind of Birth-right by lawfull derivation, Immediately as it were from the Almighties throne, and without exception?

Orthodox, The wind blowes where it lists Hetrodox; But whe­ther I be now transformed into a Baertimeus, or turned blind as a Beetle, in this Theologicall Argument, whether I have taken down a drachme, or so much as only a drop of hereticall poyson in this dogmaticall assertion; I neither intend to shew my selfe so selfe-conceited, neither purpose to looke so big upon the tip-toe of my own private spirit, as to deprive your critick faculty of any [Page 2] faire and free liberty, to censure the verdict of my Position at par­ting when the Sun sets.

Hetrodox, Fall then roundly and closely to the main of the first Proposition, I barre all manner of byes.

Orthodox, Your will be done Hetrodox: Then first I take this for granted, that all Dominion and Servitude, that all Power in the Prince to command, and all obligation of Subjects to per­forme with promptitude all due and requisite obedience unto the just and lawfull behests of their lawfull Princes, by the law of na­tions, is grounded and built upon one of these foure Bases; Electi­on, Inheritance, Donation, or Law of Armes; I mean Sword-Law, and right by valiant Conquest; So that all Princes advanced to the glorious Throne of sacred Supreamacy, or supreame Principallity, by any one or more of these foure Bases of State, are condignly to be enrolled and registred in the most noble Canon or Calender of lawfull Princes: And all such Princes (I religiously professe) in my conscience are crowned with Authority and Power immedi­ately from God, to command, to enact Statute Lawes, to exact due Tributes, to heare and determine causes, to inflict capitall and other corporall punishments, to impose Pecuniary Mulcts of pe­nall Statutes, upon all their naturall Subjects without exception.

Hetrodox, By these last words, without exception, whether mean you exception of Subjects, or exception of Power, or exception of Cause? If the first, surely your Proposition is erroneous; For what Power can secular Princes carry over Clerics, exempted (as you know right well) from temporall power, at least by mans law, as it is held by all Catholique Authors; yea, by Gods Law also, as before our parting I hope so materially and substantially to verify, that you shall be enforced to confesse your error, to cry Peccavi, and glad withall, to deliver me your weapons in this Field.

If you mean exception of Power, your Proposition is Hereticall; For no Power of any Christian Prince or Monarch, can be free frome subjection (in some sort) unto the power of Christs Vicar, thr universall Pastor and Head of all Christians, whether Princes o-private persons. If you mean exception of Cause, your Propositir on doth smell very strong of like pestilent contagious heresie; Fot it is the doctrine of sacred Scripture, and holy Councels, That spirituall causes are not summonable, nor bound or tyed to ther Courts of Layics, not compatible of tryals in the Kings-Bench, or [Page 3] Court of Common-Pleas, but in Consistorian Courts, and before Ecclesiasticall Tribunals alone; in which point all the Doctors, as well Divines as Canonists, with unanimous consent do jump and accord.

Orthodox, Not so Hetrodox, saving your deep, and, as well may be avouched, your infinite reading: D. Medina for one dis­sents, and holds hard for the contrary; yet a Doctor Marshaled in the ranke of solid, Catholique and Classicall Authors, He delivers for positive doctrine, that exception or exemption of Ecclesiastics in temporall crimes and causes, is not commanded or prescribed of Almighty God, in the whole volumne of the Bible; Medin. de Restitut. q. 15. His expresse and formall words be these, Videtur oppositum esse verum &c. The contrary assertion seemes to go forth, and bravely to march with flying Colours of truth; for the purpose; That after abolishing of the old Law, there is not found any one obligatory precept in Gods word, for the exempting of Clericks or Ecclesiasticks from the power of the secular arme and sword; I rather choose to affirm & maintain, that in former ages Clericks have obtained, and for the times present with great happines do enjoy their exemption by the munificent Grants, by the gratious Charters, by the indulgent pri­viledges of their noble Princes▪ again, Deni (que) hac ratione unica, &c. To conclude, this one argument hits the Nayl on the head, drives it home, and hits the Bird, like a Bolt in the right Eye: wee can pro­fesse and justify no point of doctrine to be grounded upon Gods Law or word, except it can be warranted by some authenticall te­stimony of the same divine law or word; Exempting of Clericks hath no cleer warrant passable or triuable in the law of God: er­go, Couar. lib. pract. q. C. 1 [...]. con­clu. 2. &c. Couaruvias also stands as firme like a Colosse for the same assertion. In rebus temporalibus et in criminalibus quae spiritualia non attingunt, &c. In temporall matters and in criminall causes, having no correspondency with spirituall cases, the persons of Clericks and their possessions or estates, are not by Gods word ex­empted from the jurisdiction of their secular Princes.

Hetrodox, You know Couaruvias is challenged by Cardinall Bellarmine of partiality for the jurisdiction of the most Catholique King.

Orthodox, And you know Cardinall Bellarmine is no lesse partiall for the Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction; It serves my turne, and makes much for my purpose, that Couaruvias holds both touch & [Page 4] 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 [Page 5] 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 [Page 6] 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, tis 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 himselfe, that can derogate, or diminish, retard or impaire the least portion of Papall power; The reason, because Pa­pall power proceeding immediately from God, is totally and uni­versally free from Subjection to the will of creatures. In secular Principalities, experience teacheth us many times the contrary events: the point of their power is now and then rebated by rebel­lious insurrections of their own Subjects, or by cunning practices and hostile acts of some more potent Princes, yea, sometimes Mo­narchicall Principalityes are changed into free States: and on the contrary, free States into Monarchies, because their power hath no immediate derivation from God, but mediate from the consent and assent of men.

To be short. If Secular Princes be not gifted with Power and Authority from God Immediately over the persons of pure Laics, how much lesse are they armed with power over Ecclesiastick Estate, exempted from the said power by the Law of God and Man? whereof I hope to make before our parting evident demon­stration. Your Proposition therefore might have been better cou­ched and put downe in these termes: Secular Princes are not gir­ded with any Sword of power immediately from God over their Laic Subjects, but onely by meanes of some lawfull Title from their people; and against Clerics or Ecclesiastics within their Do­minions, they have not so much as a short dagger or a small bod­kin of Power and Authority to draw forth, neither from God nor Man.

Orthod. With great authority and confidence, Hetrod. you have taken the paines to utter and say just nothing: The word Immediately, against which you take so great a stitch, is used by Navarrus, a most grounded and Catholic Doctor. In the Defini­tion of Secular Power, comparing the same with Ecclesiastic, as you have now done, he is positive in these words, Cap. Novit de Iudi. Notab. 3. Potestas Laica praedicta, &c. The said Secular power comes immediately from God, for this reason, because men are furnished with Naturall Reason engrafted by God himselfe; and this Natural Reason con­cludes Power to be due and requisite over man, propter bonum re­gimen eorum, as tending and availing to their better, more for­mall, and more orderly Government. Navarrus for this opini­on, or verdict rather, citeth and produceth Durandus, Iohan. Pa­risiens. Almanius, Gerson, with some other Catholic Authors, and then drawes the whole to this faire head: As the Precept a­gainst Murther is by the Law of Nature Immediately from God, so the Authority of Secular Princes against all Delinquents, to in­flict upon them capitall penalties according to the merit of their cause, for the tranquillity and better Politie of the State or Com­mon-wealth, is immediately from God alone.

True it is, that some before others are mounted to the Chaire of Soveraigne State, as it were upon the backs and shoulders of men, I meane, by humane meanes; as either by Inheritance, by Electi­on, by Donation, or by the Law and Right of Armes, as I have laid it downe for an over-ruled Case and Principle in Common-Law; And now I avow punctually for the purpose; The very [Page 8] same principle can be no crosse or over-thwart-barre to the abate­ment of any honour in the armes of a secular Prince his power, or to hinder his power from being the immediate gift of God; nei­ther can it be any forcible instrument or Engine to make the said power the immediate act or worke of man.

Rom. 13.First, not of men, as you pretend, because all power is of God, as S [...]. Paul affirmes in expresse words: But authority of Princes is a power; item no mortall creature (I speak not now of supream Princes) hath power to bind the conscience of any other unto the precise keeping of his commands, whereas the supream secu­lar Prince is invested with power to bind the consciences of all his own Subjects, to the due obedience of his Decrees, Lawes, Acts, or Statutes; The secular Prince therefore is not armed with autho­rity by mortall men, but by the immortall and eternall God him­selfe: St. Paul frames the same argument and reason, Whosoever resists the Power, resists (the Apostle sayth not mans Ordinance) the Ordinance of God, Rom. 13. and they that resist, shall receive to themselves judgement.

Now then, to take you up at your own weapon; As Papall power is immediately from God (saith Hetrodox) howsoever the Popes election is acted by the suffrages and votes of Cardinals, who are but men, so howsoever the meanes or manner, whereby the Prince is assumed or exalted to his throne, be humane or of men, his power also (if the Popes be so, or any such at all) must needs be of God.

An example in Philosophy will make this point cleare; The reasonable soule is not infused or inspired of God into mans body, before the same body be fitted and accommodated with all the or­gans or instruments, and with all naturall dispositions, of nec ssi­ty required to make the body a fit receptacle for the soule: Now all these abilities and meanes are termed by Philosophers Conditio sine quâ non, the condition without which the body at no hand can be framed or built for a convenient House, Tent, or Taber­nacle, for the immortall soule. This notwithstanding▪ shall any mans boldnesse abuse his reason so farre, as to make him affirme, the reasonable soule is not created and infu [...]ed in mans Body im­mediately of God, but mediantibus dispositionibus, by meanes of the corporall dispositions first fitted and prepared in the body? Farre be it from any Christian tongue to utter so great blasphemy; [Page 9] In like manner, howsoever the meanes by which a Prince is mounted to his throne, are but humane, or of men, (and that is the condition without which the Prince is not installed in his throne) yet his power to rule and govern the Stern of State, is immediately of God.

But I must here take you Hetrodox at your word, as one convict­ed by the power of truth it selfe, and acknowledge (so that Ha­bemus confitentem reum) the word immediately may be taken (as you contend) in two severall senses, and this for the first, Princes have immediate power from God to command their sub­jects, that is to say, the precept or law that bindes to the obedience of Princes our lawful Superiors and Lords, is immediately from God; and this I grant is true; now albeit you here seek to con­found the word Power, and the word Command, yet according to your own sence and acceptation of the words, they both do signi­fie the same thing, to all intents and purposes; And in very deed, the word Power would be better expressed, by the word authority, or jurisdiction; For so the originall [...], which directly signi­fies authority to command, would be translated and turned, for the avoyding of equivocation.

Briefly; The doctrine by me propounded in these two words, immediately, and without exception, is not only Catholique and sound, but likewise justified by verdict of your own mouth; And howsoever you pretend (to what purpose I cannot see) to marke this doctrine with a black coal, yet by the just judgement of God, you leave it neither stamped nor smeared in face or front, with a­ny kind of odious impression and stigmaticall reprehension, but ra­ther give it a kind of stronger back, and more pithie, with your own approbation.

As for the long parallel, or (to give it a better title) the large comparison which you frame between the Layic and Ecclesiastic power, it is altogether extravagant, needlesse, and from the pur­pose; for whosoever contends for the Layic power to be imme­diately of God, and without exception in temporalibus, doth nei­ther directly, nor by consequence deny Ecclesiastic power to pro­ceed immediately from God, and to be without exception in spi­ritualibus, which we Roman Catholiques must affirme, and are bound to uphold.

Hetrod. Whatsoever you dream of my approbation, you shall never draw me to the bent of your Bow, nor worke me to any good perswasion of your doctrine, with all your perswasions, ut­tered (as before) by whole-sale and in grosse; except you shall deal with me now also by retayle, and shall nick up some error (keep­ing a kind of tallie) in the severall joynts and branches of my last passage, making my said Errors in particular, not onely visible, but also palpable.

Orthod. I refuse not the Exception, and therefore will present­ly nick up (to use your own term,) or point out your errors one by one.

1. Whereas two contradictories are not possible to be true both at once, in one and the same respect; you have given and granted the honour of truth to both: For first you affirm that Princes, as higher powers and superiors, are invested with power immediate­ly from God to command their Subjects; Then as one presently, even in the turning of a hand, repenting himselfe, and falling from his Tenent, you sing out and warble these notes of a contrary ayre: If the power of secular Princes over Laics be not immediately from God, much lesse over Clerics; and a little after, The Propo­sition therefore would stand more firm, it would go more straight and bolt upright in these tearmes; Secular Princes have no power over their Layic Subjects immediately from God: Now either the one of your two Propositions must be true, and the other false, or else Hetrodox who holds them both for true, must needs be tain­ted with a visible and palpable errour.

2. You confound title of power with power it selfe, which are directly distinct, both for matter and word; Title is Conditio sine quâ non acquiritur Potestas. It is the condition, without which power is not setled in the Prince; Power is that authority and ju­risdiction wherewith Princes are invested immediately of God so soon as they are entitled thereunto by man: This was manifest­ly declared before, by a similitude taken from the reasonable soule; and your selfe Hetrodox have been forced to grant it against your will, for you passe it currant and uncontrouleable in the Popes case, and affirm that howsoever his Holines is elected and advan­ced to the Papacy by the votes of men, yet he receives power to sit in Peters Chayre, and to govern the Ship of the Church imme­diately of God.

[Page 11]3. You condemne it as hereticall, to hold, that secular and tem­porall power is not ordained and made subject by God himselfe to spirituall power: But heare me good Sir with patience, you can alleadge no text of holy Scripture, you can produce no definitive Sentence or determination of the Church, which may stand for a cleare and indubitable Oracle, that Princes, as they are Princes, are in any degree of inferioritie and subjection unto the Pope; but onely (to speake in the sence and phrase of us Roman Catholics) as they are Christians: when the world was not so happy to be honoured with Christian Princes, but was governed and com­manded wholly by heathen Lords and Rulers, doubtlesse no Prince then regnant was (in regard of Princedome) the high Bishops Vass [...]ll, or in state of subjection to the Pope: But as Chrysostome testifies, the chiefe Bishop was then Lorded of pagan, or infidell, and heathen Princes, to whom (like a Free-holder or Copie-holder) he ought both suite and service, as to his Lords paramount in temporalties; Etiamsi Apostolus, etiamsi Evangelista, be thou Apostle, or be thou Evangelist, ne (que) tamen pietatem, id est, religio­nem (according to the greek word [...]) subvertit istae subjectio, howbeit by such estate or degree of subjection, true piety, that is to say, true Religion, is neither subverted nor yet undermined; Laic power therefore shall not put either head or hand (like an Ho­mager) under the girdle of Ecclesiastic power, ratione potestatis, as it is a power; For the layic Prince, (I speak still as a Roman Catholic) is onely so far forth subject unto the chiefe Bishop in spiritualities, as the said Prince is a christian; in which case the Prince and every private person are equall, or in one and the same condition; And therefore layic power, as it is a power, is not subject or subordinate unto Ecclesiastick power, save only so farre forth as the said layic power is exercised by one that is a christian Prince, as every other christian is a christian. This makes the pow­er of the Grand-Seignior, of the great Cham, and of the Persian Monarch, to have not so much as the least dependency upon the Popes power; And yet I trowe, you know it is a power, and that an absolute power; to which cause (if I take not my marke amisse) you crowded and slily shuffled in the word christian, when you said, the Pope had power over all christians; wherein you speake this language, this in effect and no more; That all are subject, not ratione potestatis, in respect of power, but ratione christianitatis, [Page 12] in respect of christian profession; and so you speak not ad idem, to the point which you undertook to prove.

4. A Prince (you say Hetrodox) being demanded by what right he holds the Regall Scepter, and possession of his Crown and King­dome, will never avouch the law of God in his defence thereof, but either his right of inheritance, or else his right by the law of just warre, and of lawfull Armes, or of election, or of donation; from which you inferre, that his power is not immediately cast upon him by Gods gracious gift; I must now be bold to re-joyne, and come upon you with an expresse negative. The Prince (be you Hetrodox well assured) will never suffer so lame, so loose, & so dishonourable stuffe to scape his noble heart or lippes: but if a­ny shall be more bold, then observant and respective, to boord his Highnes with such a question, how came you Sir by that Soveraign power and authority to govern and command your People? He would readily and peremptorily shape him this religious and Prince-like answer, I received it as the immediate gift of God; and asked or interrogated againe, who gave him the title and investi­ture of such power? his answer (to stop the interrogators mouth) will be this in a word, I 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 [Page 13] 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 [Page 14] 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, Quaecun (que) 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 words were personally spoken to Peter alone, then the power and use of the Keyes rests not in the hand of the Church; the action of binding and loosing is no action belonging to the Church; but forasmuch as this power is exercised, and this action is lawfully used by the whole Church; therefore Peter signified the Church, when he received the Keyes, and then he received the Keyes, when Christ said unto him, pasce oves, feed my sheep.

S. Augustine takes up the same conceit again in the very same Tract, And Leo expounding the passage of I will give thee the Keys, concurres with S. Augustine, transivit in alios Apostoles, &c. The vertue and efficacy of this power was conveyed unto the rest of the Apostles, it was past over in Peter to the principall and chiefe rulers of the Church. S. Cyprian hits the bird in the right eye, Erant & caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus, &c. De simpl. Praelat. The rest of the A­postles had equall share and portion with Peter in the participati­on as well of dignity as of power; but because every beginning springs out of unity, the honour of precedence or the primacy, was therefore conferred or cast upon Peter, as upon one for all, to de­clare the unity of the Church, or the Church to be but one. By all these passages, with many more in the ancient Fathers and Ca­tholic Doctors, it is cleare concerning the authority given to S. Pe­ter, that in a like and equall degree it was conferred upon all the Apostles, and the Church.

It shall suffice thus briefly to have touch'd, that you argue not upon a certain and infallible ground, when you have thrust up­on us the words pasce oves, to have been spoken only to S. Peter, and not also to the Church, because aswell the promise of dabo cla­ves, I will give the Keyes, as the fulfilling of the promise in pasce o­ves, feed my sheepe, is no lesse applyable and appropriate unto the other Apostles, and unto the Church, then unto Peter himselfe, in the judgement of the Fathers; But I proceed to point out more of your palpable errors.

[Page 16]8. The Pope (saith Hetrodox) hath no power to alienate any one Province from his Papall and spirituall jurisdiction. Why sir, the Pope is not Lord over the people of this or that Province, as they are Inhabitants of the said Province; he is onely their Pa­stor as they are Christians: In regard whereof he hath no power to alienate any one province, or anyone single person. First, because all provinces are not belonging to Christians, neither in Freehold tenure nor in sockage tenure, nor in any other lawfull tenure. Se­condly, because howsoever a large part of Christendome takes knowledge of the Pope as of their superior, and lives within the vergerie and precinct of his papall power, neverthelesse that su­periority of the Pope is not founded nor grounded upon any right of dominon; And where no dominion, there no alienation; I speak of such Princes as are not subject unto the Pope in Tem­poralibus.

And is the chief Bishop no Lord, when he parteth stakes with Christ himselfe in the honourable Title of our Lord, and without addition is called our Lord, even as Christ himselfe is called our Lord? No doubt, he is a great Lord, according to the opinion, sense, and service of his devoted creatures: But let his height and elevation be taken by the staffe of that common Title, and ordinary style, that he honours himselfe withall in his letters pon­tificiall, when he writes himselfe Servus servorum, the servant of those that serve God, and where then is his Lordship, or what is then become thereof? What dominion in the servant of servants? No; we are to hold and beleive the contrary, because our sweet Saviour Jesus hath delivered and taught us the contrary: Said he not unto his Disciples and Apostles, once upon a time at conten­tion, Luk. 22. which of them should be the greatest, The Kings of the Gen­tiles doe raigne over the Gentiles; but amongst you my Disciples there shall be no such matter; but let him amongst you that is grea­test, be as he that serveth; To the same purpose he said to his A­postles, John 20. As my Father hath sent me, so send I you: and how that? forsooth not in great power and pomp, not in any altitude or ex­cesse of high majesty (as he shall appeare himselfe at his second comming) but in great humility, as himselfe came at first, as Saint Bernard speaketh. Ser. de Ad. Yea S. Peter himselfe teaching the office of Pastors in the Church, commands them to feed the flock of Christ [Page 17] which dependeth upon their charge, caring for the Flock, 1 Pet. 5. not by constraint, but with a willing mind, not for filthie lucre, but of a rea­dy mind, not as Lords over Gods heritage, but as fair ensamples to to the Flock of Christ. Vpon which passage, Ad Eugen. p. p. that good Father hath built and founded this Aphorisme, Apostolis interdicitur dominatio, indicitur ministratio; The Apostles are prohibited to lord it over the Flock, and are expresly charged to walke in the state or qua­lity of servants to the Flock. Hence it is, that when the Lord Christ spake to Peter, he said not, Pasce oves tuas, Feed thy Flock, but Pasce oves meas, Feed my Flock: For Christ alone is the chief Pastor, the onely high Priest, having, as the Apostle speaks, Heb. 7. an everlasting Priesthood; He alone is the soveraign Judge, There is but one Law-giver and Judge, who is able to save and destroy. Jac. 4. As for the Pope himselfe, and other Ecclesiasticall Prelates, they are dispensers or disposers of the secrets of God; 1 Cor. 4. the Pope therefore who hath nothing of his own, and proper or essentiall to his Chaire, Jure pontificatus, only and simply as Pope, or in right of pontificall Priesthood, hath no power at all to make alienation of any thing whatsoever, but rather, forasmuch as his power is a spi­rituall power, and over soules, he can make no alienation of soules from the dominion of Christ, who is the head of the Church, but by making them Apostates and Run-agates from the faith of Christ; for the Pope hath none other power over soules, but spiri­tuall power, to convert and to direct soules unto life eternall. Which kind of superiority, howsoever it is of spirituall jurisdicti­on, and of the greatest eminency, yet forasmuch as it is not indow­ed with dominion, the Pope for that reason, and in that sole re­spect (if there were no more) hath no power to make alienation of any one Christian soul or sheep, belonging to the Fold of Christ: whereas the secular Prince hath power to dispose of his own Teri­tories, Crown, Lands, Demeasnes, and other possessions, by way of alienation; because he holds them as things alienable; howsoever he hath no power to take any such extravagant and exorbitant courses in cases of hault importance and consequence, Nisi in evi­dentem utilitatem, &c. except it be for some evident benefit, and most honourable acquist unto the Crown and State.

9. You contend that secular Princes may suffer losse of their Sub­jects, whereas the Pope lyes not obnoxious or obvious to hazard [Page 18] in that kind. Oh that I could here truly say, There speakes an An­gell; but see, see, how many Countries, Nations, Tribes, and Kindreds, have quitted their obedience to the Roman Church. A word shall suffice, that most beautifull, flourishing, nobilitated & renowned Cedar of Libanus, which in former ages hath spread it selfe both farre and wide over the face of the universe, is now redu­ced to such pight and pickle, that she hardly hath two or three Arms left growing, to ward, much lesse to beautifie the whole a­ged Trunke.

10. Your tenth errour layes it selfe open and perspicuous in a most pernicious, nice, and tickle assertion; That neither by the Ge­nerall Councell, nor by the whole Corporation and body of Cardi­nals, the chiefe Bishops power can suffer the least diminution; and yet by the Subjects, the secular Princes power may be plumed of the bravest feathers. Touching the former branch of this asserti­on, I have signified my mind before, that I have no humour to draw into dispute, whether Papall power, when death seizeth upon the chiefe Bishop his mortall body, doth remain in the Church, or whether the Councell be above the Pope: only this I hold to be indubitable, that In causa haeresis est supra Papam, in case of Heresie the Councell is above the Pope; and that in case of scanda­lous offences the Church never wanted requisite and convenient remedies for the maintenance of her own rights and priviledges a­gainst Popes themselves. But what shall I say to the other branch of your assertion? Let us measure the truth thereof by the stan­dard of common reason: tell me then, what People hath power to crow over the authority and power of any Soveraign and absolute Prince? Surely none, for by what authority? Who dares now shew himselfe upon the Stage, to broach and to draw the vessell of such pestiferous and scandalous doctrine? What? Is there a power in any people to depose their lawfull and Sovereign Prince? To pare the nayles of his power? To make a Soveraign Prince In esse, no Prince De facto, but a meer Subject? To pull the Imperiall Crown from his head, the royall Scepter out of his hand, the pur­ple robe, or mantle royall from his shoulders, and to kick him after a sort, or to tumble him down from his Regall Throne? Can there be a more desperate device, more dangerous and forcible Bellows to blow the coales, and to kindle the flames of most [Page 19] detestable rebellions, of odious and insupportable Seditions, of dreadfull conspiracies, of Absolom-like, or Judas-like trea­sons in the very bowels of the State? I am loth to be a medler or a stickler, and to have any hand in choaking or drowning the venemous seeds, or in quenching the pestilentiall sparkes of these horible combustions with inke of Pen; It is for noble and he­roicall Princes themselves, in these cases interested In Capite, to rowse up their brave spirits, and (if the matter must needs come to blowes) to draw the Sword in defence of their own so just and honourable a quarrell: I must confesse, it sorts well with a Princes honour, to rule out his absolute power by his grave Councell of State, and the wholsome Lawes of his Realmes and Kingdomes, as it concernes and beseems the chiefe Bishop himselfe, no lesse to square and to compasse out his power by the councell of his Car­dinals, provided they be no way interested or ingaged and over­born with passion, but still have an eye to reflect upon the good of the Pope, and the good of the Church; alwaies directed by the laudable Canons, and the venerable Councell. For howsoever the absolute Prince perhaps, Non tenetur suis legibus quoad obligatio­nem, is not liable to the conserving of his own lawes by plain termes of obligation, tenetur saltem quoad directionem, yet with­out perhaps or peradventure, he stands bound to the conserving of his own Lawes, at least for the office and duty of direction.

11. You assume, or presume rather, that Monarchicall Rule of Laic Princes, is changed sometimes into free States, and free States of Laics, are sometimes changed into Monarchies: But as for the Church, you affirme that she is not subject like the Moon, unto the like mutation and change.

First, if the case be put concerning Christ himselfe, who is the su­pream & soveraign Pastor of the Church, there is no question but his Monarchie shall stand, remain and endure for ever, without all change; Because of his Kingdom there shall be no end; which comes not by reason of Title or no Title, (as you seem to inferre) but by reason that Christ himselfe is not subject unto the least inward or outward violence, the proper cause of all such mutation and change.

But make the case to concern Christ his Ministers, and who can deny the Church was governed at the first after the form of a re­publick? Let men read the fifteenth of the Acts, there Peter pro­poses [Page 20] the case, he puts down the Proposition, he makes the Declara­ration: Simeon hath declared as proloqutor, then Iames gives the sentence or determination, as President of the Councell; where­fore my sentence is: Lastly, the Decree is ratified in the name of the whole Assembly or holy Convocation, The Apostles, Elders and Brethren, unto the Faithfull, send greeting; It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, &c.

Whether S. Peter was then installed in the primacy, like the Ve­netian Duke, who holding a most honourable preheminence and ranke in that most illustrious and renowned State, is neverthelesse restrained and kept in a State of Subjection to the whole body of that Republick; I leave the matter to be discussed and sifted, by those whom it may or doth chiefly concern. It sufficiently makes for my purpose, that whereas Decrees were published in the Primi­tive Church, under the name of the republick, or whole Assembly; now edicts and constitutions are published under the name and authority of one alone: And whether any mutation or change is imported thereby, speak your selfe Hetrodox, by whom it hath been denyed before.

12. Your last errour is palpable in inferring this for a reason of difference between the two powers: The rule of the one is immedi­ate from God, whereas the title of the other hath no such immedi­ate derivation: here I say you misse the marke, and erre from the sense two manner of wayes: For if by Title you meane the Pow­er, there is no such matter; because neither is the Title the power, nor the power the Title. And if by Title you understand the means or manner of reaching to the height or top of power, the one is no lesse humane or of men then the other: The Conclave it selfe shall never be able to prove me a lyar in this point: but I here put on a step further.

The power Ecclesiastic is not in so precise manner, or direct degree immediate from God, as the power secular: The reason, Because it is in the man Christ, or in Christ as man; to wit, as in the Head of the Church, Joh. 22. to whom alone it is immediately communicated of God; All Power is given to me in Heaven and on Earth. So that all Ecclesiastick power, which the chiefe Bishop challengeth and assumeth to himselfe, is at best hand but a Delegate power, com­municated and committed to him by Christ: For Christ being that Mediator between God and man; as the Apostle speaketh, it must [Page 21] follow by good consequence, that God gives the superiority and power Ecclesiastic to the chief Bishop, not immediately without meanes, but mediately, or by meanes: id est, Per Christum me­diatorem, by the Mediator Christ, or by the meanes of Christ; and this mediate power of the Pope is no Soveraign or Princely power, but a Vicariate or deputed power; it imports not Dominion and Soveraignty, but rather Service and Ministery. And hereupon the chiefe Bishop takes it for no disparagement, for no vility, for no abatement in his high and honourable Stile, to be titled the servant of Gods servants, a Pastor, a Bishop, &c. All which titles imply Ministery rather then Lordship, and humility rather then greatnes: Mat. 11.8. For dominion and grandene are not sutable, not sortable, not com­patible with a chiefe Bishops house, as he is a Bishop, Luk. 7.25. but with Kings Courts.

Hetrod. I find Orthodox, that you have the Prince of Philoso­phers Eleuchs at your fingers end; but withall that you are super­latively positive in your new doctrine.

Orthod. Soft good Sir, a little more of your patience; neither my Doctrine Hetrodox, nor new doctrine; It is no piece of my coine, but comes out of S. Pauls Mint; yea rather it beares a right stamp of the Holy Ghost, speaking with S. Pauls tongue, or at least wri­ting with S. Pauls quill: The Apostles words are thus couched and extant in the text; Let every soule be subject to the higher Powers, Rom. 13.1. for there is no Power but of God: which text is expounded by Chry­sostome in these expresse tearmes, Facit hoc Ap. &c. The Apostles purpose and intent is to shew in these words, that Christ hath not brought his divine Lawes and Ordinances into the Church, of any such intent and purpose, as to undermine and subvert politic Regi­ments and civill States, but for the better establishing and refor­ming of humane governments; And there the Apostle teacheth withall, that all Subjects and inferiors are bound to the due per­formance of his Apostolicall precept and charge; not only secu­lars, but also cloistered Monkes and Priests; for so much is testified and verified in his first words, Let every soule be subject unto the higher Powers, be thou Apostle, Evangelist, Prophet, or of any other degree, condition, or quality in state of a Subject; Ne (que) ta­men pietatem subvertit ista subjectio, howbeit godlinesse by this kind of subjection shall never come in danger to be subverted. Thus farre Chrysostome.

Hetrod. You go too farre Orthodox; I neither can bear in my self, nor forbear you any longer; The passage which you alleadge and quote out of Paul, treats of power in a generallity, and teacheth obedience of Subjects to their lawfull Soveraigns and Supe­riors in grosse, or to Superiors of every sort and degree, and of every calling, to be by Gods own Ordinance; It doth not directly shew, that such and such persons are subject in their callings to the secular Prince, by the immediate Ordinance of God. It is not denyed that all power is of God, but some power is immediately of God; Such was the authority of Moses and Aaron, such also now is the Popes authority and power. Some other power is likewise of God, but mediatly, as by meanes of succession, or of election, or of some other humane title. And as for Chrysostoms testimony upon S. Pauls passage, it is thus to be answered; The holy Father affir­meth not in his testimony, that Priests and Monks are bound by S. Pauls precept and authority, to render obedience unto secular Princes, but rather unto their own Superiors whomsoever. It is no lesse true, that Ecclesiastics are bound to keep and observe all such Lawes politick and civill, as are not repugnant unto Ecclesiastic Lawes, and such as are necessary for common commerce between Ecclesiastic and Laic persons: For in the course and cariage of tem­porall affaires (as Pope Nicolaus writeth unto the Emperour) the Church makes good use of the Lawes Imperiall: Howbeit, Ec­clesiastics are not bound and tyed to such observance of secular Princes Lawes, by way of any force, but only by way of direction: that is to say, Vi rationis, non vi legis, by vertue and right of reason, but not by vertue and right of Law: Let me give this instance for example, The temporall Prince commands a tax to be set upon the price of corn; in this case Ecclesiastics are bound to buy and sell at such price: not because they are bound to the said law, but be­cause they are bound to buy and sell at a just and lawfull price, and because in reason of State, as also in common reason, the price tax­ed by any lawfull Prince within his own Teritories, must passe the muster of lawfull prices. Howbeit, say it comes to passe, that some Ecclesiastic breaks the said law, yet can he not for such delict or transgression of the Law, be fetcht Coram nobis, before the civill Judge or Magistrate by Sub paena, or by any other of the Kings Writs, nor can he be punished by the Laic Prince, to whom he is [Page 23] not subject, but by processe out of his own Ecclesiasticall Superi­ors Court.

Orthod, Let me have leave Hetrodox, to give you the stop in your full careere, know you Hetrodox what you say? Is the Apostles text, Let every soule be subject to the higher Powers, to be under­stood of power in generall, and not of secular Princes power? The best is, you avouch it with a bare affirmative, you send it forth but bare and naked, without any upper Garment, not so much as a Waste-coate either of double or single stuffe, I meane, without any one reason of proofe at all. But how can it be possible, that Paul there speaks of power in generall? Is it not his full and whole scope in that Chapter, to stop the mouthes of those, who slandered the Christians of that age and time, to be seditious routs, to professe very scandalous and pernitious doctrine? to wit, that Christians were not bound to the obedience of secular Princes, but were ex­empted from all secular jurisdiction? S. Paul then speakes to the point, and saith, Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, i. e. to seculars of eminent place and high charge; yea, the very epithite Sublimioribus, higher, is a plain tearm of restraining the word Power; And that S. Paul did foster and fancy none other conceit or meaning, I appeale to the judgement and authority of Chryso­stome, of Thomas, of Augustine, of Theophilact, expositors of the same text, who agree not in consent like harpe and harrow, but jump and accord all in this one cleere exposition, that Paul there speaks of subjection to secular Princes: What mean you then He­trodox, to deny this Orthodox exposition, and to contend that S. Paul there speaks of power in generall, and of papall power in particular, which in S. Pauls time was hardly crept out of the shell, at least not crept up to any degree of sublimity, but lay lowly cou­ched, and louting after a sort, (if it was then at all) in the person of one poor, one simple, one lowly Apostle. Moreover, if S. Paul there speaks of power in generall, how can these words follow­ing in the same context, (Give tribute unto whom yee owe tribute, for he doth not beare the Sword for nought) be dexterly and aptly applyed or fitted to power in generals? The husband I trow hath power over his own Wife, the father over his own child, the pe­dant over his own Schollars; what? Have these also power to exact lawfull tribute, and to condemne their Subjects unto corporall death?

Our Saviour, to shew that his Kingdome was not of this world, as he spake to Pilate, and that his power was none of those higher powers, meaning no terrene or worldly Power, was pleased to use this argument: Joh. 18. If my Kingdome were of this world, then would my Ministers fight without all question; but now, because my ser­vants fight not in my quarrell, that I might not be delivered to the Jewes, for certain my Kingdome is not from hence.

Exacting of tribute, and bearing the Sword to take vengeance on those that do evill, is directly so proper to the secular Prince, and to his Ministers, that by no meanes it can or may be applyed to any other power: S. Paul therefore speaks there in particular, and not in generall; And howsoever it may seem, that some things there spoke and taught by the Apostle, may by Allegory and in a spirituall or mysticall sence be applyed to the spirituall Prelate; as by name, that he beares the Sword, viz. of Gods word, or the Sword of Excommunication; and that he exacts tribute, viz. of Teares and repentance; yet whensoever any dogmaticall point is handled, it is needlesse to seek a knot in a rush, needlesse to hunt af­ter Allegoricall constructions and sences, most of all needlesse to pick out contrary senses, as in our present case. This doctrine makes very much for the firm establishing of the secular Princes authority thorow all Christendome; & therefore in this argument or subject, we neither ought nor need to runne and fly unto allego­ries, but are to stand firme, and to hold us fast by the proper and lit­terall sense of Scripture.

Hetrod. Hitherto you have argued and wrought upon the matter by reason; I will not say how good or how strong: Let me now see how you can back and strengthen the same point with solid authorities.

Orthod. The interlinear glosse upon the former passage of S. Paul, thus; Potestatibus sublimioribus, id est, Secularibus bonis vel malis, To the higher powers, i. e. To secular powers whether good or evill: A little after, thus, In hoc quod sublimet, id est, mundanis, to higher powers, i. e. to worldly powers. Irenaeus thus: Non diabo­lus determinavit hujus saeculi regna, &c. The Kingdomes of this world are not disposed by the devill, but by God; for the Kings heart is in the hand of God; Prov. 8. By me Kings raign. S. Paul thus, Be subject to the higher Powers: Thus farre Irenaeus.

Tertullian thus, Quod attinet ad honores regum, &c. Lib. de I­dolol. c. 25. Touching honour due to Emperours and kings, we are commanded to carry our selves in obsequious obedience at all times, according to the A­postles rule, Be subject unto Princes and Magistrates.

S. Augustin thus, Quod autem ait omnis anima, &c. In expos. quar. pro­pos. ep. ad Bon. And where­as S. Paul saith, Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for there is no power but of God: He therein deales and workes by ho­ly and wholsome admonition, that none be puffed up with pride in this regard, that God hath called him to Christian liberty, that no man be perswaded to runne out of his ranck, and to quit his as­signed station, in the peregrination of this life; that none be of this false beliefe, that he ought not stoop to submit his neck unto the yoake of higher powers, ordained for the time to beare the chief­est swaie in the mannaging, ordering, and governing of temporall affaires. For whereas men consist of soul and body, so long as we continue in this life temporall, and have use of temporall things, as good stayes and supporters of this life: We ought in matters pertaining unto this life, to be subject unto powers, that is, unto men by whom humane affaires are ordered and administred, with some degree of honour: thus farre S. Augustin. In which passage I observe these three things.

The first, S. Paul as he is there expounded by S. Augustin, speaks for the particular of secular Princes, and not for the generall, as you pretend. The next, S. Augustin himselfe, a Bishop, of Episcopall authority and jurisdiction, there saith, Nos, Wee, even wee Bishops must be subject unto the powers. The last, S. Augustin useth an emphasis in the word Oportet, we ought, which word implyes a necessity of subjection.

By all the fore-alleadged authorities it well appeares, how great difference & large distance there lyes, between your assertion, and the doctrine of the holy Fathers, & by name of S. Augustin, the ve­ry light and bright shining Sun, of all Divines. And what say you to that of Thomas? Circa primum, &c. Touching the first, we are to consider, that some Christians in the primitive Church deny­ed (at least in word and assertion) subjection to terrene powers: They pretended and stood upon their Christian liberty, obtained and purchased in Christ, according to those words of Christ him­selfe, If the Sonne shall make you free, you shall be free indeed; Now [Page 26] the liberty granted by Christ, is that spirituall liberty, by which we are freed from sinne, as it is written, The law of the Spirit of life, which is in Christ Jesus hath freed me from the law of sin & of death: whereas the flesh yet remaines in bondage, and under the law of sin. The man therefore once freed by Christ, shall never be obnoxious to subjection, either spirituall or carnall, when Christ hath deliver­ed up the Kingdome unto God, even the Father, and hath layd aside or put down all rule, with all authority and power; In the mean time, so long as wee are clothed with corruptible flesh, we must be sub­ject unto Lords carnall; as it is written, Servants be obedient unto your Masters according to the flesh, which is the very same that S. Paul saith, Let every soul be 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 sublimitat [...] 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 [Page 27] 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 [Page 28] 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 th [...]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 [Page 29] 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 and Regiments, but rather to ground and esta­blish them upon a more perfect and rectified forme: these words do plainly testifie, that he speaks of secular Princes in particular, unto whom all Subjects owe their obedience, according to the politick lawes of the State.

Lastly, Chrysostoms conclusion so stops up all passages, that you are not able to take your heeles, and make any faire escape, Osten­dem quod ista imperentur omnibus, &c. S. Paul doth teach, that all sorts or degrees of Subjects, not only seculars, but also Priests, and Monks are lyable to this Apostolicall charge; yea, so much is punctually set by the Apostle at his first entrance into the matter, when he saith, Let every soule be subject, Supereminentibus potesta­tibus, unto the higher powers; And who those higher powers be, (o­ver and besides all that hath been delivered by him before) the same Father declares, in tearming them sometimes Princes, and sometimes Magistrates: At last, he doubles his files, re-inforces the argument, and payes it home, with etiamsi Apostolus, &c. Be thou Apostle, Evangelist, Prophet, or what may be else; for such condition, degree, or state of subjection, is no engine to worke the subversion of piety or christian religion. Thus Chrysostome, to stop the mouth of all such, as conceived in mind, or gave out in speech, that obedience to secular powers & Princes was out of the square, the rule, the levell of christian professors; where the holy Father doth not affirm, that Princes are in any state of subjection to the Apostles In temporalibus, and yet makes no bones of the matter, he is nothing squeamish to determine, that the Apostles (who were all in one and the same height and altitude of power) were in state of subjection to secular Princes.

And let me ( Hetrodox tell you more) to prove that subjection to lawfull Princes is exceeding profitable unto all sorts of Subjects, the same Father after his usuall manner and method of teaching, makes demonstration to this purpose; that generally subjection [Page 30] of inferiors to their superiors is never without speciall benefit, and singular fruit; As for instance, and by name; The subjection of the wife to her husband, of the sonne to the Father, of the scholer to the instructer, of the younger People to their elders; of which re­markeable profit and benefit, not only the Foules of the ayre (which fly after one guide, as he comes in his vicissitude and turne to make the flight) but also the Fishes in their streames, are parta­kers after their severall kinds: And it is not unworthy of observati­on, that whereas the holy Father in the said enumeration might have taken into his tale the Subjects unto ecclesiastical Prelates, yet he advised himselfe to leave them out of his list: perhaps thereunto induced, upon the same ground of S. Bernard, inspired by the holy Ghost, Apostolis interdicitur dominatio, indicitur ministratio, the Apostles are forbidden to exercise rule, and enjoyned to serve: Howbeit Chrysostome takes not up the said enumeration, to shew that S. Paul there treats of power in generall, (as you Hetrodox are pleased to give it for indubitable) but only to signifie, that sub­jection of inferiours to their superiors, being so profitable as ap­peares by all the former particulars, forasmuch as the Prince is the superior, and the Subjects are his inferiors; the Prince is faithfully to be served and obeyed of his own Subjects in all things: You a­leadge that Clerics are not bound Vi legis, by force of law, but on­ly Vi rationis, by force of reason, to yeeld subjection and obedience unto secular Princes, or unto their wholsome lawes: But how great untruth lyes in this your distinction (which as it seemes you have borrowed of Cardinall Bellarmine) let S. Paul be judge in these words, Whosoever he be that resists the power, he resists the or­dinance of God: then do well, & thou shalt have the praise of well doing; but if thou do evill, feare, For he is the Minister of God, to take vengeance on him that doth evill. Here S. Paul speaks of all Subjects, without exception of any one; whereas you quit and free from subjection whom you list, as if you had a better patent or warrant from Almighty God, then the divine Apostle Paul himselfe: but for my part I give more credit (heare me with pa­tience) to S. Paul, to the tongues and Pennes of the holy Ghost, then to all other Pen-men and Writers in the world.

Produce but one cleane authority out of the holy Evangeli, or out of the canonicall Epistles, or out of any other like Bookes and [Page 31] writings, for the disobliging of Clerics in temporalls from due o­bedience to the Lawes of civill Magistrates, where the said Clerics have not first obtained some priviledge of exemption from the ci­vill Magistrates, (as I have in a manner stricken you stone blind with a cleer and punctuall text of S. Paul, to the same sence ex­pounded by S. Chrysostome, by S. Augustine, by S. Thomas, and others: that is to say, Clerics are bound to such obedience, as they all affirm and teach) & dabo manus, and I will yeeld up my weapons, with open confession, that you have driven me, not like a right bred Cock of the game, but like a ranck bastard or dunghill Bird out of the Pit. That Clerics are to be freed and exempted in spirituall and ecclesiasticall causes, we Catholics do maintain it stands with reason; but in secular and civill causes, I see not with what force of reason it can be born out: Is it because Clerics have received the Clericall and Priestly character? Surely no such mat­ter; no more then a man that receives the Sacrament of Baptisme, & the caracter thereof is thereby freed & quitted from the subjecti­on of his Prince, a pure Pagan, or a man who standing in the state and condition of a slave, is freed from subjection and vassallage due to his absolute Lord: so that a fortiori, all such as are naturally born, or otherwise Ratione delicti, for some notorious crime or grievous offence committed, become as it were accidentally the Subjects of some Forraign Prince, are not loosed and set at large from their subjection, by any reason, or in any regard of their cle­ricall character: For this old axiom stands without all controule, Si non de quo magis, ergo ne (que) de quo minus, where the More is not consequent and firme, the Lesse is never good and valuable: The rea­son whereof is grounded upon these words of Chrysostome, Ne (que) enim pietatem subvertit ista subjectio, This degree and state of sub­jection is no Ramme or other Engine to batter and beate down the Walles or Bulwarks of Religion: It stands moreover without check upon the former doctrine of Thomas; That Christian liberty is altogether spirituall, and against Sin; it is not carnall, or of the flesh, it is no freedome or exemption from secular jurisdiction: But be it said, though not granted, that Cleries owe subjection & obedience, not by force of Law, but by force of reason: I now presse you Hetrodox, to expresse what you mean by force of reason, I suppose you understand with Bellarmine, and all other Authors, [Page 32] the law of reason to be the law of nature: This now supposed and granted to be their meaning and yours, Thereupon would very fain learn, what need so many monitories? To what end so many thundering Cannon-shot of excommunication? Wherefore some few yeares past have not many Priests and other Ecclesiastics of the Venetian state stooped, and yeelded obedience unto the particu­lar demonstrations, Lawes, and reasons of State, published by that most illustrious and renowned Republick, which all Christian Princes have judged and approved no lesse reasonable then honour­able? The law of nature is a farre stronger binder, then the lawes of Magistrates; and therefore it neither will, nor can brooke and ad­mit any kicking or spurning against the due obedience thereof: but you say, In case the Law be transgressed, it is not for secular Prin­ces to rake any cognisance of Clerics faults, and to rake in the sink of their facts, but all transgressions or delicts of Clerics are punish­able only by the power and authority of the Keyes: Now I answer, This cu [...]s not off the power of Christian Princes and Magistrates, to enact and establish Lawes Politick, which may bind Ecclesia­stics to the good behaviour, in the politick and civill Government by the sword: For in your verdict, Clerics are bound at least by force of reason to keepe and observe the said politick lawes. And to wade yet somewhat deeper into these waters, what ward have you Hetrodox for this blow? He that hath power to give life, soul, and being to any Law, hath no lesse power, as the supream and So­veraign Judge, to punish every transgressour of the same law: how thinke you Hetrodox, is it not so?

Hetrod. Very good Orthodox, bee it so.

Orthod. And who, if not secular Princes have power to make Lawes, which may bind Subjects of any calling, condition, or quality, both in temporalls and in conscience besides? The secu­lar Prince then is armed with power to judge, and with a Sword to cut off, or to bring in all sorts of Subjects, who like Outlawes and Rebels forsake their assigned Quarter, and fly out of the pale of lawfull obedience: A Cleric of any Order, by the character thereof is made subject unto his Prelate (say wee) in all duties essentially annexed to his holy Order and Function: But for a man born a Princes naturall and lawfull Subject (so soon as he hath gotten any degree of holy Orders on his back) to be made free & exempt­ed [Page 33] from the subjection of his Prince; That, in my understanding is a very Monster, and prodigious creature, not in Evangelicall do­ctrine alone, where humility and subjection are prized and valued at a very high rate, but also even in the light of nature, which (were all written Lawes in the world, for ever lost, and the light of the same totally extinguished) would perpetually stand and remain to us a positive law: Rom. 2. But suppose your assertion in this point is grounded upon invincible truth; tell me now Hetrodox, where­fore is it not consonant and agreeable to Gods law, that Clerics may not live in wedlock? Would you have it rest in the Popes power to slate in these dayes the roof of that old Fabrick or frame, which Boniface 8. projected and attempted in the height of his Papacy to erect and raise, not sparing nor fearing to remove every Stone for the purpose? You know he declared by his Buls and Breeves, that all such as had received the first sharing and sha­ving, with all others entered into the foure inferior Orders, should stand in subjection to the Church as his vassals, though they had as­sumed the state of wedlock: a constitution of such a dangerous & exorbitant strain to supream States, that all christian Princes by the vigour and rigour of their most holy and wholsome lawes, have prudently and politicly laboured to quash and nip it in the crown: For as then it might have been to Boniface, so now it might be to his Holinesse, a fit silver stirrop, whereby to mount into the golden Sadle of perpetuall patronage, dominion, and lordship of all Chri­stendome, even in temporall estate: How so? Forsooth by causing all degrees of People to be sheared. or else to undertake some one or other of the foure inferior Orders. This liberty Hetrodox is re­moved and distant all the degrees in the Zodiack from Apostolical subjection; I mean from that state of subjection, which the A­postle S. Paul hath described and prescribed: To make short work; Howsoever the Levites in the old Law had their high Priest, Aa­ron by name, neverthelesse in temporall matters, causes, and judg­ments of Court, still they remained under the authority of Moses their temporall Prince, as right well is proved by Couaruvias.

Hetrodox, How now Orthodox? A fling at Moses too? Cap. 31. qq. Pract. con­cil. 2. Rob Moses of his right, of his honour? Was not Moses high Priest, e­ven together with Aaron? Was he not by Gods own Ordinance and extraordinary disposition greater then Aaron? I know Cou­aruvias [Page 34] descants upon this plain song with unperfect cords, yea, with flat discords; I therefore do esteem his musick not worth a blue point: I credit divine Scripture and holy Fathers farre above Cou­aruvias by great odds, who in matter of jurisdiction is caried with full sayles of partiality: But heare me a little.

Psal. 98. Exod. 40.Is it not extant in fair and faithfull record, that Moses and Aaron were among his Priests, even the Lords Priests? That Moses of­fered incense unto the Lord, which was the high Priests principall office and chiefe charge? That Moses as high Priest, and in quality of high Priest, consecrated his brother Aaron, made the Sonnes of Aaron Priests, and offered sacrifice at their consecration? That Pen to a most learned Hebrew, honours Moses with stile of high Priest, King, and Prophet? That Gregory Nazian: stiles Moses Priest of priests, and Prince of princes? That Augustine avertes how both Moses and Aaron were high Priests? That Hierome comes not an ace behind all the forenamed Authors? That before all these Fathers and writers Dion. Areop. leads the dance, and sings the same note? So that Moses being high Priest, it is no marvaile the Levites, who were the onely chiefe Ecclesiastics of those times, were subject unto Moses, as unto their own proper Head and peculiar Judge.

Orthod. You need not Hetrodox to put your selfe in so great a heate, when you deal with any well grounded Catholique, to prove by the authority of Fathers, that Moses was either Priest or high Priest, Levit. 8. and (before himselfe was in the order and calling of high Priest) invested Aaron in the office of high Priest, viz. That he might the better apply himselfe to the exercise of the civill go­vernment: surely this point is not denyed, neither by Couaruvias himselfe, nor by the Author whom I defend, whose word is (Ri­masero) the Levites remained subject unto Moses, &c. But Coua­ruvias, with many catholique Doctors, doth avouch, that doubt­lesse it is an evident sign and strong presumption, that in temporall matters and in civill judgements, the Levites were not subject un­to the High Priest, but unto the temporall Prince or Judge: Be­cause when Moses, by a kind of mean conveyance and resignation (as Catholiques would have it) transmitted or transferred his whole authority of high Priest, and his attendance upon the sacred service unto Aaron: yet by no meanes did he then deprive, or di­vest [Page 35] himselfe of authority to judge the Priests and Levits in their temporals. And from hence it is evicted, that such authority was not knit by any essentiall connexion to the office of the high Priest, for had it been connexed in such a manner, no doubt Moses would never have so wickedly robbed and cozened Aaron of such a col­lop, as the moety, or one halfe of his authority: First of all, lest he should be noted to wrong his brother Aaron in so high a de­gree, namely, by stripping him of no lesse then a whole moety, or one halfe of his entire charge: again, because exemption of Clerics, being as you pretend, so grounded on Gods Law, Moses was to leave the whole course, exercise, and execution of judgement, in the hand of Aaron their ordinary and competent Judge: lastly, be­cause Moses thereby should have gained the more free scope and greater liberty to serve in other politick imployments and affaires. But howsoever Moses was both Priest and high Priest before Aa­ron (if so much must needs be granted) yet sure it is a flat Non se­quitur to inferre: Therefore at one and the same instant, two high Priests concurred, Quoad exercitium, both at once executing and exercising one and the same office. For wheresoever the Scrip­ture makes mention of the high Priest, it never points out Moses for the man, but Aaron: as Paul speaking of the high Priest, Hebr. 5. saith not, Who is called of God the high Priest as Moses was called, but as Aaron was called.

As for the Fathers whom you cite and alleadge, adorning Mo­ses with all the foresaid titles, I dare take upon me to affirme, they witnesse the state and condition of Moses, only before the time of Aarons consecration; but none of them all do qualifie Moses high Priest Quoad exercitium, in point of executing of the high Priests Office, after Aaron himselfe was once made and consecrated high Priest: For the Church with two heads in spirituals, had then bin a very Monster; withall, the unity of the Church and of Christ himselfe, had been thereby very poorely and weakely represented: but in case you are so certaine (as you seem) That Levits were ex­empted from all power and judgement of the temporall Prince in temporals, what meant you to be so farre overseen, as to alleadge not so much as one testimony, divine or humane, in demonstration thereof? As I and my Authors have produced two, this of Moses for one, and that of Solomon 1 Reg. 2. for another? Howbeit had [Page 36] you produced any one such testimony; yet for so much as the Cere­moniall and Judiciall precepts of the old Law are now abroga­ted, I see not how they could make any thing, or stand you in any stead at all for your purpose, because I require and stand upon pre­cepts of exemption, drawn from Evangelicall, and not from legall grounds.

Hetrod. What man? It seemes then you purpose now to inferre, there was no distinction of Court in the Primitive Church.

Orthod. You have it right, in very deed there was no distinction of Court before Justinians time; he was the first, who upon the humble Petition and suite of Menua, Bishop of Constantinople, granted that Ecclesiastics might be judged in civill causes by their Prelates, Nov. con­stit. 83. Ipso tamen non impedito; provided alwaies that his impe­riall prerogative thereby were not any manner of way impeached: In which case, and in case of criminall Delinquents, he leaves Ec­clesiastics under the power of the temporall Prince and of his Mi­nisters.

Hetrod. I thinke you dreame Orthodox, at least I believe you are groslly mistaken: S. Paul averres the contrary, that in the Primi­tive Church the Bishop had his peculiar Tribunall, and in his own Court gave judgement or sentence upon his ecclesiasticall Subjects, I mean his Cleargy: Against an Elder, saith Paul, receive no accusation, but under two or three witnesses; that is to say, admit none to put in a Bill, or to preferre Articles against any Priest be­fore thy Tribunall-seat, except it be Billa vera, or articles verified by the depositions of two or three witnesses.

I can dazle your eyes with a huge cloud of Councels, but I am very loth to impaire your sight, a few shall suffice: The Councell of Agatha in Provence thus, Conc. Ca­non 32. Clericus nè quenquam praesumat, &c. A Cleric shall not presume to sue any man before a secular Judge; and in case a Cleric be sued in any such Court of Record, he shall not put in his answer to the Declaration in any criminall cause, be­fore a secular Judge.

Conc. 1. Ca­non 9.The generall Councell held and celebrated at Chalcedon in Be­thinia, before Justinian was hatcht, hath decreed in these expresse words, Si Clericus adversus Clericum, &c. If one Cleric shall have an action against another, the plaintiffe shall enter his action and prosecute the suite before his own Ordinary, and not before any secular Judge.

The third Councell at Carthage in Africa, more ancient you know then the former at Agatha, Canon 9. about some 130. yeares before Justitian peept out of the shell, thus, Item placuit, &c. Further­more it is decreed, that if any Bishop or Presbyter, Deacon or Cle­ric, shall decline his own competent Judge and peculiar Court, or cause plea to be entered or made in any other Court of judiciall au­dience and preceeding, he shall forfeit his Ecclesiasticall dignity, or other his pastorall charge, if the action be of any criminall na­ture or quality, though the sentence doth passe for the plaintiffe; & in case it be a civill action, he shall then pay cost and dammage, yea he shall forfeit whatsoever he hath evicted by sentence of the said Court.

The Milenitane Councell, of like antiquity to that of Carthage, Can. 19. thus, Placuit ut quicun (que), &c. Wee decree, that whosoever shall petition the imperiall Majesty to take cognizance of his cause, for Oyer & Terminer thereof; in any of his Majesties imperiall Courts, he shall be deprived of his ecclesiasticall Dignity.

Now then, Orthodox upon what ground, what authority, what warrant dare you affirme, that in the Primitive Church there was no distinction of Court, and that Justinian was the first by whose constitutions it was ordained and provided, that Ecclesiasticks were priviledged to have their tryals and sentences before their Prelates?

But in plain truth (at least if you can abide to heare the truth) be­cause Iustinian was a Prince, who by usurpation of more then com­petent authority, sought indeed to heare the causes of Ecclesiastics, and thereby intruded himselfe to cut as it were their spreading Combes; for that reason Menua in all submissive humility petitio­ned Iustinian to leave the cognisance, at least of civill causes, unto the Bishop: to which Petition the Emperour was pleased to give both gracious care, and princely grant.

How true it is, that Iustinian usurped excessive authority, it is evident by his practise; for he both shufled and cut the cards, he in­truded himselfe to bridle the Clergy, to tye and hold them short un­to the stake by his Lawes, as well in spirituals as temporals: who so lists to read the titles De sanctit. Episcop. & de sacro sanct. Eccle­siis, may clearely see the same with halfe an eye: but more preg­nant and positive for the purpose is the Nomocanon of Photius: [Page 38] Howbeit you know Orthodox, it is the doctrine of all Divines, and Canonists, yea of Couaruvias himselfe too, that by Gods own word the judgement of spirituall causes belongs only to Bishops, and to the highest Bishop, as to the supreame Judge: whereupon both before Iustinian and after, the sacred Councels have debarred and restrained the clergy by expresse and peremptory inhibition from procuring any tryals before secular Judges, as in the councell of Toledo (besides divers other Councels) it is more then mani­fest: Perhaps Tholouse in France Can. 13. And that all the world may see the foundation which you have laid, (I mean that novell-constitution 83. of Iustinian) to be but a rotten foundation, it is much considerable, that Iustinian himselfe in the very same constitution hath decreed, it shall not be lawfull for the secular Judge to punish an ecclesiasticall person, except first he be deprived by his own Ordinary, of his Clericall dignity, and thereby brought under the whip or lash of the com­mon lawes. Now if ecclesiastics be not found within the compasse and power of the common lawes, before they be degraded by the B [...]shop, how shall they be judged and sentenced by any secular power, so long as they are still invested with clericall dignity, and holy Orders? In the same constitution it is professed by the said Emperour, that his lawes imperiall thinke not scorn to follow and come after the sacred Canons; whereas then by the said Canons it is well and wisely decreed, provided and ordered, that Ecclesia­sticks are to be judged by their own superiors, how can the said constitution stand in force, and be observed, which determines the cleane contrary?

And now to draw the Arrow up close to the very point of the head; the inconvenience of this decree made by the Emperour Iu­stinian, seemed to the judgement of Frederick the second, to be of so dangerous a straine and consequence, that he repealed the fore­said law of Justinian, with all other the like lawes, repugnant un­to the liberty of the Church: for it is found in Fredericks first con­stitution thus recorded, San [...] infideliam quorundam, &c. the pra­vity of certain miscreant and unjust Princes hath so disborded and over-flown the Banks, that now, contrary to the discipline of the holy Apostles, and to the name of sacred Canons, they make no bones to contrive new Statutes, and to frame new lawes against Church-men, and Church-liberty. A little after, Statuimus ut [Page 39] nullus, &c. Wee decree that none shall presume to sue any eccle­siasticall person before a secular Judge, in any criminall or civill cause, contrary to the imperiall constitutions and canonicall de­crees: and in case any suite shall be otherwise commenced or en­tered, wee decree the plaintiffe to lose his cause, and to take no benefit of the Judges order, or sentence, as also the Judge himselfe to be put out of the commission for Judicature. Likewise the Em­perour Basilius long before Frederick, repealed a law made by the Emperour Nicephorus, against ecclesiastics liberty, with assevera­tion, that infinite calamities, like epidemicall diseases, or publique ulcers and botches, had runne over and infected the whole body of State and common wealth, with poyson of the said pestiferous and unwholsome lawes: let Balsamon upon the Nomocanon of Pho­tius be consulted and viewed, where he expounds the first Canon of the first and second Councels celebrated at Constantinople: and thus much touching the authority of your great Iustinian.

Orthod. I am not ignorant, Hetrodox, in whose goodly Viva­ries or fresh Ponds you have taken so great paines, to fish for this dish of dainty Mullets, as you suppose: but saving his savour, with whose heifers you have thus plowed up the goodly field of the Emperour Iustinians 38. Novel, the said Novell comprehends three distinct parts: the first is, that upon petition of Menua, this noble Emperour sealed a patent, and passed a most gratious privi­ledge for the Cleargy, of this faire tenure and tenour, that in mat­ter of pecuniary causes, called after the common stile, civill causes, Church-men might be tryed and judged by their Prelates, Non ex scripto, without some formall drawing of Bils, Bookes, or pleas, except both parties agreed to have some necessary, essentiall, and materiall points of the case, formally drawn, couched and put down in writing; and in case the knot or difficulty of the matter, would not beare and suffer such summary decision, then it should be free and lawfull for the complainants to take the benefit of ci­vill Courts, and to commence their suites before the ordinary se­cular Judges. The Emperours own words lye penned thus, Peti [...]i sumus, &c. Menua beloved of God, Arch-bishop of this most flourishing City, and universall patriarch, by humble Petition hath moved our imperiall highnesse, to grant unto the most reverend Cleargy this gracious priviledge; that if any shall have just and [Page 40] lawfull occasion to sue Churchmen in a pecuniary cause, he shall first repaire unto the Archbishop, beloved of God, as unto his Di­ocesan, within whose jurisdiction he then liveth and inhabiteth, and shall require the Archbishop to take information of the cause, whereby he may merit his judgement, Ex non scripto, by summa­ry proceeding, without drawing of Bookes, or breviats: And in case the Archbishop shall undertake to proceed in such forme, the Cleric shall not be molested nor drawn into any Court of civill Audience, nor driven to intermit the exercises of his holy Function; but rather without damages, the cause it selfe shall be throughly canvased and sifted Ex non scripto: Howbeit withall the said cause may be cou [...]hed in written forme, if the par­ties be willing and condescend both alike to require that course, and to relinquish the other; but in case for the quality of the cause, or for some other emergent difficulty, the Bishop, beloved of God, shall not be able by any meanes possible, to make a full and finall end of the matter, then shall it be lawfull to bring the said cause be­fore civill Judges and Magistrates, and (all priviledges granted to the right reverend Churchmen preserved) it shall be lawfull to implead, to take examinations, to make a finall end of the suite and contention in the civill Court: thus farre Iustinian.

In which first part of the Emperour Iustinians Novel, I may not passe diverse points untouched: this for one, That Menua is glad to come on his knees, and to make humble suite for this priviledge: then surely his Churchmen had no such exemption before from God himselfe, or Iure divino by Gods law: for had the good Pa­triarch had that string to his Bow, by Gods holy Ordinance or con­stitution, doubtlesse his humble begging and earnest Petition for this humane priviledge, had been by his leave and yes too Hetrodox, no better then direct and voluntary rushing into sinne: This for a­nother, that Iustinian grants not Menua the Court in any absolute straine or terme; but only allowes him to give judgement or sen­tence without any clamorous noyse, and without any formall in­struments in writing; a course clean contrary to modern practise in our Ecclesiasticall Courts, where commonly more clamour and noyse, more Advocates, Proctors, Notaries, more Offices and Mi­nisters, more chargeable Fees are paid for Transcripts, breviats, Bookes and such like instruments, then are in Courts of secular [Page 41] justice: This for a third, that Iustinian puts down the reason whereby he was induced to grant such priviledge, to wit, that Clerics not disquieted nor disturbed with clamours and noises of Courts, might more diligently and freely attend upon their di­vine offices, and Ministeriall Functions: This for the fourth and last, Iustinian grants no absolute, but only conditionall priviledge.

The second point observable in the Novell, that in criminall causes of civill nature and kind, meerely temporall, without any smack or rellish of spirituals, (which Couaruvias expounds in these words, Quae spiritualia non attingunt, such as touch not the hemne of the spirituall garment) Church-men within the City of Constantinople, shall be tryed and judged by competent secular Judges; and through the whole Empire besides, by the Prefects or L. Presidents, in their severall Provinces; and that moreover with a certain limitation or stint of time, nam [...]ly, that within the tearm and space of two moneths, the matter shall be drawn to a head, and shall come to a finall issue or end, and that sentence being once sped or passed against a Cleric, by the L. President of any Province, the President shall not proceed to execution, before the said Cle­ric is degraded, and quite divested of his priestly, or sacerdotall dignity by the Bishop, according to the laudable custome and usu­all manner in such cases. The Emperours own words are thus directly couched in the Novell; Si tamen de criminalibus conveni­antur, &c. but if a Church-man be convented or brought Coram nobis, upon some criminall cause of a civill nature, that is to say, such as no way hath dependance, or correspondence with Eccle­siastic Regiment or Church-discipline; in such a case he shall come to tryall (within this imperiall City) before competent Judges, and in all the Provinces before the most honourable Presidents of the same; provided the suite depend or hold not above two months after the Actor hath put in his Declaration, and the Reus his An­swer or defence, that so the suite may have the shorter cut, and the more expedite dispatch. And in case the President shall find the party impleaded to be guilty in the action, and thereupon shall ad­judge him to undergo and suffer the punishment ordained and in­flicted by Law; then the party so judged, shall first be deposed from his Priestly Orders, and Church dignities, by the Bishop beloved of God, and after that, he shall come under the hand, or suffer the penalty of the Lawes.

In which words likewise, divers points are to be observed; viz. That some offences criminall are meerely civill, meerely politic, no way within compasse of spirituall respect or consideration; that crimes and offences of such nature are tryable and punishable by temporall Magistrates; that Churchmen for the said offences may be sentenced and condemned to death by a temporall Judge; that Justinian bindes not himselfe, or his LL. the Judges within the City of Constantinople, to cause a Priest or Cleric first of all to be degraded and after to be transmitted over into the hands of civil Ministers of justice: but in such case he binds only the provinciall Presidents, himselfe as the Soveraign, and the Judges in Constan­tinople as his Commissioners, Delegates, or Subaltern Magistrates remaining exempt and free from such obligation, to give order for the degrading of such Delinquents before execution; that sentence of the secular Judge must precede, and then degradation is to fol­low before execution: for Manus legum, the hand of the lawes is the executioner of haut justice: from whence it is directly to be deduced, that Hetrodox hath drawn but a sinister, left handed, un­toward and perverse construction of Iustinians Novell, in bearing us in hand, that Churchmen for offe [...]ces and crimes of this nature are first forsooth to be judged, and withall to be degraded by the B [...]shop, and after to feel the weight of the secular arme: for faith Hetrodox, Et t [...]nc sub legum fieri ma [...], and then to undergo the deadly stroake of the law; whereas without all ambiguity, the great and learned Emperour speakes in perspicuous tearmes, and sayes, that a definitive sentence of the secular Judge shall prec [...]de, degradation by the Bishop shall second, execution of the sentence shall follow in the Reare; and yet withall, that such course of pro­ceeding shall be only held in the Provinces, and not in the impe­riall City.

The third point, or branch of the said Novell, that in case a Cle­rics offence be of Ecclesiasticall nature, namely, such as requires and calles for justice by some ecclesiasticall censure or penalty, th [...]n the punishment shall be inflicted, and the penalty awarded accor­ding to the divine and sacred rules or Canons; which in such cases the lawes imperiall do not hold it any abatement or dispar [...]gement of their honour to follow: The Emperours proper words runne precisely thus, Si vero Ecclesiasticum si [...] delictum, &c. But when [Page 43] the offence is meerely Ecclesiastic, such as requires the censure and correction of the Church, then shall the Bishop beloved of God, take due contemplation of the nature, quality, and merit of the of­fence; the right honourable Judges residing and exercising their charge in the severall Provinces, shall beare no hand, and strike no stroake in the busines, neither as head nor foot; for it is not our pleasure or mind at any hand; that civill Magistrates take any cog­nizance at all of such cases, because they are to be sifted, scanned, and tryed by ecclesiasticall proceedings, and the faults of delin­quents in that kind, are corrigible only by Ecclesiastic censures, ac­cording to the sacred Canons, which our lawes imperiall do not disdaine to imitate.

In which branch or context of the Novell, these few heads come in like manner to be observed; that some offences are meerly eccle­siasticall, and annexed to the clericall order: that when the holy Canons and sacred Scripture make it lawfull for Prelates to inflict and award the said penalties, they alwaies intend it of ecclesiasti­call offences: that such judgements and penalties are to be passed without st [...]p or impeachment by any corporall voices, and to re­flect or to tend onely to the reformation of delinquents Per Pater­nam correctionem, by a fatherly chastisement or corr [...]ction, (a kind of ecclesiast [...]c censure) and by such like penalties, which are not corporall: Now Sir, for as much as this distinction of delicts, faults, offences, judgements, punishments, and Courts, is not read in written Monuments before Iustinians time, upon this ground I have affirmed (and am perswaded that herein I have not plaid the blind and unskilfull Cobler, in seeing beyond my Last and Latchet) that no such distinction of Court, for which you fight, and contend with so much heat and alacrity, had got any the least footing in the primitive Church: And because this word Court intends or im­plyes the civill Court, it is very certain that before Iustinian gran­ted this gracious priviledge to the Patriarch Menua, no man had recourse (in the foresaid cases) unto Prelates as unto publique Ma­gistrates, but only unto secular Judges: It is high time now to lay open your palpable errors.

Hetrod. Well remembred, hold you to your method, and there­in use your best skill, to turne my Argent into Subtes, my Whites into Blacks.

Orthod. My chiefest aime shall be bent unto none other white: Is it not first a grosse error to wrest S. Pauls words written to Ti­mothy, with a wrench of wrong and idle supposition? For you suppose that godly Timothy Lorded it in some publique Tribunall or solemne seat of judgement, sitting upon offences that were not ecclesiasticall and spirituall; whereas you cannot chuse but know, that Paul there treats not of any judiciary forme, but only of eccle­siasticall and paternall correction: his words are evident, Against an Elder receive no accusation, but under the testimony of two or three: Againe, Them that sinne rebuke openly, that others may fear, where the word rebuke armes not young Timothy with any au­thority to attach the body, to lay in close prison, to send into ba­nishment, to condemne either to the Gallies or Gallowes, but onely to give private admonition for private offences, and public reproofe for public scandals. The text is expounded by S. Augu­stine (according to the glosse) after this manner, Aliquando debes corripere, &c. sometimes thou shalt rebuke him that sinneth be­twix your selves in private; sometimes thou shalt not spare to pay his coat as it were, and to chastise him with open rebuke, that o­thers may be the more affraid, to runne or to chop into the like snare: S. Paul therefore in that place speakes not of any Tribunal, (as you very fain would make us believe) but of ecclesiasticall cor­rection, proper to an Evangel [...]st, and to no Judge, according to the same Apostles words; Improve, rebuke, exhort with all long suffer­ing and doctrine; do the worke of an Evangelist, make thy Ministery fully known. Howbeit I do not deny, that mens qualities, degrees, and the enormities of their offences, being weighed in just and e­quall scales, it is lawfull for those, unto whom authority for such purpose is deputed and committed, to practise Ecclesiasticall cor­rection, cum omni imperio, with all M [...]jesty and power, that is, without all feare, as the same Apostle speakes: But whosoever shall so beare himselfe in his lawfull authority, hath need to be en­dowed & furnished (besides the former qualities) with all those a­bilities, conditions, & complements of a good & rightworthy Pre­late, which are mustered & rancked by the same Apostle; Oportet autem Episcopum esse irreprehensibilem, &c. A Bishop therefore must be unreproveable, &c. For between one that fits upon the seat of just [...]ce, as a Judge upon the Bench, and one that hath authority to [Page 45] rebuke, here lyes the main odds: The sentence of the Judge is profitable, though the man himselfe be as bad as Barabbas; but he that reproves or gives verball correction, seldome or never workes any deep impression or good effect in his hearer, if he teach that a man shall not steale, and yet steales himselfe.

2. By witnesses you understand, such as are juridically to be sifted by examination, deposition, and such other juridicall courses of Court; whereas to give a fatherly admonition, or paternall correcti­on, who doth not know, that a Bishops bare and simple word for such purpose is held sufficient, and will serve the turne; to the end he be not induced to passe against a Priest by way of correction; but when with great reason his conscience is duely certified and in­formed, that the accusation or presentment hath been materially confirmed, and substantially veryfied by the testimony of two or three: Thus Ambrose in the glosse to the same purpose, Quoniam vero non facile, &c. And because accusations against Priests are not hand over head, to be admitted with easy credence, the crime or ac­cusation pretended and objected must clearely be proved: or in case the matter be manifest otherwise, that a Priests deportment or demeanour in his orders, hath been very scandalous, and notori­ously unreverend, the Apostle layes his charge upon Timothy, to re­buke the party, before the face of others, that others may feare to runne the like scandalous and unreverend courses: which manner of proceeding is very profitable, not onely for such as are in orders, but likewise for the common sort of People, when they shall see one of the long robe, a man of such Priestly marke and ranke, so roundly taken up for his misdemeanors; by which the holy Father S. Ambrose meanes, offe [...]ces of a conversation, mis-becoming the estate, condition, and calling of a religious person: all this tends not in any wise, to point at any Court, much lesse at any distinction of Court; but beares a reflecting eye, and gives ayme with a kind of nod, and bending of the head, only to paternall correction.

3. You argue upon a vaine supposition, that even by Pauls own testimony there, it is necessary for Churchmen, (in all temporall causes and offences) to have recourse and refuge, unto the ecclesia­sticall Judge: that were doubtlesse to approve a distinction of Court: But be not you Hetrodox, wilfully blind, to close or to seal up your own eyes, from beholding the cleare light of truth: For [...] [Page 48] Canon, by the helpe of your own spectacles, and none other.

You maintain, that by the same Canon, Church-men are barred from the benefit of recourse unto secular Judges, whereas the Coun­cell presupposes the contrary; viz. That Clerics may take the bene­fit of that course, howsoever not before they have put in practise the meanes to have the matter taken up, and ordered by their Pre­late, whom the Councell (even by the averrement of your own mouth) termes the competent Judge of their cause, whereas in the text, or body of that Canon, Point des paroles, not one such word.

6. The Councell held at Agatha (upon your supposition, that Clerics for criminall delicts fled for their lawfull reliefe to the se­cular Tribunals, as plaintiffs or defendants in criminall cases) inhi­bits Churchmen to runne that course, to the end they might a­void the danger of running into the state of irregularity, Non per­mittente Episcopo, when the Bishop gives no way to the said course: This practise I grant is still in use, and to this day goes currant: But what force, what vigour, what sinew is in this mo­derne practise, to prove distinction of Court in the Primitive a­ges and times? Nay, it rather inferres the contrary, that doubt­lesse then there was not any other Court authorized (besides that of the secular and temporall Magistrate) unto which, in as much as Churchmen were to have recourse in criminall cases, for feare of incurring irregularity, the said Councell hath taken due care and order for the Bishops good care and free consent: And this jarres not with my doctrine, but jumpes with it hand in hand: besides; the said ancient Councels were called and held alwaies with con­sent of the secular Prince; and yet all this here spoken, is no de­monstrative proofe of your pretended distinction.

7. The C [...]non of the third Councell held at Carthage speakes not in your language, affords no such matter as you insert and in­ferre, makes no distinction of the judiciall Court; It layes inhibi­tion upon Bishops and Churchmen (after the controversie once is on foot, before secular Judges, or christian Arbiters) at no hand to cast off, and relinquish the said A [...]biters, but rather to labour for the deciding and knitting up of such controversie, (without seek­ing to any other competent Judge, not agreed upon by both par­ties) [Page 49] to rest in their finall determination and arbitrement, for the bet­ter averting and avoyding of scandall or offence. For the better conceiving of this Canon, it is to be understood, that Christians in the Primitive Church came to agreement, in certain controversies growing betwixt parties, and with reciprocall or mutuall consent made choise of Infidell, or unbelieving Arbiters; a fault, for which the Apostle Paul somewhat roundly and sharply tooke up the Corinthians in these words, Secularia igitur judicia, &c. If then yee have judgemènts of things pertaining to this life, set up such in the Church as are contemptible, or at loast esteemed, to give judgment; I speake this to your shame, is it so, 1 Cor. 6. that amongst you of the Church there is not one wise man? Not one that can judge the causes of Bre­theren? These words are not very many, as all men see, and yet do minister diverse matters to be considered: As, that Paul here speakes of secular busines, and temporall causes, item of such Jud­ges, as by any one might be chosen and appointed of ind [...]fferent ar­bitrators, men without any Presidentsh p, or commission in tri­bunals or Courts; for he saith, Hes constituite, set yee up such, &c. Item the Apostle speakes not of chusing and setting up Bishops in these cases, but of such as were of no great ability, or sufficiency for the discharging of the said good office, men whom there he calls Contemptibiles, men of no speciall regard or estimation: of which Apostolicall text Chrysostome hath given this excellent exposition: Apostoli talib [...] non vacabant, &c. The Apostles themselves never troubled their heads, never busied their braines, they were at no leisure to deale or to take any paines about litigi­ous occurrents between party and party, or about secular judge­ments, their whole Ministery was imployed and spent altogether in travailing through all Nations, and teaching in all places where they went; but men of the more discreet sort and ranke (howso­ever otherwise they were men of the meaner condition, and lesser merit) had the managing or working upon things of that nature: And so S. Gregory according to the glosse, Terrenas causas exami­nant, &c. I advise that men of discretion in outward matters may fift and bolt out causes of worldly nature; as for men of endow­ment with spirituall and heavenly gifts, of another element, and more transcendent efficacy and power, they are not by any meanes to intangle their mindes, or to be taken (like wild and untame [Page 51] Deere) in the strong toyles of terrene matters, too farre out of their proper element: Item S. Paul (what power and authority soever he was armed withall, and by some it is thought with Pa­pall power) saith not, I set up, or I appoint; but referring such mat­ters to the parties interessed themselves, he saith, see that yee set up; be it your own act and ordinance: Nor speakes he of Priests, or of priestly orders, or of Bishops; but in a generall comprehension, he speakes of the faithfull, who had no exemption from the Princes Tribunals; at least seculars, according to the opinion of all, were not exempted: Now this was practised in Africa; but whereas many Prelates, Bishops, and Church men, when they first practised this course, commenced a new course afterwards by recourse, to secular and competent Judges, the Councell therefore to meet with so great a mischiefe, made that ninth Canon, by you cited be­fore, in this tenour and stile; Item placuit ut quisquis Episcoporum, &c. Wee moreover appoint and ordaine, That whensoever a Bi­shop, Deacon, or Cleric, charged with any crime, and sued in any civill cause, shall decline, and forsake the Court ecclesiasticall, or shall seeke to purge and quit himselfe in any other Court of public judgement, he shall then be deprived (yea though he carry the cause, and winne the day by sentence) of his dignity and place, if the judgement be criminall, but in case it be civill, he shall then loose the cause, if he mean to preserve and keepe his dignity: For he that hath free liberty to make choise of his Judge, where he lists himselfe, and best likes, declares himselfe to be unworthy of the ranck and fellowship of Christian bretheren, when he carries a sinister, partiall, and prejudicate opinion of the Church, not for­bearing to crave the helpe and favour of secular judgement, where­as the Apostle commands the causes of private Christians to be brought to the cognisance of the Church, and there to have both full and finall determination: which words make evident demon­stration of diverse points; First of all, that you Hetrodox, have slily sought to put out mine eye, with a text or Canon of this coun­cell, which you make but a plain Curtall, with a Man [...] undecent­ly shorne, with a [...]it nose, and cropt eares, as if it had stood upon some Pillory, lime and limping besides of the ne [...]re l [...]g before: Se­condly, That in this Canon there is no mention at all of any pub­lic Court, of any competent Judge, or of any Prelate, but only of [Page 50] Arbiter Judges, of seculars, and of private judgement: Thirdly, That by the said Councell it is carefully provided and ordained, that whensoever Churchmen shall give any public offence, or open scandall, then they are to be punished with deprivation and loss [...] of their Free-hold: Fourthly and lastly, that in the Canon there is couched no expresse precept or direct charge, for chusing the said Arbiters; when the parties are once drawn into that course, it or­ders them to steere altogether by that compasse, and to stand to the tacklings of their determination: Now I would gladly learn of you, Hetrodox, what makes all this for distinction of Courts, or to prove there were two distinct Courts, two ordinary and compe­tent Judges, one for seculars, another for the Civill and criminall causes of Churchmen, before Justinians constitution?

8. You alleadge the authority of the Milenitane Councell, wherein it is commanded (according to the Apostles councell, that Bishops are to accomodate civill causes between themselves) that no Bishop shall by Petition demand of the imperiall Majesty, a Judge in public judgements; but in case he obtaine of the Em­perour some ecclesiasticall Judge, then he shall not be impeached or contradicted: I will here for the purpose alleadge the Canon it selfe; Placuit ut quicun (que), &c. It is decreed that whosoever shall Petiton the imperiall Majesty to have his cause come to cognisance and tryall in public judgements, he shall be deprived of his dignity, but in case he shall solicite the Emperour for Episcopall judge­ment, that shall be no maime, no losse, no blot, no blemish, no di­minution to his estate: In which words, first, a Bishop is inhibi­ted and restrained from seeking of public judgement before secu­lars; but is not inhibited to make appearance, in case he shall be summoned and served with one of his Majesties writs to that pur­pose: Secondly, he is permitted to petition the Emperour that his cause may be tryed and judged by the Bishop, as hath been shewed before; From whence the plain contrary to your pretence and assertion may aptly be collected; that in those times there was no distinction of Court; but all causes, whether of Churchmen or seculars, were to be tryed, neither in public nor in private judge­ment, unlesse the Emperour himselfe did give way by speciall per­mission and most gracious licence: Nay the very same Councell ordaines, Can. 16. that petition shall be made to the most glorious Empe­rour [Page 52] to be graciously pleased, that certain Judges by their imperi­all authority, might be commanded to appoint and assigne for Churchmen certain Advocates, who might protect, defend, & plead the causes of the Church, before the said secular Judges: It is therefore very manifest by this Canon, that Churchmens causes were then handled before the imperiall Judges.

9. You blush not also to babble, that Justinian usurped excessive or more then due and lawfull authority, to frame, penne, and pub­lish those his Constitutions: But I must here be bold to tell you, Hetrodox, even to your face, the judgement of infinite Councels, and pontificiall Fathers, more especially, and by that name of A­drian 4. (as hereafter shall better appeare) carries a great over­weight in the scales or ballance of sound judgement, in compari­son of this your new and late upstart censure, of a most christian and learned Emperour: They never once dreamt of such a partiall verdict as you (like a bold fore-man of a corrupt and frontlesse Ju­ry) have now presumptuously blurted forth: No Sir, no, Iustinians Constitutions and those likewise of many other Christian Princes, in the Primitive Church and age, have been ever most cordially caressed with great and speciall humility, even in ecclesiasticall matters, and other occurrents of like nature: and to what purpose? To what end? That sacred Canons confirmed by imperiall au­thority, might go forth with flying colours, to worke the deeper impression of due observance, in the mindes and hearts of all Peo­ple: I passe over many examples, and wish men to peruse but one Epistle of Pope Leo, wherein he Petitions the Emperour Marti­anus, to confirm the Chalcedon Councell, and obtaines his Petiti­on of the most gracious and noble Emperour: when the pontifi­ciall BP. & Church of Rome carried that respect, & humble obser­vance toward Christian Princes, which to their imperiall Crowns and Scepters appertaines, in those times the Popes and the Church were held in great veneration, and admiration withall: But so soone as the Church grew to vilipend the R gall authority of Christian Princes, into how great and grievous calamities hath she not fallen & tumbled, hath she not precipitated her former glo­rious estate? What eclypse of her ancient lustre? What spots and staines to her Primitive and Native beauty, h [...]th she not suffer­ed and indured? Let men peruse the life of Boniface 8. of Alex­ander [Page 53] 3. of Gregory 7. of Julius 2. of Sixtus 4. of Clement 7. of Paul 4. and they shall see without helpe of spectacle or per­spective glasses, that by vilifying of Christian Kings and Princes, the Church may put all her winnings in her eye (like an unfortu­nate and unthrifty Gamester) and see never the worse: Thus much I wot well, that Iustinian was deeply and excellently studi­ed, superlatively learned in the Lawes, followed and frequented by men of incomparable knowledge and learning, and the whole world hath pitcht his authority at a higher price and rate, then the shallow judgement given out against his more then eminent gifts, by whomsoever without exception, Canonist or Cardinall, Pre­late or Pope.

10. By Manus legum, the hand of the Lawes (for so I like to turne it for this turne) you understand the secular Judge; whereas before it hath bin shewed to be the lawfull execution of a sentence.

11. You affirme the lawes imperiall thinke not scorne to second the sacred Canons; and this you pronounce in the generall sence & comprehension; whereas the Emperour speakes of causes meerly ecclesiasticall and spirituall: Besides you contend, that the due practise of Iustinians Constitution, and the practise of sacred Ca­nons cannot concurre and stand together, wherein also with your leave, your selfe stands not in the right: For doubtlesse the sa­cred Canons (as wee hold) are to be duely observed, howsoever they beare nor sway nor weight of authority, Nisi ex priviligio principum, but by the force and vertue of Princely priviledge: And in case they be grounded upon so stable a foundation and firm au­thority, as you vaunt, wherefore have you been so greatly overseen to make no demonstration thereof, by some cleere text of holy Scripture? For to transcend the walls, or to passe the bounds & limits of Princely power, without consent of parties interessed, is neither acceptable to God, nor pleasing to man.

12. You counter-poise a Frederick (one living but yesterday in a manner) against a Iustinian, a Prince who reigned when piety with Discipline flourished in the Church like a green Bay Tree: You parallel an Emperour of ordinary capacity, and small know­ledge, with an Emperour, the most compleat legist in all ages of the world, a low shrub (in such regard) with a tall Oake, or the goodliest Cedar in Libanon: a Frederick with a Iustinian, a Frede­rick, [Page 54] who framed his foresaid constitution out of a cunning coun­terfeit or disgiused humour; whereas never any Prince hath more abased the liberty of the Church, and hath more brought it down as it were upon the knees, then that Frederick hath; whom for the same cause Gregory 9. was 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 ple [...]sed to affect and honour Church­men 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 c [...]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 [Page 55] 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 gi [...]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 poss [...]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 [Page 56] 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: th [...]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 stuff [...] 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 Co [...]menus, forsaking the course and way of his Ancestors, fairely [Page 57] 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 [Page 58] 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 [Page 59] 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, it is to be clearly seen in Constantines own practise against Caecilianus the Bishop of Carthage, whose cause (being accused & promoted by the Donatists) Constantine himselfe durst neither sift nor touch, but only ordered that Caecilianus and his cause should [Page 60] be transmitted to Rome, and there should undergo the censure of the holy Father, who then was Meltiades: this was the practise of Constantine, to confound the Donatists, with an intention or mind to crave pardon of the Bishops for thrusting his crooked Sickle into other mens harvest, and intruding himselfe into a bu­sinesse of that spirituall nature, Optat. lib. contra. par­men. Aug. Ep. 48. & 162. as forced or drawn thereunto by the violent necessity of the said cause, witnesse Optatus Milenitanus, and S. Augustine in diverse of his Epistles.

Orthod. I never knew nor heard before this day, that excesse of love and superlative praise, in any sort or fashion whatsoever to a good end, should merit the distastefull name of a lye: Hath not Car­dinall Bellarmine himselfe expounded the Canon Quicun (que) of Theodosius in the very same phrase and stile? By name, that certes Theodosius framed that Canon in the excesse of his piety: But let us passe that circumstance, and come to the maine of your last pas­sage: it will not be denyed, that as in secular Causes temporall Prin­ces may be called Gods, even so Priests in spirituall causes may have the honour of the same name: howbeit with your leave, that text, Deus stetit, God standeth in the Assembly of Gods (by He­trodox late alleadged) is understood of secular Princes, and not of Priests, as you Hetrodox would insinuate: But seeing that Ruffi­nus (you say) hath recorded, that Constantine tooke it in your sence, Valeat quantum valere potest, be it of what force or credit it may or can: most certain it is, that neither Ruffinus, nor Con­stantine himselfe with all his greatnesse, can hold water or weight with expositors of sacred Scripture: howbeit from hence there can be made no firme and solid inference, that Constantines words ( ad Dei judicium, yea are doubtlesse reserved to Gods judgement) are thus to be understood, id est, Prelati, to the Prelates judgment, because he exerciseth Gods judgement: For Constantine there speaks without any termes of ambiguity: waite you for the judg­ment of God alone, reserve your causes and quarrels to tryall at his l [...]st and great Assizes; for you are given unto us of God as Gods, very unmeet it is that men should presume to judge Gods, but he alone of whom it is written, God standeth in the Assembly of Gods.

In which words first I observe, that here Constantine hath an eye only to spirituall causes, for so much as here he speaketh of Ec­clesiastics, [Page 61] not as men but as Gods, by vertue of their spirituall power to bind and loose: Secondly, that he meddles not here with any humane judgement, but expressely with the last judgement of God; Thirdly, that he speakes not of any God which makes the whole number of the Assembly, but of the God who stands in the Assembly of Gods; even of that God, who is the supream and So­veraign Judge: This of Constantine therefore is a kind of speech in excesse, as before hath been said: And as for your anticipation, (that when the Prelate judgeth, God himselfe then judgeth by the Prelate, and therefore not man, but God himselfe is the Judge) I must be bold to tell you, Hetrodox, it lacks just weight, and there­fore may not be allowed to go currant. For by the same reason it shall hold good and strong, that when the secular Magistrate sits in the seate of justice, it is not man that gives judgement, but God himselfe; because the Magistrate is Dei Minister, Gods Minister to take vengeance on such as do evill: Moreover, for so much as all Prelats, yea, the highest Bishop himselfe may erre, (saith Cardi­nall Bellarmine in many places) which likewise is the common opinion; yea, and many times hath actually erred In judiciis facti, in judgement of the Fact: it is therefore not absolutely to be held, that when they judge, then God himselfe judgeth; because it is im­possible for to erre, as it is to lye: upon this exposition of Con­stantines words, (whether his own, or the words of Ruffinus) ut­tered by a straine of excesse in things not intelligible, you runne in­to diverse errours.

1. First, be it in some sort granted, that Priests are not lawfully to be tryed by the temporall Magistrate or secular Prince, in such causes wherein Priests by Constantine are called Judges; yet can it not be inferred without errour, that in temporall and secular cau­ses (wherein Priests, will they, nill they, are and must be Subjects) they ought not to be judged by the same Prince.

2. Secondly, To affirme that God made Moses King Pharaohs Judge, because he said to Moses I have made thee Pharaohs God, what can it be but an erroneous misprision and a violent wr [...]sting of the holy text? For God gave Moses no authority to be Pha­raohs Judge in any sort whatsoever, least of all was he armed with such authority as in the quality of a Priest: But say that Moses was a Priest (as wee Catholics believe and teach) yet he was but [Page 62] Priest unto the Hebrewes, Gods own people, he had no authority over King Pharaoh, an Egyptian and Idolater: But because Moses with a Rod in his hand, wrought so great miracles and wonders in the sight of King Pharaoh, not possible by any Saint or devil to be done, but onely by the finger and power of the true Almighty & eternall God, therefore it was that God said to Moses, I have made thee Pharaohs God.

3. Lastly, you affirme, Hetrodox, (wherein I wish you to take some sight and knowledge of your errour) that Pope Meltiades had lawfull power to judge the cause of Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage, because Constantine turned him over to the Consistory and Chaire of Meltiades at Rome: I will not deny that civill and criminall causes may come to judgement before Consistorian Jud­ges, but when? Forsooth when Christian Princes are graciously pleased by their Charters, Commissions, Grants, and speciall Gra­ces or priviledges, to lay open such Gaps, and to give such waies: Much lesse will I deny, that in causes meerly ecclesiasticall, the Pope is to inflict and fasten correction upon Bishops, and Bishops to take round courses against such as do stand within the reach of their Episcopall Verges: but I must confidently affirme, and stand to it like a man when all is done or said, that in civill and cri­minall causes meerly temporall, the Prince hath lawfull power from God to judge ecclesiastics, when he hath not disarmed him­selfe of his lawfull authority, by some former gracious grant: And this I confirme, even by the very same act of Constantine, which your selfe have produced and alledged: For Constantine you say transmitted (an act of power and authority) the cause of Caecilia­nus unto the Pope, and afterward himselfe sate upon Caecilianus in place of judgement: All Ecclesiastics 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 st [...]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 [Page 63] 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 subj [...]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: [Page 64] 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: [Page 65] 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 riseth out of true premises, even so your concluon, or his Lordshrhs (which you please) is false, because it is inferred upon false premises, that is, drawn from a fufty vessel of unwholsome doctrine, which the one of you two hath broached, the piercing or at least running whereof I have now, as you see, endeavoured to stop with a handsome Faucet.

1. Will you now be pleased to see your errours? to make men subject unto their lawfull Prince by Gods law, you hold it need­full, that for the right and title of their subjection, some text of ho­ly Scripture be produced, remember it hath been declared before, that power and title to power are two different heads, that pow­er is from God, and of necessity followes or comes after title: The French King rules and governes in France, not by law of inheri­tance, but by vertue of authority received from God: The Veneti­an Prince, I meane the Republic and body of State (howsoever you have learned of Cardinall Bellarmine, with great artifice and skill [Page 66] to seale up the eyes of your own knowledge in the matter) beares not command and rule over Padua, by such meanes as they first attained to the dominion thereof, but because being impatronised or made Lords of Padua by humane meanes, they have it now in command (and ever had from the time of their first occupation & possession) by vertue of the power and right received from God himselfe: And herein what difference can you find to lye between Prince and Pope? For if the Pope shall be asked, wherefore he is Pope, this will be his answer, because I have been Canonically elected by the Cardinals to the Popedome: and for that purpose he will never study or stand to produce any testimony of Scrip­ture: but aske him, by what authority he gives or grants his in­dulgences, &c. surely he will answer, because God hath given him power to forgive sinnes.

2. To prove that Princes are subject unto priests by the law of God, you cut out and frame a silly sheepish argument from sheepe and shepherds, Gods law (say you) is the law of nature; by na­tures law the sheep is in state of subjection to the Shepherd, by Gods law therefore the Laic Prince is in the like state of Subjecti­on to the Priest: I answer, the Prince is no sheep of the Shep­heard priest, but of the great Shepherd Christ; for Christ said not to Peter, Feed thy Sheep, but, Feed my Sheep: So that your Ar­gument (if it conclude any thing at all) concludes, that Princes are subject unto Christ, and not unto the Priest: Nay, the Priest as a sheep in temporall causes and matters is rather subject unto the Prince: David gave the terme and nomination of sheep to all his people and Subjects, Ego erravi, isti qui sunt Oves, quid focerunt? It is I that have sinned, what have these my sheepe done? S. Pauls words are pungent and peremptory; Let every soule be subject unto the higher Powers: If then your argument hath any sinewes to e­vince, that Subjects are bound by Gods law to yeeld obedience unto their Superiors of highest power; then all priests likewise (who are Subjects no lesse then others) are directly bound by Gods law to the due obedience of their temporall Princes penall or Sta­tute Lawes, at least in temporall matters.

3. The father you say is not subject unto the sonne, if Hetrodox (his own Father yet living) were now elected King or Pope, should not Hetrodox his Father, as a man and a Christian be sub­ject [Page 67] unto Hetrodox his Sonne, whether King or Pope? Howso­ever young Hetrodox the sonne should beare due respect and reve­rence to old Hetrodox as to the Father? Again, the Father a Laic may receive absolution of his own sonne a priest, and the son a priest may receive correction, by the authority and command of his Father a secular Magistrate: if men would not be intrapped in the snares of error, they must learn to distinguish between titles and persons: a Prince in spirituals being a sonne, in temporals may be a Father.

4. Touching the similitude of body. and soul; howsoever I grant it may be true in part (as in this point by name) that a temporall Prince his power is ( Per se, of it selfe) over the body; and the spi­rituall priests power is over mens soules; yet your similitude wants weight of truth in some other part, and halts down right: For temporall power (save only as it is exercised by a Christian) is not subordinate to spirituall power, no not in ecclesiasticall and spi­rituall causes; on the contrary, the subjection of priests in tempo­rall causes is plainly subordinate unto the temporall Prince: Ar­guments thus framed are not worth a rush: temporall power is o­ver mens bodies, and spirituall power is over their soules; as the body then is directed and ruled by the soule, and the soule not by the Body; so he that is armed and authorised with temporall power must be directed and ruled by such as are invested with spirituall power: I say again, such reasons are not worth a rush; for body and soule together do make one whole compound creature, which is man, whereas corporall power, and spirituall power make not one body, but rather two bodies and two heads: These two pow­ers (as both are powers) are different in all things, and without subordination; as either of them is a power: neither doth Nazian­zen teach the contrary, much lesse teach your affirmative, as who soever will read Gregory himselfe, shall readily finde: For thus much Gregory writeth in effect, and no more, that as the soule is more noble then the body, so the spirituall power is more noble then the temporall, which for my part so long as I go for a Roman Catholic, I dare not deny.

5. You are much overseen Hetrodox, to charge me with make­ing use of this doctrine to the hurt of the Church, when I should rather whet and scoure my weapons against hereticks: And here­in [Page 68] you resemble me to the spider, that sucks poyson from the same sweet and oderiferous herbs or flowers, out of which the industri­ous Bee sucks honey: Have you not herein much forgot your selfe? He that delivers the truth, neither fights nor speakes a­gainst our mother the Church, but against such as harbour settled and secret pretensions in their breasts, to usurpe more then apper­tains to their persons, callings, or degrees: Again, the Church is the Kingdome of heaven; and you speak (in your whole discourse) of none but earthly Kingdomes, in which, without all question, the Church can have no share nor interest; nisi per accidens & ex donatione fidelium, but such as comes upon the By, (as we say) that is, by casuall meanes, or else by franke donation, or free gift of the faithfull, the grandeur of all which earthly Kingdomes and of all other temporall States the Church doth establish: Thirdly; the use of this doctrine tendeth and serveth, not only for the con­futing and extirping of heresies or heretics, but likewise of all such as maintain and broach any 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 blam [...]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: Quicun (que), whoso­ever he be, &c. in full conformity to the words of God himselfe [Page 69] speaking thus in his own person: By me Kings raign, and law­givers 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 i [...] 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 Law­makers [Page 70] 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, [Page 71] 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 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; f [...]r they are the Ministers of God: This passage is expounded by the Angelicall Doctor, the [Page 72] 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 sanguin [...], 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 [Page 73] 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 stat [...] 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 affirm [...] 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 Vald [...]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 [Page 74] in the hand of secular justice: Ʋter (que) igitur Ecclesia, &c. Both swords therefore, the spiritu [...]ll and the ma [...]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 Boniface. Now the last clause, or closing up of your discourse, is to this purpose: That where the Apostle teacheth obedience to Princes, he speaketh by way of precept, not of counsell. Very true, he do [...]h so indeed: but what is Pauls meaning? Doubtlesse, that Princes are to be o­beyed of such, as by lawfull title are in the state of their subjects; as also in causes or matters, to which the authority of the said Prin­ces doth stretch and extend. From whence it followes, that Church-men are not bound to honour secular Princes with any such obedience, because they are exempted; but Laics alone are comprised within the said bond, albeit in civill causes onely, and such as impugne neither God himselfe, nor his Church; whereby the Christian world may cleerly and evidently see, how deeply & highly the Venetian Republic Anno 1606. offended the Divine M [...]jesty, not onely in committing Ecclesiastics in prison, but also in using force and violence to compell as well them as Laics, to in­fringe and contemne the holy Fathers interdiction, a censure pure­ly spirituall and ecclesiastic [...]ll.

Orthod. I was never yet found a falsarie, no coyner, no corrup­ter of holy Scripture: it is your selfe that patch up my garments with your owne rags, and marre the Text with an Aurelian glosse: I have not said before (as you now lay to my charge) That Prin­ces are Gods Ministers Ad tributa, to receive tribute.

Hetrod. But you know, and need not dissemble, the shop and forge where th [...]se tooles were hammered.

Orthod. You meane the Author of the 8. Propositions.

Hetrod. The very same.

Orthod. They are none of that Authors words, but are supposi­tions, or surreptitions foysted into his Text with a false finger of the Printer, or of some other; and yet are they justifi ble by the most cleere exposition of our great Master, Thomas Aquinas, whose [Page 75] words be these, Pro ipso recipiendo serviente:, Princes are Gods Ministers to take up and receive tribute; the very same with Ad tributa. But I rest confident, it was an error of the presse: for to that Authors purpose it sufficed to say with Paul, Princes are Gods Ministers; the word Ad tributa, neither mars nor mends the Au­thors meaning or S. Pauls: In reason therefore it may not be con­ceived, that ad tributa was of any set purpose added or sowed to the piece by the workmans needle; neither need it seeme strange, that ad tributa hath crept in there by the window, through the oversight, or negligence, or false play of the Printer, or (as well may be suspected) by a slie trick of cunning and skill: F [...]r the LL. Card. and Commissioners in the Index printed at Rome, Anno 1606. have made declaration, That many words have been shuf­fled and crowded in by the Printer through error on his part: Cum in Appendice, whereas in the Appendix of the second Classis un­der the letter I, these words are found: (The Demonomania written by Joannes Bodinus borne at Aniou, is expresly and totally prohibited for ever; but his Book De Republ. and his Methodus are prohibited with a limitation, by name, untill they shall be pur­ged and put forth by the Author himselfe, with approbation by the Master of the sacred Palace) it is b [...]leeved that all the said words inclosed here by Parenthesis are crept in through the error of the Printer. Now if so long a thred of speech might drop or chop in per errorem Librarii, through some error of the Printer; it may be thought with more verisimilitude, and with greater probability, that ad tributa (which makes but one poore single stitch) was nimbly and slily drawn by the Printers errour into that learned Authors Proposition: As for the words, Ira & vindicta, wrath and revenge, or vengeance, they are in effect all one: but because the word vengeance comes neerer to S. Pauls purpose and sense, as also because the same Vindicta, vengeance, is a word used by many holy Fathers, I therefore have the more willingly made choice thereof.

1. You are also bold to affirm, That no tribute is given to God; there is one of your errors: For I affirme with confidence, that whatsoever is given to his Ministers, is given to himselfe: of alms here given to the poore, our Saviour Christ will pronounce in the day of judgement, Quod uni ex minimis meis, Mat. 25. whatsoever you [Page 76] have given to any one the least of these my brethren, yee have done to my selfe: And saith not God himselfe in the same or like manner of almes and sacrifice, Misericordiam volo & non sa­crificum, I will have mercy and not sacrifice? To the same pur­pose is it not in Saint Hierome, Per hoc quod illis tributa datis, Deo servitis, In giving tribute unto your Princes, you doe service unto God?

2. You grant that Aquinas is on our side for this point; That Cle­rics are exempted from payment of tribute by the speciall privi­ledges of Princes, who graciously conferre their said priviledges upon a certain equity, and yet you affirm Aquinas to hold, that Clerics pay no tribute, not because they are exempted by humane priviledge, but by divine law: To what purpose hath Thomas te­stified they pay no tribute by the priviledge of Princes, if they be exempted from payment by the law of God? Was it not suffici­ent for him to say, they pay no tribute, because they are freed from all taxations by the law of God? But for so much as Thomas there cites the 47. Chapter of Genesis, where wee read, that King Pha­raoh exempted the priest of Egypt from tribute (who without question was not exempted by Gods Law, because they were I­dolaters) he concludes à pari, that Clerics are now exempted from tribute by the priviledge of Princes, and not by the Law of God: Iustine Matyr is positive in the same article; that payment of tri­bute is due to the Prince by divine precept, Vestigalia tributa, &c. the customes and tributes imposed by your imperiall Majesty in all places, and before all other Subjects, wee endeavour to pay, as wee are taught and commanded by Christ himselfe, for being asked whether tribute should be given to Caesar, he made this answer, Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesars: For this reason S. Ambrose Bishop of Millan, writing to the Bishop of Vercelli was moved to make this good and godly profession; Si tributum petit, &c. If our Lord the Emperour be pleased to demand tribute, wee will not presume to deny, to withstand, or to refuse his impositi­on; the Church-lands must bow and stoope (if there be no re­medy) to pay down upon the naile; if the imperiall Majesty pro­ceed to require the said lands, it lyes in his power to make chal­lenge thereunto; let him take them from the Church, if his mind and pleasure be absolutely and resolutely bent so to deale: For my [Page 77] part, with my good will I have no purpose to give them away un­to his Majesty, yet may I not deny or contradict his prerogative & royall pleasure: what would S. A [...]bose now say for those Prin­ces, who take nothing away from the Church, when he grants and yeelds the Prince a power, to take away and make appropriate un­to himselfe at his pleasure, the lands of that Church, whereof him­selfe was Arch-bishop, or chiefe Prelate, and grants this obedi­ence is to be yeelded unto the Emperour at his pleasure, and with­out all resistance on his part? In a word, the Church at all times, and in all ages, hath been so far sensible of the publique good and tranquility, even to the great losse, and many times to the excessive expences and exorbitant charges of Ecclesiastics, that in the Late­ran Councell wee read these words, Tamet si Clericus à tributo, &c. Albeit Clerics are discharged and exempted from all payment of tribute, yet in cases of necessity, and times urging, pressing and inforcing thereunto, they shall make no spare of their proper means and private estates, to provide for the safety of the present State and Common wealth.

3. But what meane you Hetrodox, to arme the Pope with a ma­teriall sword, yea, with a naked and drawn sword, was not Pe­ter himselfe reproved by Christ with a Mitte gladium put up thy sword into the sheath? Item, wherefore would not Almighty God give way that David should build the Temple? Was it not be­cause David had been Vir sanguineum, one that had spilt much bloud, and put many soules to the sword? whereas the Lord made choise of Solomon to build the Temple, because he was a peaceable Prince, or a man of Peace: This was to let us under­stand, that certes the drawing & exercising of the materiall sword, hath no manner of congruity, nor holds any due correspondence with ecclesiasticall profession; and again, that such ecclesiastics as challenge to themselves the swaying or weilding of the same sword, re-in state of irregularity; and again, that for this reason the litle shepherd, young David, a type of every true Christian, might not go in the compleat Armour of Saul on his back, to fight against Goliah that mighty Giant, and uncircumcised Philistine, but with a sling and a few pebble-stones in his hand or scrip, which is the word of God: And for this purpose makes not a litle not only the common practise of Christians, approved by your [Page 78] selfe Hetrodox, Tradatur brachi [...] seculari; let him be passed over to the secular power; but also that Godly speech of S. Ambrose, Dolere potero, well I may afflict my heavy soul with sorrow, well I may utter the voice of lamentation; well I may mourn like a Crane or a Pellicane in the wildernesse; well I may send forth grie­vous groanes against goatish soldiers in Armes; my weapons are bitter teares, a priest hath none other weapons or Armes for de­fence; I neither can resist, nor ought in any other manner to make resistance; where the word, Nec debeo, nor ought, strikes and payes home, as a word of great force and efficacy.

4. At last Hetrodox, you raise a strong Bulwarke, with a sute­able Parapet and main flankers, for the strengthning of your cause, (and yet but imaginary Castles and Forces) out of S. Bernards text; which methinkes, is a great disadvantage and weakning to your mock-building: That holy Father there speakes of the Church in counter-point straines and t [...]rmes, I meane, by the Fi­gure Antithesis: Namely, As the Church is compounded of secu­lars and priests, of soldiers and Clerics; or as it hath an opposite composition of imperiall and temporall power with Papall and Spirituall power; Now saith S. Bernard, Vter (que), &c. both swords materiall and spirituall, belong to the Church, albeit both swords are not for every one to handle, neither do both belong to every one: How then? Hic quidem, the one (by name the materiall sword) pro ecclesiâ, is to be drawn in defence of the Churches pri­viledges, liberties, and rights; Ille vero, the other, that is, the spi­rituall sword, is to be taken up & shaken ab ecclesiâ, by the Church it selfe; this by the hand of the priest, and that by the hand of the soldier: So the priest bears not in his hand the materiall sword, which neverthelesse is used ad nutum sacerdotis, when the Priest hath once given a beck, or a signe, & jussum Imperatoris, and when the Emperour hath once given the command. These two distinct words here stand in a kind of opposition, and serve to shew, That he who commands execution or putting to death, is not sacerdos▪ the Priest, but in very deed the Emperor, who there­fore hath Potestatem gladii, the power of the sword, which the Priest may long seek, and never finde: So that ad nutum, when the Priest gives a nod, doth not signifie or import ad jussum, when the Priest commands. How then? Forsooth it imports, that [Page 79] when the Priest hath once degraded a criminall Delinquent or ma­lefactor, by delivering him to the secular power, he gives the world to understand, what deadly punishment the merit of his cause hath justly brought upon his head, according to the Law. As for Boniface, (who as you say hath made Bernards doctrine more authenticall) if he teach no more in this article then Saint Bernard himselfe, who gave Boniface this light for his hint or qu [...]u, it shall ever like me well to give him the right hand of fellowship for this matter. But whether S. Bernard or S. Am­brose be Heretics; whether the Arguments and Scriptures pro­duced before for proof and confirmation of my first Proposition, be heresies, I leave it (howsoever you are more famous for a great grounded Catholic of the right stamp and haire) to your own judgement, reduced to the termes o [...] [...]ight and sound information: To be short; whereas the LL. Ecclesi [...]sticall stand very st ffe, and make a strong head or party for a larger size and greater ex ent of authority, then in truth may stand proportionable to their degree and calling; in case any such au [...]hority f [...]r the materiall sword by them to be drawn and put in practise, were essentiall to their State and rank, or therewith compatible, doubtlesse they might and would bring the same into common practise, and therefore it be­longs not of right unto their spirituall function and profession: This Argument is framed and taken by seculars, and in very deed is full of pith: Frustra est potentia, &c. Vain and idle, and of no efficacy is that power, which is never nobilitated with any act or practise at all, especially by those who boast and pretend them­selves to be armed with such authority.

Now Sir, to end this first dayes quarrell, I have sufficiently argu­ed for my first Proposition, to prove the doctrine thereof Catho­lic, sound, oecumenicall, and uncontrouleable; so that you have not been able to supplant it with all your Engines, nor to blow it up with all your Mines and Fire-workes.

Hetrod. I never thought (I must confesse) that any ranke here­tic, whom like a Roscius or some oth [...]r famous actor, you have so cunningly personated in this dayes conference, was able to act & play his part, or handled his weapons, like a skilfull master of de­fence, halfe so well: you have indeed (to deale plainly and truly) puzz [...]ld my wits a litle, and put my reading perhaps to some stag­ger: [Page 80] If you can play the man, and lay about you as well in the o­ther seven Propositions (for the second whereof in token of chal­lenge I here cast downe my glove as the Appellant, calling for your personall appearance to answer the challenge in this place to morrow by sun-rising) you may perhaps work more with my pre­sent opinions beginning to waver, then you are aware.

Orthod. I refuse not your challenge, but in signe of acceptation I take up your glove, and will not faile to be in the field at the houre assigned. Interim I wish you good rest for this night, and sharper weapons for the next morning.

Het. A Good morrow to you Orthodox, worthy Champion Defendant, you come well armed I make no doubt at all pieces.

Orthod. The same salutation to you Hetrodox, noble Champi­on Appellant, whose armes I wish to be more pungent in the conflict of this day, then I could find them in our late former skirmish.

Hetrod. Be pleased then without further delay, and more losse of time, to lay forth your second Ground or Proposition.

Orthod. Nothing pleaseth me better: Then mark well the words and contents thereof. Christ our Saviour, as the Sonne of God equall to the Father, is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and yet all the time that he was clothed with our mortall spoyles, not onely before his bitter death, but likewise after his most blessed and glorious resurrection, he never exercised the least power of a secular and temporall Prince.

Hetrod. Make that good, and you shall win the spurs, or carry away my weapons out of the field.

Orthod. Then sure it shall goe very hard, but I will here leave you unarmed in the place. For Christ our Saviour was never in­vested or inthronised in any temporall Kingdome: Pilate makes the question to Christ, Art thou a King? Christ gives the answer, [Page 81] Thou sayest I am a King: But know, O Pilate, howsoever I am a King, yet my Kingdome is not of this world, that is, not a tem­porall Kingdome. When that multitude of people who had been miraculously fed and sated with five loaves and two fishes, were minded and purposed to make him King, he stept aside, that he might not be taken by them, and so made King. He never took upon him to sit as Judge or Umpire in any mans cause, Tho. Aqui. in ep. ad Roman. but an­swered those who required him to give sentence in a certaine liti­gious matter. Who made me a Judge over your persons or your causes? Yea, he directly acknowledged Pilate, Caesars deputy or Governour, to be his lawfull Judge, Thou couldst not have any po­wer over me, if it were not given thee from above.

Hetrod. This your second Proposition seems to shoot and have a fling at matters of State in present question, and no meane gar­boyles: But in sooth, it doth not so much as touch the same; for they treat not of temporall Kingdomes, but of Ecclesiasticall af­faires; so that your Proposition serveth onely to bewray your own bad affection and erroneous conceit.

I therefore must give you thus much to understand; Very cer­taine it is, that Christ as he was Man mortall, did never exercise any power of a temporall Prince in this world; For his com­ming into the world (it is his owne testimony) was to suffer, to serve, to teach men contempt of worldly wealth and honour, as also by his humility and obedience, to chalke out and make plaine the way or path, which leadeth to the celestiall Paradise, be­fore the face and eyes of all proud and rebellious or disobedi­ent people. The Sonne of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life for the redemption of many. Mar. 20.28 The Sonne of Man hath not whereon to lay his head. Learne of mee that I am meek and lowly in heart. Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, Luc. 9.58. Mat. 11.29. 2 Cor. 8.9. Phil. 2.8. that he being rich, for your sakes became poore. He humbled him­selfe, and became ebedient to the death, even the death of the crosse.

But your Proposition should carry this one joynt or branch more, That Christ even as man (in case he had been so minded) might have assumed to himselfe the dominion of all temporall causes or matters, and made himselfe a King or an Emperour, Jam. 11. Heb. 1.2. which of the two he would: The Father hath given all things into his hands and hath made him heyre of all things.

Againe, It should not have been put down in your Proposition, that Christ after his Resurrection exercised no power of a tem­porall Prince, without addition of this clause, that Christ after his Resurrection, even as he is man, hath obtained the government of the whole wold, not as a temporall Prince, but as an Eternall Prince, Reve. 1.5. Mat. 28.18. farre superiour to all temporall Princes, as the first begotten of the dead, and Prince of all earthly Princes; and to whom all po­wer is given both in Heaven and in earth: Which power is not properly temporall, b [...]cause it is eternall, and yet is above all things both temporall and eternall.

But now againe, that Christ acknowledged Pilate for his Judge, as you affirme; I must be bold to tell you Orthodox, It smells som­what ranke of errour; For Christ, even as man, was the High preist, with power of excellencie, yea he was the head of men and of Angells; so that he had no superiour upon the face of the whole earth, neither could he be judged of any other, I meane de jure, by right; Philip. 2.8. (howsoever perhaps de facto, by fact, he might be brought coram nobis, upon his owne sufferance and permission:) For it was he that humbled himself, viz. because he would be so humbled by the death of the Crosse: And as for his words to Pi­late, Thou couldst have no power over me O Pilate, if it were not given thee from above, (where Christ seems to take Pilate for his Judge) this answer I make, By power in those words is meant Permission; and so the sense of that passage results to this recko­ning, That Pilate had never been able to stir either one foot or fin­ger, if it had not been by Gods permission. In the same sense are these other words to be taken, Luc. This is your houre, and the power of darknesse: And this is the answer of the holy Fathers, Chrysostom and Cyril, in their Expositions upon the 19. of John.

In 13. ad Rom.But whereas Thomas understands the same place of Iohn, of the power that Princes have from God; it likes me well to confesse and say, that Pilates power (as the Minister of Cesar) was from God, from whom all lawfull power descends. Howbeit (with your favour) that such power in Pilate was extended and stret­ched over Christ, it grew out of Pilates ignorance, who never knew the super-excellent dignity of Christ, and gave sentence a­gainst Christ as against a private person of the same Country or Territory, whereof then under Cesar he was L. President or chief [Page 83] Governour. As if a Priest in these dayes, under the name of a Laic, and in a Laic habit, should be brought by warrant before a Secular Magistrate or Judge, he might be judged by the same po­wer whereby he judgeth all other Laics; yet doth it not follow, that Priests are to come under the judgement of Laics, or that Christ was to submit his neck under the yoke of Pilates judge­ment.

Orthod. You deny that in the present garboyles (at which you wrongfully charge me to aime) there is any reference to the tem­peroll Kingdome; and yet because you needs will draw me to the scanning of that point, I say it is most notorious, that in a manner the best Freehold of all temporall Kingdoms is thereby drawn into debatement. I let passe your Thesis, and will stand up­on the Hypothesis. Say the Pope now sends forth prohibition to any Christian King, or temporall State, that he or they shall not meddle with judging Ecclesiasticall persons, running into delicts of nature meerly temporall, and no way reflecting upon spirituall matters. Againe, that he or they shall not frame particular Provi­soes or Lawes, concerning Lands not hitherto acquired or ac­crued to Ecclesiasticall dominion: (In quae bonae nondum ipsis est jus quaesitum) I now demand, By what authority the Pope sends forth any such prohibition? I hope, not by any authority of Tem­porall Princes or States; for he is not Lord Paramount in Tempo­ralls of their Dominions and Territories. By like then he doth it by his authority of universall Pastor. Now because that autho­rity of Universall Pastor (as we hold) he holds as the Vicar of Christ; it was not impertinent or superfluous for me to shew, but necessary to demonstrate, what authority Christ himselfe ex­ercised in temporall causes. For Christs authority must be the onely rule of the Popes authority, witnesse the words of Christs owne mouth, As my Father hath, even so doe I send you forth. Joan. 20. In which words, Christ communicated the authority of jurisdi­ction to Peter, and the rest of his Apostles, as by Card. Bellarmine himselfe it is confessed. And moreover, for so much as the Disci­ple is not above his Master, nor the servant above his Lord, Luc. 6. it ser­veth to draw from those words, Pase [...] oves, Feed my sheep, That as Christ himselfe was no Pastor in Temporals, but in Spirituals, in like manner the Pope, Iure Pontificatus, in his right of Pope­dome, [Page 84] hath do authority or dominion in temporall matters, and in particular, when the lawes temporall, Non impedunt cursum ad vi­tam aeternam, are no hinderance in the way to life eternall, but esta­blish a civill peace, are directed and leveld to the maintaining and preserving of that State, of that Liberty, of that Dominion, wherin particular profession is made of Christian Religion, and of Piety, as also to the conserving and upholding of publ que justice: Now then, if I to bring proofe of all this, have laboured in the first place to shew what power our Lord Christ himselfe exercised in temporall matters, then sure I have spoken home to the point, and nothing from the purpose, as you cavill: Now I will have a bout or a course at your errours; not as in a May-game or light skirmish, but with Champion-like devoyre.

1. You confesse, that Christ never exercised any temporall pow­er in this world; and it is all that I either have affirmed, or can de­sire to be confessed. Neverthelesse you take upon you to teach, that I looked not before I leaped, because I should have subjoyned, that Christ, if it had been his good pleasure, might by his power have exercised the said temporall power: Now as I freely canfesse and acknowledge that in this point you are not our of the right way, that if Christ had been so pleased, he lawfully might have exerci­sed the said power, because he was not only man, but also God, natures being united in one person (and actions according to that rule in philosophy, Sunt suppositorum & idiomata communicantur, according to that rule in divinity) neverthelesse whereas you pre­tend, that all I have delivered of this point before is to litle pur­pose, and from the purpose; you are to take this for a short, but yet for a sufficient and full answer, that our present question is de facto, a question of the fact, non de possibili, not a question of what might be, or what was possible to be done: Forasmuch as the Popes authority being founded upon Christs example, the supream Pastor, it sufficed to shew what actions Christ himselfe used for the feeding of his little flock, and not medle with another new question, what actions he was able to do, if he had been willing: For doubts any man, that Christ was able by extraordinary power to worke the conversion of the whole world? To sanctify the whole stock and race of mankind in the twinckling of an eye without shedding one drop of his precious blood? Is there any [Page 85] thing impossible with God? Luc. 1.37. But well assured that arguments drawn from possible to fact, are of no force, therefore I would not be so idle before to talke of what Christ was able to do in tempo­rall matters, but what he hath done in very truth.

2. This again you have supponed, that our Lord Christ as mortall man had lawfull dominion in temporall matters: But Moldo­nate a learned Jesuite of your own Order, in his exposition of these words, My Kingdome is not of this world, In cap. 27. mat. hath learnedly and effe­ctually proved the contrary: it may by some perhaps be collected, that Christ had the temporall dominion of the world three wayes, as he was man, 1. By right of inheritance, 2. By right of creation, 3. By authenticall testimony of Scripture, where in many places he is called a King, and that as he was man, which in effect is thus much; That Christ was King of this world, either jure naturali, by the law of nature, that is by the right of inheritance, or jure hu­mano, by mans law, that is by right of election; or jure divino, by Gods law, that is, by authority of Scripture: But first, by right of inheritance, I say Christ was no such King, for albeit he was de­scended from the royall stock of Judah, yet wee know that King­dome (according to the fore-threatning of Almighty God) ended and came to the last period in Jeconiah, and was a kind of particu­lar reigning, neither was Christ lawfull heire apparant unto any other King: Next, he was no King by election, for it is not known that ever he was chosen King by the People, but rather that he gave them the slip and went aside, when he knew they intended to make him King: It remaines then, that by authority of Scrip­ture he was a temporall King, albeit he never exercised his tem­porall power: But in holy Scripture not a word of any such tem­porall Kingdome, but only of his spirituall Kingdome: Thus the great Father S. Augustine, and thus Maldonate, Tract. 115 in Joan. agreeable to the opinion of al Divines of the best rank; whereupon he concludes in this notable manner: Quâ verô parte Christus homo erat, non erat universi orbis terrarum temporalis Rex; ut & Augustinus eo loco quem modò nominavimus & omnes boni Theologi sentiunt: Aut enim naturali, aut divino, aut humana jure rex esset; naturali non erat, quia regis filius non erat, quod est naturalem esse regem: Divi­no non erat, quia omnia sacrarum literarum testimonia quae de ejus loquuntur regno, ut August a [...]t, et omnes boni theologi affirmant, de spirituali intelliguntur; humano non erat, quia non fuit orbis terra­rum [Page 86] consensu res electus, et cum Iudaei vellent eum rapere ut regem facerent, aufugit: So that Christ as mortall man, then having no temporall dominion, he could never exercise the same: For, Non est actus, ubi non est ulla potentia ad illum actum, no exercise, where no power to bring forth such exercise: This must be understood of Christ as he was man, and mortall man: For as God, no doubt (as before hath been said) he was King of Kings & Lord of Lords: As for the eternall power of Christ our Lord (for so you call it) which was given him after his resurrection; there was no need to make any speech or motion thereof, because the present question is of temporall Power, and not of eternall; which eternall power for certain Christ our Lord hath not given and left unto his Vicar.

3. Your third errour lyes in a mis-interpretation of two severall texts, this for the one, knowing that his Father hath given al things into his hands; and this for the other, whom he hath made heire of all things: For you understand them both of his tempo­rall power, whereas Maldonate by the authority of S. Augustine, and of all the best Divines affirmes they are to be understood (as they ought in very truth) of Christs spirituall Kingdom, which in the Gospell is called the Kingdome of heaven: Joan. 19. For if the said words might be understood of Christs temporall Kingdome, then Christ himselfe had not forborn (which God forbid) to rap or breathe out a lye, when he said, My Kingdom is not of this world, & againe, My Kingdome is not from hence: For he had by that means denied what holy Scripture had affirmed he was indeed, that is, a temporall King: But say still, that Christ as man had temporall dominion, yet still it remaines good, that he did never put such temporall dominion in practise or execution, which as you have already confessed, so it is sufficient for my purpose.

Joan. 19.11.4. That place in S. Iohn, Thou couldest have no power over me, except it had been given thee from above, you say is not understood of the Judge or Lord Governours ordinary power, but of a permis­sive power: In good time Sir; but were it so as you interpret, surely then Christ had proved himselfe but a bad Logician to an­swer the governour clean from the purpose; for Pilate spake of his judiciary power, Joan. 16. when he said to Christ, Knowest thou not that I have power to loose thee? &c. Secondly, not Pilate alone, but like­wise all the Iewes had the same permissive power, of which per­missive power your text before cited is to be understood, this is [Page 87] your houre, and the power af darkenesse, which for this reason is called the power of darknes, because It is not given from above, 20. Jac. 1.17. even from the Father of lights: Thirdly, permissive power, cannot be cal­led a power given, but rather a power not denyed, or not letted & hindered from above; Non data, sed non negata, vel non impedita desuper. Fourthly, that is called permissive power, whereby God permits and suffers a sinner to fall into sinne, but God gives no such power from above; for if he give it from above, then he himselfe concurres with sinne, and is the author of sinne; which doctrine is even as false as God is true, and as truth is no lye: S. Thomas there­fore saith, and you Hetrodox confesse, the words are understood of the Judge Pilats ordinary power, as the Minister of Cesar, yea, S. Augustine upon the same words thus, Discamus ergo quod Chri­stus dixit, quod & Apostolum docuit, quia non est potestas nisi à Deo, quidquid sit de actu malè utentis eâ; & quia plus peccat qui inno­centem occidendum potestati livore tradit, quam ipsa potestas, si eum timore alterius potestatis majoris occidit, talem quippe Deus dederat illi potestatem, ut esset etiam sub Caesaris potestate. Learne wee then saith S Augustine, (as first Christ himselfe said in person, and after taught his Apostle Paul) there is no power but of God, be the act of the person, by whom the said power is abused, what it will: And learn wee withall, that he commits the greater sinne, who for envy delivers up the innocent unto the higher power to be execu­ted, then the Magistrate himselfe commits, who for feare of some other Power higher then himselfe, puts the innocent unto death: For God gave Pilate such power, as might be many degrees under Cesars absolute and supream power: And here I will touch ano­ther of your errors, a twig of the same branch, in attributing that unto Pilats ignorance, which Augustine with all the rest have ascribed to his feare, of purchasing to himselfe Cesars heavy dis­pleasure and indignation: To my purpose I have this also from Saint Bernard, Romani presidiis potestatem Christus super se quo (que) fat [...]tur fuisse ordinatam, In Ep. ad Archiep. Senoven. Our Saviour Christ was not ashamed to confesse, that over himselfe the Roman President had lawfull and ordinate power. And in the same Epistle to the same Archbishop, Quid secularitatem contemnitis? Secularior n [...]mo Pilato, cui Do­minus astitit judicandus; Non haberes in me potestatem, nisi tibi da­tu [...] esset desuper; Iam tunc pro se loqu [...]batur, quod post per Aposto­lo [...] clamavit in Ecclesiis, Non est potestas nisi à Deo: Wherefore [Page 88] set you so light by Secularity? who ever was more secular then Pilate, before whose Tribunall, and at whose Barre the Lord Christ himselfe stood indicted, to receive judgement and sentence of death from his mouth, Thou couldst not have any power against me, (saith Christ) except it were given thee from above. Even then & there Christ was his own Advocate; even then and there he plea­ded his owne cause; even then and there he had sensible experi­ence of the same thing in his owne person and case, which after­ward he proclaimed in the Church by the ministery of his Apo­stle, There is no power but of God.

5. S. Iohn, Chrysostome, and S. Cyril, whom you have alledged, doe not deny that Christ speaks of ordinary judiciary power; They onely affirme, that whereas Christ might have avoided that judge­ment, either by hiding himselfe, (perhaps as he did when the Jews would have stoned him to death) or by commanding (as he was God) twelve legions of Angels to come down from heaven for his aid and rescue; yet he did not decline, retard, or any way hin­der the course of the said judiciary power and proceeding. From whence no argument is to be drawne, that such power was not of God, but rather the contrary; And this our Divines understand, not of Christs ordinary, but of his absolute power; quia oportuit Christum pati, Luc. 24.46 for ought not Christ (as he speaks himselfe) to have suffered these things, and enter into his glory?

6. Againe, you bring the same for a reason, which is in the que­stion; The Pope being High priest, cannot be judged forsooth in temporalls by any temporall Judge: therefore Christ being High priest, could not be judged by Pilate in the fact of usurped jurisdi­ction, imputed and laid to his charge. What shall I call this man­ner and forme of reasoning, but a sophisme or fallacie in a bold begging of the question? For it should rather be thus reasoned and argued on the contrary; Because Christ our Lord hath not shunned the judgement of the temporall Prince, but said, that his power was given from above, and yet by all meanes was the High priest; therefore the Pope or High priest of Rome ought not in like cases to renounce or disclaime the judgement of the temporall Prince; for Christs actions must be a rule to the actions of the Roman Bi­shop, not his actions a rule to the actions of Christ.

You put upon Thomas an exposition of his words cleane contra­ry to his true meaning and right sence of the same, an exposition al­together [Page 89] unworthy of that Angelicall Doctors doctrine; and here I am bound to fight for my Country, for my Master and Compatriot, whose Catholike Doctrine in all Theologicall disputes; and in this by name, I am resolved to hold. His words be these; Quicquid commu­niter de Deo & de creaturis dicitur, à Deo in creatur as derivatur: Po­testas autem de Deo & hominibus dicitur; Job. 39 Deus potestates non abjicit eum ipse sit potens; unde consequens est, quòd omnis humana potestas sit à Deo. Dominabitur excelsus in regno hominum, Dan. 4. Joh. 19 & cuicunque voluerit dabit illud. Non haberes in me potestatem ullam, nisi tibi datum esset desuper. Whatsoever is affirmed in common, both of God and the creatures, the same is derived and sent from God to the creatures. Now power is affirmed of men, as well as of God; for God who is most powerfull himselfe, exalteth Powers by his power; whereof it fol­lowes in right good consequence, that all power is of God: The most High ruleth in the Kingdom of men, and giveth it unto whom he will: Thou couldst have no power against me, except it were given thee from above. So that we see, Thomas there treateth of judiciarie po­wer, affirmed in common both of God and the creatures, and speaks not of Permissive power.

You please your selfe in producing the example of a Priest, stept into a Laic habit, and presented before the secular Judge: This man know­ing himselfe to be a Priest indeed, and not a Laic, as he shews, pretend­ing and standing upon his exemption, would never (as you beare us here in hand) say thus unto the Judge, My Lord, You have power a­gainst me from heaven; but rather thus on the contrary, your Lord­ship hath no power against me from above: So that Christ himselfe not so speaking, but rather the contrary, hath not marked or pointed out any such pretension: Where it is to be considered, that you bring into the Play and upon the Stage, a Priest attired like a Laic di stuc [...]; one who pretending Priesthood, is not able to say that he is a Priest, nor to produce and present his faculties: but I know the contrary practice. For in some States, where the Prince hath granted exemp­tion from his power unto Clerics in criminall causes, many to shun & escape the secular judgement, have made themselves capable of Or­ders and Clericship by false and counterfeit faculties or breves: whereas you, Hetrodox, are of another mind, as it seems; namely, that a Priest who is grac'd and priviledged with such exemption in very truth, may not say so much, nor shew the same to the secular Judge; but rather should confesse the contrary, to wit, That doubtlesse the Judge is authorized and strengthned against him with ordinary po­wer. [Page 90] Now these things Hetrodox not onely are false, but also stand next doore to things incredible.

Hetrod. Have you done with my errors, or have you any more good and sound stuffe wherewith to bombast your 2. Proposition?

Orthod. I have no more to say of your errors, but now I long to see how deep your challenging sword can cut in this one shield of brasse: Our Lord Christ commanded tribute to be paid unto the secular Prince, that is, unto Cesar, Give unto Cesar the things that are Cesars: The truth of this Proposition is opposed by some, who say, that how­soever Christ paid tribute really unto Cesar, both for himselfe and for Peter; yet withall he professed and said, he was not bound to the payment of such tribute; Nunquid filii debent solvere tributum? Are the children bound to pay tribute? Herein, say these men, the Lord Christ pointed out as with one of his fingers his owne authority of a temporall Prince, no way in termes of obligation to be assessed and laid as a Tributarie. To this doubt, Answer is made, That (according to some Doctors) all that were natively of the Country, bred and borne therein, who were called by that name of children, were not bound to pay the said tribute; and because both Christ himselfe, and Peter, were of that Country, bred and borne, therefore Christ affirmed they were not obliged to any such payments; or else, to speak in a better and higher sense, he thereby pointed [...] his owne most holy Di­vinity, and said, That as the Sonne of God he was not bound to pay: But because the rendring of that reason was too deep and too high a mysterie, whereof the public ministers or officers for the exacting and collecting of tribute were altogether uncapable, he therefore said fur­ther, sed ne scandalizentur, lest we should cause them to stumble at some offence or scandall. Where we may see, what speciall account & reckoning our Saviour Christ made of not scandalizing the Ministers of Secular Princes, the Collectors of Tribute or Poll-money, alledging so true and reall an exemption, howsoever by the said Toll-gatherers it was not understood.

Hetrod. Is this your seven-fold- Ajax shield, which no sword can cut or pierce? what say you then to this one stoccado? It is true, that Christ commanded tribute to be paid unto Cesar; but it makes nothing to the purpose: shall I tell you the why so? forsooth because it is de­nyed of none, That Poll-money or Tribute is due to Princes, & ought out of all question to be paid by those who are bound to such payment, as Paul saith, [...]om. 13.7. Give to all men their due, tribute to whom tribute, &c. But now touching the tribute which Christ paid for himselfe & Peter, [Page 91] it seems thou hast sipped at least of Marsilius poysoned cup (I meane that Marsilius of Padua's Heresie) who was not ashamed to affirme, That Christ paid the said Tribute, not by condescention, but by com­pulsion, as thereunto constrained by necessity. His Heresie was con­demned by Pope John XXII. For thou hast alledged none other ex­emption, to prove that Christ was not bound to pay the said tribute, five onely because he was native of the soyle, and the native people were called the children; and because he had the Divinity, according to which being the Sonne of God, he was not bound: The first reason is wholly frivolous and vaine; for not onely those of the soyle were not exempted, but in very deed they onely were bound to pay the tribute: And this we find in Moses Law, where Layes, Exod. 3 [...] Levies and Tributes were imposed and charged upon the Children of Israel; that every one should pay halfe a sicle, which makes two drachmes: which Tribute was afterwards taken up and received by the Romans, Lib. 7. d [...] bel. Jud cap. 26. as Io­sephus writeth.

The second reason exempts Christ as God, not as man, and therefore as man (according to thy words) he was bound: that was the asserti­on of Marsilius the Paduan; the very same is gathered from thy dis­course, for thou goest about to prove, that Christ was no temporall Prince: this to make good, thou bringest in for thy last and best reason, that Christ commanded to pay tribute unto the secular Prince, which reason hath not so much as one graine of pith or force, if thou adde not another graine, that Christ himselfe really paid the tribute: And for so much as herein rests the whole force of thy Argument, therefore thou com [...]st in with an objection against thy selfe; that some by way of opposition do teach, that Christ was not bound to pay tribute; and yet paid it down, lest he should give offence to the Tollers appointed for that purpose: Now this I demand, whether was Christ as man bound or not bound to pay tribute? If thou say he was bound, then thou makest thy selfe brother-heretic, or fellow-heretic to Marsilius of Padua, condemned for an heretic: If thou shalt say, that Christ was not bound, then by thine own confession, thy reason is made to be of no force, and to no purpose: The plain truth of the point is this, that Christ even as man, and his Apostles also, were not bound to the pay­ment of the said tribute: and wherefore? Because Christ as a man, was no humane but a divine person, and no adoptive but a naturall son of God, King of all Kings, and so not bound to pay tribute unto any King: And for so much as when the Prince himselfe is not bound to pay, his Family much lesse is bound to that service or duty, therefore [Page 92] the Apostles who were the Family of Christ, were in like manner not bound to come off to the said payment: [...] cap. 17. [...]at. lib. [...]uest. E­ [...]ng▪ q. 23. From hence both S. Ierome and S. Augustine have rightly framed this collection and conclusion, that Clerics are not bound to pay tribute unto secular Princes, because they are of Christs own Family, and exempted from all such payments in honour of Christ: I forbeare to relate the rest of thy words touch­ing this thy Proposition, because they are points of light stuffe, and small moment,, and also because (not making against our cause) they need not our answer.

Orthod. Nay Sir by your patience, the reason by me last alleadged, is to good and speciall purpose: For had Christ been a temporall King, he would never have commanded to pay tribute unto Cesar, but rather would have said, Reddite mihi, give tribute unto me, because I, and not Cesar, am your temporall King: But I hasten to have your errours by the eares.

1. First it is an errour in point of creance, or common courtesie and civill carriage, at least it is a sl [...]p of your tongue, to give a man the thou at every word: you do it not I perswade my selfe, for lack of good man­ners, or because you are to seeke in the termes of civility, or by way of disparagement, but in some angry humour, and passionate mood: So it comes many times to passe indeed, that men falling to some friendly quarrell or contention in cold blood, begin with you, and after when the blood is up, and the quarrell grown to some heat, they end in thou: true it is, that no man should suffer himselfe to be o­vercome with wrath or anger, or any other like disordinate or distem­pered passion, but should shew himselfe conformable to the Apostles words, [...]hil. 4. Let your moderation be known to all men: howbeit I need not marvaile, that you are pleased to thou a man, whom being none other then a good Catholic, you needs will marke and stampe with an he­reticks brand, not in his Fist, but in his Fore-head.

2. Againe, Marsilius of Padua professed (some say) that Christ payed tribute, as compelled by necessity: You lay to my charge that I affirme the same; and yet I affirme the cleane contrary: namely, that Christ not being bound (as the sonne of God) to paye tribute; paid the same neverthelesse with a willing mind and a free hand, lest otherwise he should have left some block, at which the Ministers of the secular Prince might have tripped at least, if not stumbled in their way: He that makes this affirmative, doth not affirme that Christ paid tribute as constrained by necessity, but of his own condiscention, that is, lest he should offend.

[Page 93]3. Again, you are absolute and positive, in putting down the tribute whereof wee now speake, to be the same which God commanded to be paid unto the Temple; Exod. 3 [...] and that in Exodus to be the same taxation by Poll or head, which Augustus imposed, and was exacted in the time of Christ our Lord: To make this good, you cite Iosephus, whereas Iosephus writes not of the tribute imposed by Augustus, lib. 7. c. 2 but of that which was imposed by Vespasianus; and that imposition was many yeares after the death of Christ, and of Augustus.

4. Again, Doctors doubt what tribute this was; whether it was the tribute of the temple, according to Hilarius, or the tribute of Augu­stus, according to modern Authors, or the tribute of the First-born, ac­cording to Chrysostome; or the tribute imposed▪ upon strangers or for­reigners, and not upon those of the City, according to Titelmannus: You resolutely affirme this tribute whereof we now speak, was the tribute of Augustus, but you give us no reason of your assertion; and yet besides you seeke to put out mine eye with a false text of Iosephus, with a reiteration, that Augustus his tribute was the tribute of the Temple: Again, I buckle my selfe to the true exposition; that Christ was not bound to pay tribute, because he was the sonne of God, and sonnes use to pay no tribute, required or exacted in the name of the King their Father: But you Hetrodox, from this my nega­tive, against all the rules of Logick will draw the affirmative, and charge me to hold, that Christ, as man, was bound to pay the said tribute: Now Sir, If any affirm the People of Rome ought not to withstand the commands of his Holines, as he i [...] Christs Vicar, of this will you in­ferre and conclude, the people of Rome ought doubtlesse to withstand his Holines, as he is a temporall Prince? The very Pesant of mean & common capacity would be ready to hisse the conclusion out of the La­ic Schooles, Qui unum negat, alterum non affirmat, he that denies one thing, doth not forthwith affirme another, when the said things are not contrary, but only dispared, as in our present case: but I very well perceive your fetch Hetrodox, it was to fetch in Marsilius of Padua, and you have fetcht him in with a witnesse, for you have pulled him in­to the Stage by the eares, and out of all due time: sufficient it is for me to alleadge the reason alleadged by Christ himselfe, (that as the Son of God he was not bound to pay any tribute) to untie the knot of the ar­gument produced to the contrary, not by me, but by others; and ne­verthelesse I do not affirme, that Christ our Lord was bound as man, to pay the said tribute.

6. Again our Saviour Christ stands upon this reason, to prove his ex­emption [Page 94] from tribute, because he was the Son of God: But you Hetro­dox, do take a stride, nay more then one stride further, and stick not here to affirme that S. Peter also was exempted, because he was of Christs own family, who was the Son of God; but Christ as all m [...]n know, there spake not a word of the family, but only of the Sonne; & Christ kept no servants, he was only followed by certain Disciples: And howsoever the servants of the Kings sonne should be exempted from tribute, so long as they are employed in his service, yet doubtlesse the Disciples of Christ, were not servants of Christ, Non dixi vos ser­vos, sed amicos, non veni ministrari, sed ministrare, I have not called you servants but friends, I came not into the world to be served, but rather to serve others: And moreover the exposition which you here set down Hetrodox, is directly flat against the text: For the Publi­canes presupposed, they tooke it for granted, they put it out of all hun­ger and cold, that S. Peter was lyable to tribute for his own Poll, and therefore they only asked Peter (not whether he himselfe) whether his master was in the check-roll of tributaries for his Poll, whereupon Christ forthwith gave order, that Peter should make present payment on the nayle for them both; for himselfe, that he might give no cause of scandall to the Publicans, and for Peter, because he was liable to the law of tribute: wherein first I observe, that Peter then was neither Priest nor Pope; Secondly, that in case of necessity, even ecclesiasties exempted (saith Thomas Aquinas, privilegio Principum, by Princely priviledge) ought in duty to pay tribute, because Peter found the Statere or Sicle, wherewith he paid tribute, in a fishes Belly; to notifie, that men ought (by way of Subsidie and [...]id to their Princes) to pay tri­bute of those goods, which they have got and received of fishes; that is, by the almes of charitable and faithfull Christians.

7. Againe, you are not pleased nor disposed Hetrodox to apprehend the pith and force of my argument: For to prove that Christ never ex­ercised any temporall dominion, it sufficed to affirm, that Christ him­selfe said, Give unto Cesar the things that are Cesars: But because there are some who frame that argument, not against the words, Give unto Cesar the things that are Cesars, but against the whole discourse in generall; to prove, that Christ was a temporall King, because he said, that he was not bound to pay tribute. I therefore answer, that Christ spake not so in regard that he was a temporall King, but in regard that he was the Sonne of God: For this Hetrodox you forsooth would have me reputed an Heretic; such a marvellous desire you and some others doe shew, [...] Luk. 16. to have us burnt for this heresie. Ex abundantiâ cor­dis [Page 95] [...]s loquitur, the mouth speaks out of the abundance of the heart. Nauseat anima eorum super cib [...] isto l [...]vissimo, Num. 21 their soule loatheth such light bread, and yet my Religion to me is a heavenly Manna: But sure­ly we are not such, and by the grace of God we will never be found such, as you and some other doe seeme to desire.

8. Againe, you play false in citing S. Jeroms Text; for you shall find his words cleane contrary, and thus in true termes; Dominus no­ster secundum carnem, & secundùm Spiritum filius Regis erat; vel ex Davidis stirpe generatus, vel omnipotentis verbum patris: ergo tributa quasi Regis filius non dababat; sed qui humilitatem carnis assumpserat, debuit adimplere omnem justitiam; nosque infoelices Christi censemur nomine, & nihil dignum facimus tantâ majestate: Ille pro nobis crucem sustinuit, & tributa reddidit; nos pro illius honore tributa non reddi­mus, & quasi filii Regis à vectigalibus immunes sumus? Our Lord was the Son of a King, both according to the flesh, and according to the Spirit; either as bred of the stock of David, or as the Word of the Om­nipotent and Almighty Father; and therefore, as a Son descended & borne of Kings, he did owe no kind of tribute; but he who took the basenesse of our nature, was to fulfill all righteousnesse. We wretched creatures (mark how he reckons himselfe in the number, then being a Priest, and according to some Authors a Cardinall) are inrowled in the censorian tables of Christ, and yet we work nothing of so high majesty and honour. He for us hath born the Crosse, and paid tribute; shall not we then for his honor pay tribute, but as if we were free born, & the Kings naturall sons, scape altogether Scot-free from all manner of tallage, poundage, customes, tributes, aydes, and subsidies? In this place we see S. Ierome not only doth not affirme, that immunities are De jure divino, by Gods Law; but he also grievously complaines (as Iansenius testifies) that Ecclesiastics did not pay the required and im­posed tributes for the honour of Christ; as if they were the Kings el­dest sonnes, that is, exempted by the Law of God: Who sees not here the great and notable discrepance between the spirit of godly Saints, & the blanched pretensions of our times? But most of all it grieves and afflicts my mind, to see and heare, how men impose one thing upon the learned Saints and ancient Fathers, when they teach another, and the cleane contrary. Iansenius in this place affirms, That Exemption is Privilegium Principum secularium, & non jure divino, the priviledge of Secular Princes, and not by Gods Law.

9. You run Hetrodox into the same error, in citing the words of S. Augustine, whose words be these: Quod dixit ergo liberi sunt filii, [Page 96] in omni regno intelligendum est libe [...]os esse Regis filios, non vestigales; multò ergo ma­gis liberi esse debent in regno terren [...] filii illius regis, sub quo sunt omnia a regna ter­rae; whereas therefore Christ hath said the children are free, it is to be understood, that in every Kingdome the Kings own children are no tributaries, to pay any Sub­sidies, Rents, or Pensions: How much more then should the sonnes and children of that King be free, in a terrene or earthly Kingdome, under whose footstool all the Kingdomes of the earth are couched? S. Thomas expounding this passage, useth a very direct and perspicuous answer, Qui facti sunt Filii Dei per gratiam, liberi sunt in quolibet regno, secundum mentem, à servitute scilicet peccati, non autem liberi à servitute corporali; In every Kingdome the sonnes of God by grace, are free as touching the mind, namely, from the bondage of sin, but not free from ser­vice of the body: And here three things are to be noted, 1. that S. August. speaks not of Ecclesiastics, (as Card. Bellarm. pretends) but of all Christians: 2. That he speaks not of any liberty or immunity from corporall charges or burthens, S. August. & Tho. in 13. ad Rom but speaks of spirituall liberty and freedome from sinne. 3. That from this place Thomas col­lects wee have no liberty, no immunity from God, whereby wee are exempted from the dominion of temporall Kings in temporall causes.

Jansenius brings a better and more literall exposition of S. August. words, for he saith S. August. reasons from the plurall number, as Christ himselfe argues from the plurall; neverthelesse it is to be understood of the singular number, that is, of Christ alone: As for example, suppose a son of the French King should say, if in every Kingdome the Kings children be free from tribute, much more then in the Kingdome of France ought all the sonnes of the King be free; and therefore I ought; So saith S. August. that Christ spake unto Peter, Jn omni regno liberi sunt regis fi­lii, &c. In every Kingdome the Kings children are no tributaries, but free; then much more ought all the sonnes and children of that King be free in a terrene Kingdome, to whom all the Kingdomes of the earth are in subjection; and that is, I ought much more to be exempted from paying tribute or Poll-money, but lest wee should scandalize these Publicans and toll-gatherers, or Collectors, &c. And this doubtlesse is the true exposition of that place, wherein who can be so blind as not to see your ninth most manifest and palpable errour?

Hetrod. No doubt Orthodox, if some of your hereticall Sect where here now in place, they would bestow upon you a ringing plaudite for acting your part so well, in the defence of this dayes Proposition.

Orthod. I confesse Hetrodox, that after the way which you call heresie, touching this dayes Proposition, so worship I the God of my Fathers, believing all things concerning this Article, which are written in the Law, in the Prophets, in the Apostles, in the holy Fathers writings, not blurred nor abused with erroneous expositions, and false glosses, Errare possum, Haereticus esse nolo, subject I may be and am to errors as all men are, (your selfe Hetrodox not excepted, with all your deepe Clark-ship) but you shall never find me wilfully to persist, or stick in any errour, as heretics do, by the grace of my God, as I said before: It seemes by your falling to reproachfull termes, that you have no more Petarres to blow up the strong gates of my second Proposition, or other Engines and Peeces of great Ordnance to batter the Walls and Flankers thereof: will your courage and heart serve you to play with your Artillery to morrow morning, & to give a brave assault upon the Fort of my third Proposition?

Het. In the word of a Generall it shall be done, assuring my selfe of honour and victory in the action.

Orth. The houre.

Het. At Sun-rise.

Orth. Agreed Sir.

Het. At your service Sir.

Orthodox. THe houre is j [...]stly kept of both parts; Is your g [...]t Ordna [...]ce placed? Then let us heare it [...]ay: Time you know is precious.

Hetrodox. It shall presently roare and thunder to the raising of the Fort, vainly fancied to be impregnable, if you dare first give me leav [...] to take some view of your third Proposition.

Orthod. Dare Hetrodox? I dare, and I doe; Here is the true modell or plat-forme to lesse then a haire: Take a full view there­of at your good pleasure.

Hetrod. O strange! what do [...]here set? First it purports that our Lord Christ never exercised any authority of a Temporall Prince.

Orthod. I perceive Hetrodox, there is neither Beame, nor Pin and Web in your eye; Indeed it purports no lesse: and thereupon it inferres; That Christ never left any such authority to St. Pe­ter and his successours, whom we Catholiques call his Vicar; For the Vicar is never advanced to a higher degree of Dignity and Power, then the chiefe and principall Commander himselfe even purchased and possessed before: Lib. 1 sent. De auct. Papae. Sotus and Cardinall Bellarmine looking into this matter thorow cleer Christalline Spectacles, do much wonder to see the boldnesse of our Canonists, who have the face to maintain without any reason, or authority of the New-Testament: That Papa est Dominus totius orbis directè in tem­poralibus, the Pope in all temporall causes is the direct Lord of the whole World; a Doctrine for certain full of scandall, and built upon a sand [...] foundation: Some Authors (besides the Canons which will never hold weight in concurrence with Scripture) do avouch Thomas of Aquine, De Regim. Princ. c. 10. and 19. That Papa est Dominus totius orbis in Temporalibus & Spiritualibus, the Pope is Lord of the whole World, as well in Temporals as in Spirituals: But by their good leave, Thomas never had neither head or hand in the inditing or penning of that work: I appeale herein to Card. Bellar. himselfe: De potest. Papae. B [...]sides divers others of his most certain conjectures, this one is of strong sinewes, and thereby carries the greater force: He sets downe the Emperour Adulphus for the next successour to Ro­dulphus, in the year Mccxcii. and the Emperour Albertus for the next successour to Adulphus in the year, Mccxcix. whereas [Page 2] St. Thomas walked the way of all flesh in the yeare, Mcclxxiv. Moreover they cite another text of St. lib. 2. Sen­ten. Dist. 44. Thomas, Esse in summo Pontifice apicem utrius (que) potest [...]tis, Temporalis & Spiritualis, That our holy Father the Pope is top and top-gallant both of Temporall power and Spirituall power: But let St. Thomas his text be viewed with a cleare eye, and it will soone be percei­ved that he was of a contrary opinion; For after he had taught that in Temporall matters we are bound to obey the Temporall Prince rather then the Spirituall, and in causes meerly Spirituall, the Spirituall rather then the Temporall, at last he concludes, That were he not Pope (who in the P ovinces of his command is armed with the double Sword of both Jurisdictions) he Sub­jects are bound to honour him with due obedience equally both in the one and in the other kind.

Hetrod. Is this your strong Fort Orthodox? Is it no better man'd? Hath it no stronger Barricadoes? Then heare, n t yet my Basilisco or double Canons, but my Demi-Canons and Cul­vering play.

Your third Proposition is like the second; neither bar [...]ell bet­ter herring: It neither sorts nor suits with your principall scope, it s [...]rves only to bewray the spitefull humour, and little sincerity in alledging of the Authors by your selfe alledg [...]d.

Fi [...]st, It jarres with your Scope and purpose; For your whole intention tends to set up a Flag or Banner of Defiance against our Holy Fathers sentences of Excommunications and Inter­dicts, thundered against Christian Princes and States in cases of contumacie, as one that charges the said sentences and censures with Invaliditie and meer Null [...]tie: To which purpose you might as well affirme, that our Holy Father the Pope is not L. Temporall of the World; as if you should affirme the Fr [...]nch King cannot condemne and send any man to the Gallies, because the French King is no Bishop. For to the thundering of a sen­tence Excommunicatorie, or of an Interdict, no Regall or Tem­porall Authority, but only Papall and Spirituall Power is requi­red; as the Spirituall Power is not required for the sending of a man to Chaynes and Oares in the Gallies, because the Tempo­rall hath sufficient Autho ity for that Judgement.

As for your little Sinceritie in citing of Authors; let Sotus [Page 3] let Bellarmine be perused with indifferencie of Judgement, and and it will soone be found; That neither the one, nor the other doth use any such termes of immodesty as you have layed to their charge; namely to affirme, they wonder at our Canonists, who had such brasen faces, to affirme without any reason, or with­out any Authoritie of the New Testament, that Popes are direct Lords of all the World in Temporals; a Doctrine in truth full of scandall, and built on the Sands of the Sea-shore. That won­der which is come out of your owne Forge, will never be found in the writings of Sotus and Bellarmine; much lesse that either they or we have termed the Doct [...]ine of Canonists a scandalous doctrine, and not grounded upon any reason: We have rather affirmed, it is not absolutely the Doctrine of Canonists; because we are not ignorant, how farre the Canonists dissent one from another in their opinions: Sotus alleadgeth for himselfe Iohan­nes Andreas; and Bellarmine produceth for his opinion the Card. de Turrecremata and Navarras: Cap. Novit. de Judicii. He might likewise have alled­ged Pope Innocentius the IV. and the Glosse in the same place; where the distinction of Directè & indirectè is apertly couched: The difference between these Authors stands in giving or taking Supream Power from the Pope in Temporall causes; For so much is granted of all Writers except Heretikes; but rather it consists in the Mannor. For by some Authors it is resolved, that Popes are armed with Supreame power in Temporals, in like manner as all secular Princes are: Other Authors contend, that Papall power properly, and in it selfe is meerly Spirituall; but in ordine ad Spiritualia, in a certaine order and refl [...]x to Spi­rituall matters, it may distraine and seize with all full and abso­lute authority upon things Temporall. lib. 3. c. 11. 13. So St. Thomas in that small treatise de Regim. Principum, divinelie makes demonstra­tion, at least if that little worke was of his penning: For Bellar­mine denies not, in any absolute straine, the said little worke to be the Artifice of St. Thomas, but only reports that some, not without cause, have drawne the matter into doubt; because in that petit volume there is record of an Historie that succeeded after St. Thomas death: And Bellarmine hims [...]lfe affirmes, it is no false Latine to conjecture, the said H [...]storie was nimbly con­veyed after the death of Thomas, into the Libret by some other: [Page 4] And yet, not building upon so weake an Answer, that the said Booke was none of those works which were framed in St. Tho­mas his shop, he subjoynes another more solid and much better soldered answer, namely to cleare and explaine one sentence of the said Booke by other sentences thereof.

But how can your great and g [...]osse [...]eme [...]iti [...] be suffeerd in spea­king to harshly of the holy Canons? I know (these are your own word [...]) that some all [...]dge the Canons, which as humane Lawes in concurrence or paragon of Gods Word, come short in maki [...]g the weight of [...]qua [...]l Authoritie; They cite (as you also affi [...]me) St. Thomas, &c. O how great disparagement, nay how great despight is herein uttered against our sacred Canon? was ever the like heard from the mouth of any Catholique? You seem to take no care at all, whether your Doctrine be confirmable or con­trary to the sacred Canons, and not so much as vouchsafe to an­swer the opponent by whom they are alledged and propounded, as if they were of no weight & authoritie at all, when they come to be tryed by the common standard and beame of Gods Word: For you terme them absolutely humane Lawes, as if they had not beene f [...]amed and indited by the assistance of the Holy Spi­rit; wherein you fa [...]l, and fall from the accustomed phrases of the H [...]l Fathers, by whom the Canons are continually stiled, Sacred, Holy, and inspi [...]ed of God; Will you be pleased to hea [...]e what L [...]o saith, writing to Anat [...]lius? Nimis haec imoroh [...], [...]i­mis prava suat, quae Sacrat [...]ssimis Canonibus inveniun u [...] esse con­traria; O in how high a degree of p avity and wickedn sse is that Doctrine rankt which teacheth positions adverse and con­trary to the most Sacred Canons? Lastly, whereas you con­tend, that sac [...]ed Canons, in concu [...]rence with Gods Lawes, come so short of matching them in equall ballance of Authoritie; you plainly shew, that Canons in this Argument are contrarie to Gods Word, and so to be reputed of no reckoning or accompt: A [...]d in so doing, what doe you else, but reprove not onely the first Authors of the Sacred Canons, for such as have contrived and penned Constitutions contarry to Gods Word, but like­wise the whole Church that holds the said Canons for most re­verend, as holy Rules given by the Holy Ghost, howsoever they first came from the heads and hands of Popes or sacred Counsels.

Orthod. If ever that Latine P [...]ve [...]b had any truth, Tuo te gla­dio jugulas, the man hath cut his owne throat with his owne knife, it will surely prove more then true in this occurrence: For you Hetrodox will be found murthered with your owne murthe­ring shot, I mean, refuted if not confounded with your own ex­ample, which is Cardinall Bellarmine: you affirme, that in case the French King shall adjudge and commit a man to the Gallies, he doth it by his Temporall power, and not by vertue of Spiri­tuall power, whereof he is cleane void, like a Fowle when she is bared of all her Feathers: Now I d [...]mand; in case the Pope shall serve his Inhibition upon some ab [...]olute P ince or State, pro­hibiting them to make wholesome Lawes for the more godly and peaceable government of their Li [...]ge-P [...]opl [...]: By what power shall the Pope send forth such B [...]ll? S [...]l not by vertue of a­ny Spirituall power; because the Spiri [...]l power hath no man­ner or measure of extension to Temporall Judgements, or Tem­porall goods; Then sure he shall doe i [...] by vertue of his Tempo­rall power: But by his Holinesse good leave, he is not invested with any such Te [...]porall power; and therefore he [...]a not by his B [...]lls and Inhibitions disanull or cause the foresaid wholsome and godly Lawes: And as the King sends to the Gallies because he is King, not because he is Pope; so the Pope, as being Pope, and no Temporall King, of any absolute Prince, or States Terri­tories, cannot put downe and repeale many Lawes that his Ho­liness [...] prohibits; and while he takes that violent course and is not obeyed therein by any absolute Prince or State, the disobey­ing Prince or State runs into no sin, because the Pope hath no mandatory power in such cases: your particular Errours in this Article are palpable.

1. You interpret my scope and en [...]d in this Proposition at your pleasure, and say, I speake nothing o the purpose intended: True it is, [...]hat my Principall end is to prove, the censures of our holie Fa [...]h [...]r the Pope in a certaine hypoth [...]sis, to be altogether inva­lid, and of none eff ct: But for as much as to make some proof thereof, it is first necessarie for me to p [...]ove, that in such cases the absolute Prince or State commits no sinne, seeing the censure thundered against one who doth not sin, is of no force or eff [...]ct; I have therefore drawne this Proposition, wherein I make de­monstration, that where the Pope hath no authority to com­mand, [Page 6] there neither Prince, nor State, nor People are within the termes of obligation to yeeld obedience, and that not obeying in that case, their conscience is not defiled, not wounded with anie sinne.

2. You are of opinion, that my drift is to prove the said cen­sures to be of no force or validitie, Ex defectu Authoritatis Spi­ritualis, by reason of some lamenesse or weakenesse in the Spiri­tuall Authoritie; But you are verie far wide of my purpose: For my purpose and endeavour is to make this good and unmalleable by any of your greatest hammers: That all censures in that kind and nature are in qualitie of meere Nullitie, because no absolute Prince or State commit anie sin, when they use all good and law­full meanes possible, to hold fast, and to defend their own right and lawfull Jurisdiction, which makes a defect in the Pope, not of Spirituall Authoritie (as we Catholiques maintaine) but of Temporall: The Spirituall Authoritie gives him the power of the Keyes to excommunicate; but defect of Temporall Autho­ritie makes the censure meerlie void, and no censure, because there is no obligation which inforceth or constraineth obedience to him that hath no Authoritie over the partie, because in their not obeying they commit no sinne, and because in committing no sin, they run not into any kind of censure.

3. You cannot denie, that in re and upon the matter. I hold and maintaine and truth in this thi [...]d Proposition, howsoever you twitch or give some jerke at my drift and citation of Au­thors; you therefore cannot justlie charge me with anie corrupt affection of mind herein: That man hath a corrupt and perverse heart, Prov. 27. who rises by night, and in deceit blesses his neighbor with a loud voice; but howsoever Maledicenti similis erit, he shall be like one that curseth: For as Gold is tryed in the Furnace, and silver in the fier, so is a man tryed in the mouth of him that prai­seth: For this reason at last, it is better to be reproved by a wise man, then to be deceived by the flatterie of fooles: It is better therefore to utter a truth, and to be reproved of men, then to practise flatterie, Gal. 1. and to be punished of God; witnesse the Apo­stle, si adhuc hominibus placerem, &c. If I should seeke to please men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

4. You count, and call and wonder, immodestie; and so you [Page 7] found the wonder of Sotus with an Epiphonems of my proper Art; For those words, that such Doctrine is full of scandall, and built on a sandi [...] foundation, are neither the words of Sotus not of Bellarmine, but my owne words; and they are flowers of praise, if they be put in the ballance with your words uttered of my Doctrine: Howbeit you reprove both me and my doctrine in the Concrete, whereas I propund the doctrine in the Abstract, and in that sense of the Abstract, my doctrine is not denyed, but granted: For what scandall can be greater, then, whereas our Saviour hath said of the perfect men, If thou wilt be perfect, Ma [...]. 19. go and sell all that thou hast, and give it to the poore; the Disciple is not above his Master, to determine on the contrarie, that he (I meane our holie Father the Pope) who above all other B shops is most bound to the state of perfection, and to the imitation of Christs poverty, should be Lord of the whole world in Tempo­rall aff [...]i [...]es? Besides, can that Doct ine stand upon any other but a sandy foundation, which is contrarie to the verie words and example of poore Christ himselfe?

5. You deny that Sotus wonders at our Canonists, and yet as you cannot be ignorant) he cites Augustinus Triumphus, Dist. 23. qu. art. 1. with Silvester and Panormitanus, whom he cals Juris-perito [...]s, great learned Legists or Canonists, and terme their opinion of the Popes power directè in Temporalibus, commentitious, that is, a verie fable, an invention, whereof they are the Patrons (as he speaketh) and the great Champions: In particular he much com­plaines of Silvester, and wonders that he hath swerved from the opinion of his Master St. Thomas, being the opinion of the best Divi [...]es: The Lord Cardinall Bellarmine himsefe not one­ly citeth Sotus, but in his Man [...]cript Lectures, and in his first Books the words of Sotus are both found and read; If now be­ing of another mind, he be not pleased to acknowledge and grant us the same, and would have us to bel [...]eve that he hath not written what I now avouch and averre, the matter is not of a­ny great consequence; In his Books we see infinite alterations, choppings and changings every day. Sotus by him cited hath left it upon Record, and that serves my turne: And howsoever, it imports but little to the principall question, whether he will have it so uttered by the tongue and penne of Sotus, or no; that [Page 8] puts me to no manner of trouble, so long as I finde it extant in the writing of Sotus himselfe; whose Doctrine, whose phrase, nay, whose verie words the learned take notice to be in great re­quest with his Lordship, and not a little pleasing to his appe­tite.

6. You practise no small subteltie of refined wit, when you shew, that you are so unwilling, to have that opinion which is taught by many Canonists, called an opinion of the Canonists, where is in the same companie a Divine the same opinion; and that an opinion of the same may not be called an opinion of Divines, when one Canonist is of their side, and holds the same Tenet: But every Novice in Theologie knowes, that Appellatio & Donominatio fit a majori parte, things have their Appella [...]ion and Denomination from the greater part; yea Bellarmine him­selfe works upon this distinction, and the title of the question, using this Argument, Probatur opinio Theologorum, ergo contra­ria opinio est Canonistarum, the opinion of the Divines is appro­ved, and therefore the contrarie opinion is the Canonists; amongst whom, albeit in these last impressions, he cites Na­varrus a Canonist, and not a Divine, neverthelesse, for the rea­son before alledged, it is of no import: The opinion of those, who affirme the Pope to be Lord in Temporals, is called the opinion of Canonists, because it is not founded upon any Autho [...]i [...]ie of Scripture, but only upon certaine Canons or Lawes Registred in the Decrees and Decretals; and the contrarie opinion is that of the Divines, because it is built upon Gods Word in the holie Scriptures.

7. The Supreame Power Temporall (you say) is by all Au­thors (except Heretikes) granted to the Pope: If that be so, then doubtlesse Navarrus (take him for one amongst many other) is a notorious Heretique in this formall conclusion; In cap. No­vit. Quare dicen­dum est, Papam nullam habere potestatem, laicam, ne (que) supremam, ne (que) mediam, ne (que) infimam. The Pope therefore stands in no de­gree at all of Laiorck Temporall power, neither in the highest, nor in the middle, nor in the lowest Region of Temporall power: For my part, I call that opinion Heresie, and so I compt it, which in explicite and implicite sense fights against holy Scripture; and such is the opinion of all those, who affirme the Pope to have [Page 9] Supreame Temporall Authority: Our Lord Christ saith, Mat. 16. Tibi dabo claves Regni coelorum, I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven; and the Pope saith, Regni terrarum, of all Earthlie Kingdomes, Christ saith, Mat. 20. Mark. 10. Luke 22. Ioan. 19. Ioan. 20. Reges Gentium dominantur eorum, vos autem non sic, the Kings of the Earth beare rule over them, but so shall not yee, and the Pope saith, vos autem sic, and so shall ye; Christ saith, my Kingdome is of this World, and the Pope saith, nay, my Kingdome is of this World; and o­ver the whole World: Christ saith, as my Father hath sent me, so doe I send you my Disciples, and the Pope saith, not as the Father hath sent me, so doe I send you: There be two Supream Powers, two Heads of all Christians, Professors of Christian Religion; Terrena potestas caput Regem, Spiritualis potestas ha­bet Summum Pontificem; Hug. de Sanct. vict. l. 2. de Sacr. p. 2. c. 4. the King is the head of all Earthlie and Temporall power, the Pope of all Spirituall power; Pope Gelasius in an Epistle to the Emperour Anastasius; Duo sunt Im­perator Auguste quibus principaliter mundus hic regitur, Aucto­ritas Sacra Pontificum, & Regalis Potestas, This World, Decr. dist. 96. Cau­d [...]o sunt. most noble Emperour, is chiefly governed by two Supreame Powers; the Sacred Authoritie of Popes, and the Temporall Authoritie of Kings, Innocentius III. held this Article for so certaine and indubitable, that he made no scruple to affirme, Cap. Novit. Regem in Tem­poralibus neminem Superiorem recognoscere, that in Temporall causes the Kings of the Earth doe acknowledge and take no mor­tall creature to have anie Superioritie of Power, or any right, a­ny reason, to crowe over their Crownes: How then can there be anie truth in the L. Cardinals affirmative, Pontificem recog­noscit, the King doth acknowledge the Pope, for that is to say; the Pope is dignified and endowed with Supreame Temporall power; with which words I must confesse that I am plunged in a deepe pit of astonishment: For those Authors who grant an indirect Authoritie to the Pope, break not forth into this un­reasonable and exorbitant excesse, but use a certaine mitigation of the word indirectlie, as that it is Spirituall, non per se, sed per ac­cidens, not in it selfe, but by occasion and accessarilie, to write, in case of necessitie, and most of all with consent of the parties in­terested: But for any to affirme, the holie Fathers power to be Supreame and Temporall, fateor scandalum est mihi, to me I [Page 10] must confesse it is a scandall or stumbling block and stone of of­fence, so long as not onely the true doctrine, but also the Doc­trine of the Lord Cardinall Bellarmine can hold up the head and stand in full force.

l. 5. de Rom. pont. c. 3. and 4.8. I have not charged the Lord Cardinall to hold the foresaid Booke was never of St. Thomas his penning; I have onely alled­ged, that his Lordship hath made so good and so cleare demon­stration of that point, that never yet anie answer durst peepe a­broad to contrad [...]ct his Lordships demonstration; As for your subterfuge, that the said Historie was perhaps afterward primed or popt into the foresa d Booke; that carrie [...] no shew of pro [...]a­bilitie, seeing you produce not anie one conj [...]cture, not any one reason to fortifie the same: For to what purpose had any man a mind to patch up the said Historie in so good, so faire a W [...]b, as the foresaid Booke? to what end? how long time since? He that dares take upon him to affirme these things, shall make the credit of all Histories to shrinke and shake. The Lord Cardinall Baronius flies to the same Answers, as to his best refuge: When he is put hard to his trumpes, and shifts, how to untie the knot of an Argument drawne from Historicall Authoritie; straitwaies he thinkes to take up mens lips, and to dazzle their eye-sight with, such and such words are chopt and stollen in since: The fo [...]esaid Booke hath beene extant, and read above 300. yeares, and yet never any man hath taken upon him such temerarious boldnesse, a sober advice to affirme the same words have beene strained or inserted into that Book by anie other fingers: How­beit now you Hetrodox from Cardinall Bellarmine, to aggran­dise the Popes authoritie and to make it Supreame in Temporals, without anie reason or conjecture at all, have borrowed a spirit of boldnesse to pronounce they are inserted, and as it were post­nated after their true parents decease.

9. Howsoever you bring to the words of St. Thomas an Ex­position, which ore proprio you call the soundest; neverthelesse that answer doth not make the Book to be a Bird of St. Thomas his brood; nay it is altogether needlesse; For it sufficed to say, that the Booke was not of his writing, or none of his workes, to make good proofe, that St. Thomas was not adverse or con­trary to himselfe.

[Page 11]10. You call that an irremissible temeritie, not worthy of a­ny pardon, which in case it be temeritie, Can. qui­cun (que) litem. Can. quae­cun (que) con­tentionem. 11. quaest. l. 5. de Rom. pont. cap. 5. certaine it is one of his most illustrious Lordships temerities: For the Canons brought upon this Argument are two; These two are alledged by the Lord Cardinall, and yet first he stiles them not Sacred, and then he thus takes them down with termes of diminution and abate­ment: Respondeo, ex illis Canonibus priorem esse Theodosii Im­peratoris, qui ex pietate, non ex debito, id honoris Eccelesiae: I an­swer, the first of these two Canons proceeded from the grace of Theodosius, by whom out of his most Christian pietie, and not out of any debt or duty, the Church was then so highly honou­red: The verie same for cloth and colour which I speake before of Constantine, and was then by Hetrodox handsomely basted for my labour: A little after, Quem jam esse abr [...]g [...]tum per alios Cannones, Glossa ibidem asserit, which first Canon the Glosse in the same place confirmes to have beene abrogated by other Canons: And yet I must now tell you Hetrodox, the said Ca­non is not well cited out of Gratianus; because that which the Canon containes, was not granted by Theodosius: Posteriorem Canonem perspicuum est non esse alicujus Principis qui posset leges condere; and touching the latter Canon, it is cleere the same was not established by any Prince that had power to make Lawes: Now because I having spoken in my owne phrase and style, doe not give these Canons the high adjunct of Sacred; you therefore Hetrodox fare like one bestraught of his wits, and will have my manner of Speech to be a fault irremissible, as if it were the sin against the Holy Ghost: Such exaggerations tend and serve only to rob men of their Credit and Authoritie.

11. Againe, your selfe refutes the Canons, as the Lord Car­dinall doth, and you are not affraid to affirme they are framed by the assistance of the Holy Ghost.

12. You pretend the Canons ought never to be named but with title of Sacred; and yet your selfe affirming the Canon Quicun (que) was abrogated per alios, Canones, by other Canons, do send them forth like a Bird bared of all her Feathers, and leaving the Epithet Sacred, speake no more but Approved.

13. The Epithet Sacred is no lesse attributed to the civill then to the Canon Lawes; and therefore as it is oftentimes left out, [Page 12] when we name the Civill, so it is oft not remembred when we make mention of the Canons; yea the Canon Quicun (que) is not cited with you adjunct Sacred, but nakedly called the Canon Quicunque.

14. The Decrees of Councels, and of the Church, which (as we teach) cannot erre de fide in point of Faith, are verily Sacred, and made with assistance of the Holy Spirit, yet can we not af­firme without error in fide, that infinite other Canons concerning particular matters and cases, are compiled without any assistance of the Holy Spirit: Ioan. 16. de potest. Rom. Pon­tif. For the Spirit of God teacheth us all truth; whereas Popes in particular Canons have many times erred and may erre; whereof we need to make no doubt, and the Lord Car­dinall often grants it in his learned workes.

15. I have p [...]oduced such Canons as are usually brought by the Defendants of the contrarie opinion, as the foresaid Canons and the like; but you affirme and would make me believe, that I speake of all the Canons, and every matter.

16. You call Concurrence, Contrarietie, and thereby make a confusion of both, for Duo Iura possunt concurrere, two Lawes may well concurre, and yet may not be contrary the one to the o­ther, I give you this for example; The Precept for hearing Masse concurres with the Precept of keeping and tending a sick bodie; I observe not the fi [...]st for hearing the Masse, that I may the better observe the second in attending upon the sick Patient, according to that commandement of Christ, I will have mercy and not Sa­crifice; Is the one of these Precepts contrarie to the other? Will a very sot say so? In like manner, there be manie Canons, which it will be well done to keep, when they may be kept without a­ny detriment unto some greater obligation, I mean, without in­fringing the Law of God, and the Law of Nature; but when that cannot be done, then the Canons must make roome and give place to Natures Law, and that may not be called Contrarietie but Subordination.

17 Lastly, You call the Canons (without any difference at all) Rules given by the Holy Spirit, by godlie Popes and holie Coun­cels, and this you stick not Hetrodox to affirme without anie di­stinction of the Canons, as I said: Herein good Sir, make you not all the Canons indifferently of equall Authoritie to the holy Scri­pture which is inspired of God, as also to the Determinations of the Church, which cannot erre de fide? Nay, do you not give the [Page 13] Canons this honourable Epithet? Have there not been found Er­rors in manie of the Canons? Have they not been revoked and re­pealed? He that makes the Canons, hath not he power to unmake the Canons? Whereas in the holie Scripture, and in the Definiti­ons of the Church de fide, can you find any such defects or impo­tencies there? Can they be bettered? Can they be repealed? Is there any other passable reason thereof besides that which I have alledg [...]d? That holie Scripture is inspired of God primo loco, and the foresaid Definitions de Fide, secundo loco; whereas the Canons, which either do or may contain divers errours, are but humane Lawes: He that dares broach a doctrine contrarie to this, I dare pronounce is no friend or Well-willer to the Catholique truth: Thus have I painted forth your Errors; shall I with your Pati­ence and favour proceed to some further matter touching this third Proposition?

Hetrodox: Take what liberty you please; you shall have in­diff [...]rent hearing.

Orthod. To weaken the sinewes of this our third Proposition, some go about all they can to put out our eyes with Pope Alexan­der VI. who divided the Indies between the Kings of Spain and Portugall, because he was the naturall Prince Temporall thereof, as the Vicar of Christ; and with Leo III. who frankly (by their saying) made a free deed of guift of the Western Empire to Charles the Great for the same reason; that is, because Leo was Christs own Vicar: These Authors are very far out of the right path: For Ale­xander, not as Lord, Patron, and Pr [...]prietarie of the Indies, but as a compromissary Judge, chosen by the said Kings to asswage & utterly to quench the flames of their discord, by his holy sentence umpiered, and awarded the Seas to be divided, whereby the Navy of the one might make Navigation by one of the said Seas, and that of the other might Navigate by the other: He likewise determi­ned, that what acquist soever they made Iure belli by right of War, should remain for ever to the Acquistor and Conqueror, ac­cording to the tenor, true intent, and meaning of his Division; as it is recorded by Historians of that age: It is true that Leo III. hun­ted by the people of Rome out of his Papall Seate, like a Fox un­kennel'd and bolted out of his Earth, was reinstalled therein by CHARLES the Great: Whereupon Leo wrought and procured the People to proclaime and salute CHARLES, [Page 14] Emperour of the West, as Platina hath related: Which act sometimes the Historians ascribe to the Romane people, who finding the Empire not gloriously governed by the Greekes, elec­ted another Emperour more antiquo: Sometimes they say, that Charles having once seized the state, bought and purchased the title thereunto of Irene and Nicephorus the Greeke Emperour: Sometimes that Irene and Nicephorus were well pleased and contented to give way unto such division of the Greek Empire: In briefe, be that matter as it may, most certaine it is, the Pope who had beene chased out of his Papall Seate, and had no posses­sion at all, neither did give, nor could give the possession of the Western Empire unto King Charles, who had already griped it in his Princely talans, and was now become Lord thereof Iure belli; by right of Warre: Besides it is not yet certaine and cleere, but in some question, whether Leo absolutely gave Charles the title to the Westerne Empire, or no: But as well in this case as in some other, which may be alledged against our Proposition, it is to be answered; That for so much as the Pope never had any Authoritie from Christ in Temporals (as we have already shew­ed, and intend cleerly to demonstrate in the next Proposition) If the Pope at anie time hath exercised the said Authoritie; either he used that practise with consent of parties interessed, or else because he is armed with some Temporall power by one of the foresaid foure waies, and thereby neverthelesse it is not proved, that ever the Pope had any Authoritie directly in Temporals from Christ our Saviour: Besides, many acts are done by some, whereof in case a man should aske by what right such acts are passed, it would prove no easie taske to find out such right.

Hetrodox, I can hold my tongue, yea hardly my hands no longer: As the Proposition it selfe makes nothing to the present purpose, no more doe the Arguments Pro and Con: you say that Alexander VI. divided the Sea betweene the Kings of Spaine and Portugall, and that he determined whatsoever they wonne by Right of Warre, [...]b. Quaest. in lib. Iosua qu. 10. should be their owne. Here if by Right of Warre you understand a just Warre, which alwaies presuppo­seth some injurie received by those against whom the Warre is moved, as luculently St. Augustine declares, then you say verie well. But if your meaning be, that warre may be moved against [Page 15] the Infidels of the Indies, when they offer no manner of hurt or wrong to Christian [...], and onely to make a Conquest of their Countries, your judgement is erroneous, and you strive against the streame of the best Divines, as Cardinall Cajetanus, Cajet. in Com. in 2. 2. 9. 66. art. 8. Sotus 5. de Iust. & Iur. q. 3. Art. 5. Vincen­tius, &c. For they and manie more are of this opinion, that Infi­dels of the Indies are the true Lords of their own Countries; For by the Doctrine of Thomas, Fides & Gratia non destruunt Natu­ram, Faith and Grace destroy not Nature; and therefore they never deprive any People or Nation of that which they had be­fore they received [...]he Faith; neither is it lawfull to goe and make a Conquest of Provinces, as men goe forth to hunt Wilde Beasts void of humane reason: And this moved Sotus to affirme, that Pope Alexander VI. did not give the Indies to the Kings of Ca­stile and Portugall, but onely granted, that whereas Preachers were to travaile into those new-found Lands and Countries, the two Kings might send Souldiers in Armes, to defend as well the Preachers, as also the new Christians: To this I subjoyne, that Pope Alexander, as the head of all Christians, seeing the danger of Warre like to ensue betweene these two Christian Princes, for free trade and Traffique into the Indies; was pleased to deter­mine, the King of Castile should have the honour of Navigation to the West-Indies, and the King of Portugall to the East: you touch a little after, Orthodox, the Translation of the Empire made by Leo III. and knowing full well the controversie of this mat­ter between Matthias Illyricus a Lutherane Heretique, and Car­dinall Bellarmine, it seemes good in your eyes (as men alwaies tie themselves and adhere to the worse part whether of things or persons) to follow the steps of the Heretique in his erroneous o­pinion: And thereupon you presume to affirme, that Charles the great obtained the Empire by guift of the Romane people, or bought a Title thereunto of Irene and Nicephorus Emperours, or else that Irene and Nicephorus were well contented with such parting of stakes and sharing in the Empire; and to be short, you say, it is most certaine, the Pope gave not the Empire to Charles the Great, and yet you know, Cardinall Bellarmine proves by the Authoritie of 33. Historians, of ten Emperors of all the Im­periall Electors, of seven Popes, and by evident reasons besides, (after he hath well sifted and scanned all the Titles that belong [Page 16] to the Acquist of an Empire) that Charles the Great was in­vested and inthronised in the Empire by Pope Leo III. the Bi­shop of Bishops: So that your opinion (which makes you seem but a new Divine) according in unison with Illyricus, may well be termed an Historicall Heresie, or an Heresie in Historie, and a Temeritie in Divinitie, because it gives a soare Counter-b [...]ffe to all Historians, Cap. Vene­rabilem. de Elect. and Sacred Canons: To pretermit all other pla­ces, these be the words of Pope Innocentius III. Romanum Im­perium in personam magnifici Caroli Sedes Apostolica transtulit ad Germanos; The Apostolicall See translated the Roman Em­pire from the Greekes to the Germans in the person of the Mag­nificall Charles the Great: In clement. Rom pontif. Pope Clement V. and joyntlie the Generall Councell of Vienna repeats the same: Is not hee then temerarious, that dares give two Popes and one Councell the lie? Neither can it be true, that Platina hath anie record to the contrarie: For Platina doth no more but affirme, that by decree and request of the Roman people, the Pope created Charles Em­perour of the Germanes: So that all that Platina hath avouched, in effect is thus much and no more, that the people of Rome de­creed the Pope should be sued unto and petitioned, that he would be pleased to install Charles in the Westerne Empire; that Charles in like manner did win the Garland of the Romane Em­pire, it cannot be true; because he never made War against the Romanes, lesse true, that ever he purchased anie Title of Irene and Nicephorus: These are only the fictions of Matthias Illyri­cus, without any one yard or foot of good foundation: Much lesse true, that Charles tooke the Imperiall Dignitie by any pow­er in the Romane people to conferre the same: For all the anci­ent Romane Emperours were chosen by the Armie, or else by the next precedent Emperour: And therefore Maximus and Balbinus, both elected Emperours by the Senate, were very soone after slaine by the Souldiers, who disdained and scorned to accept or acknowledge anie Emperours set up by the Senate, Herodiact. 8. or by them advanced to the Imperiall Dignitie: St. Hierome also is an authenticall witnesse, that Romane Emperors were elected by the Souldiers: Ep. 85. ad Eva. Lastly, whereas you say, that when Charles the Great was invested, then Pope Leo had no possession of the Empire; that's but a poore shift, and no barre at all to the Popes [Page 17] guift; For the Pope gave not Charles the possession, but the Title onely, and the reason by meanes whereof hee became the lawfull Prince of those Countries, which the Westerne Empe­rours were accustomed to govern, and to have the same Dignitie and Prerogative, which the said ancient Emperours had posses­sed and enjoyed: Which that he might doe, it was not needfull for the Pope himselfe to be possessor of the Empire; sufficient it was that he was Pope, and consequentlie had Apostolicall power, by which power (in case it be profitable or necessarie for the state of Christendome) he may lawfullie dispose of Chri­stian Kingdomes and Empires, as appeares by the manifold prac­tise of our former Popes, to have beene done in former ages.

Orthod. I have said once before, and I doubt not but you beare it in remembrance, that jure Pontificatus, by Right of Pope­dome, the Pope hath no power to exercise Temporall Domini­on, because the Vicar can have no greater power then the Prin­cipall; and againe, because the actions of Christ our Lord must be a Rule to his Vicar of all their actions: Vpon the firme ground of those Reasons, I have lately brought in and built (greatlie to the purpose if I be not greatlie deceived) two Arguments of the Adversaries, drawn à Facto from the Fact, to impugne the true Doctrine in Iure, in case and point of Right; the one of Alexan­der VI. and the other of Leo III. which two Popes (it may at least so seem) have exercised Temporall Dominion; For the one divided the Indies betweene the Kings of Spaine and Portu­gall, the other translated the Empire into the West, or (to utter my mind better) declared Charles the Great Emperour of the West: These two Arguments I have answered before, with one Reason thus; That Iure Pontificatus, by right of their Pope­dome these acts were not done; Then I rendered a Reason of the said Acts, Non ex propriâ Sententiâ, not as out of mine owne Judgement, but according to the writings of Historians; whether this be to the purpose or no, I leave the consideration hereof to your selfe, when you shall be in a better temper: In the meane time take notice of your particular Errours.

1. You fall into a Digression of just Warre, and the way to be taken, or course to be followed; in converting the Indians to the Faith and knowledge of Christ: Surelie this Digression [Page 18] might verie well have beene spared; or else upon as good ground, and with no lesse reason, you might have made another Digressi­on of Navigation: For I have only affirmed, that Pope Alexan­der VI. made the former Division, that neither of the two Kings might be anie impediment or hinderance to the others Navigati­ons and acquists: Whether the Kings of Spaine and Portugall have made lawfull Acquists of those barbarous people and Coun­tries or no, that nothing at all concernes our present discourse; especiallie because it should be far from us once to harbour a thought of those Catholique and most Christian Kings underta­kings, but upon great reason and good conscience; wee now treate only of Pope Alexanders Division; I have presupposed, that as well the Navigations, as the Acquists were lawfull, as purchased Iure belli, by Right of Warre; as in verie deed they were, and to cast any doubts in certaine cases, it is meere folly; which I trust is lawfull and free for me to utter in defence of the Catholique King of Spaine, Philip III. my Naturall and Liege Lord, who now holds the possession of the said States Iust [...] ti­tulo, by j [...]st and lawfull title.

2. You stand and stick stoutly to this Division of Alexander VI. but you tell us not, whether he made such Division de Jure or de Facto, with good warrant of Right, or onely by way of bare Fact; you onely affirme that hee made the Division as the Head of all Christendome: But every Christian (we hold and say) hath two Heads, the one in Spiritualls, let him be the Pope, the other in Temporals, and he will be (whosoever saies nay) the Naturall, the lawfull Prince Temporall of this or that State: Now that Division was not made by Alexander VI. as a Tem­porall Prince, Ergo, as a Spirituall: but as a Spirituall Prince, (as hath beene already shewed and proved) he could not be in­vested with anie such power; and had he then beene so invested, the Indies were no Countries of Christians, but of Infidels: His Fact was therefore to be excused, as I have excused the same ac­cording to divers Historians, that he made the Division as Com­promissarie, and Judge chosen by the parties: I confesse this judgement was to be put and referred to Alexander VI. rather then to any other, because he was Christs Vicar, and Superiour Head to the said Kings in Spirituals, and herein his Indirectlie, [Page 19] granted by some Divines, is not denyed: For that Indirectlie doth not import anie Authoritie or absolute Jurisdiction in Tem­porals, except it be accidentallie, by chance, by councell, by ad­monition, by reproofe in all patience and instruction: Therefore when the great Canonist Navarrus, and all other Doctors well grounded, Cap. Novit. de judiciis. take upon them to handle these and the 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 g [...]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, [Page 20] 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 [Page 21] 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) Su­t [...] 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 [Page 22] 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 poss [...]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 human [...] 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; [Page 23] 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 D [...]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 f [...]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 [Page 24] 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.

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 [Page 25] 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 at (que) 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 v [...]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 [Page 26] 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: [Page 27] 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 Quemcuu (que) but Quodcun (que) 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 [Page 28] 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 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 [Page 29] 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 Exc [...]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 [...]onum faecit habente [...], 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 K [...]yes, and would have [Page 30] 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, [Page 31] 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 of his words as we find it spun and woven by his owne fingers.

Credimus Romanum Pontificem, quatenus solùm est Rom. Pon­tifex, & Vicarius Christi summus, nudus ab omnibus Privilegiis & donariis humanis, nullam habere Potestatem Laicam, ne (que) Summam, ne (que) Mediam, ne (que) infimam, ne (que) Actu, ne (que) Habitu, habere vero Potestatem Ecclesiasticam, nonè à Christo Serva [...]ore nostro institutam, qualis nunquam ante illius institutionem in orbe fuit, quae (que) est Species Potestatis distinctae à Laica & longè nobilior ea, ut Aurum est Species Metalli distincta à Specie plumbi, & [...]â nobilior, quae (que) directè solùm amplectitur super-naturalia, indi­rectè vero eatenus naturalia, quatenus sunt necessaria ad conse­cutionem finis supernaturalis ob quem sunt instituta.

In which Text of Navarrus, the longer it is, the more points are observeable: As first of all, that where you charge Navarrus to affirme, that Papall power is not meerely Temporall, hee gives not so much as the least suspition of the said pretended and imputed affirmation; he rather stands out and holds out for the cleane contrary assertion: Then secondly, that what Laick pow­er soever is annexed to the Pope, he hath got it by the Priviled­ges of noble Princes, and by the Donaries (if I may take up Na­varrus his owne word) of Magnificent Personages, but not as Christs Vicar: Then thirdly, that as the Vicar of Christ he hath [Page 32] not a hands breadth, not an Inch of Laick power, neither in the highest degree, nor in the middle ranke, nor in the lowest region: Then fourthly, that he hath neither the Act nor the Habit of Laick power, whereby he may be so much as enabled to exercise the same, though he should never put it in practise, but keepe it up close like a Bee in a Box, or as men say, like a Sword alwaies in the Scabbard: Then fiftly, that his power is Ecclesiasticall, the same that was instituted by Christ our Lord, a power never heard of in the world before Christs institution: Then Sixtly, that his Ecclesiasticall power hath nothing at all to doe with Laick power, but is directly distinct from the same in Specie, as the Species of Gold is directly distinct from the Species of Lead, so that as Gold is not Lead, and Lead is not Gold, even in like manner Papall power is no way Temporall, and Laick power is no way the same with Papall power: Then Seventhly, that Papall power directly stretcheth out his arms to imbrace things that are Supernaturall; as Grace by name, given by his Holinesse thorow the meanes of holy Sacraments, as Catholiques believe; and the same grace is meerely a thing Supernaturall: Eightly and lastly, that Pontificiall power indirectly makes use of things naturall, instituted by Christ for a Supernaturall end, as water to baptise, oyle for that action which we call Extreame, or last unction, 1 Cor. 19. and silver for Almes, ordaining besides, that hee who serves at the Altar should live by the Altar; and that no mouth of any Oxe which treads out the corne be at any time muzzeled, according to Christs institution, for the better obtaining of the Supernaturall end: This is the power whereof Navarrus af­firmes (as you seeke to beare me downe) that forsooth it is not meerely Temporall: Doth Navarrus there speake of Tempo­rall power? Nay, doth Navarrus once dreame thereof? For albeit he speakes of the use of naturall things, yet he cals them neither Secular, nor Temporall, nor Civill, but onely naturall; and restraines them to those things which were instituted to a Supernaturall end, and not so far forth as they are naturall, but as they are Spirituall, that is to say, as they are clothed and ap­parelled with goodnesse of the Supernaturall end, according to Christs owne institution: How then can that be true, which you charge Navarrus to affirme, that Papall power is Layick [Page 33] and Temporall, howsoever not meerly Layick and Temporall? and that as Pope hee may intrude himselfe into the exercising of Temporall Dominion and Jurisdiction? But with you Hetro­dox it is no new or strange thing (as oft it hath beene knowne and seene) to cite Authors for some opinion, who teach a cleare contrary Doctrine.

4. You stand for the Popes Kingdome to be a Kingdome that governes all Kingdomes: Then belike he steers the huge Argon­fie of the grand Signior, and of the mighty Tartarian, and the most potent Monarch of China too: But I believe he dares not once presume to set his foote in any of their powerfull A [...]kes: No, no; the Pope is no Governour of Kingdomes, but Pastor of Christians, it is more then high time to pull up by the rootes all such thoughts, purposes, and projects to sway the Scepter of secular Princes, Kings, and States, Non est Discipulus super Ma­gistrum, the Disciple is not above his Master, nor the servant above his Lord.

5. Item. You make the chiefe Bishop a God (as God was t [...] ­ken of the old Philosophers) that is, to be causa prima, the first cause of things: For thus you say; As God governes all King­domes, and takes not away from Kings the Kingdoms ruled and governed by his omnipotentarme, so the Pope governs all King­domes, and takes them not away from the true owners, to whom in right and reason they belong, so far exorbitant is this your comparison, and openeth so great, so wide a gate unto Ido­latry, that I cannot, I dare not passe by the gate thereof, but with a warie foote: What? Is the Pope then omnipotent, om­niscient? Ʋbi (que) per Essentiam, praesentiam, & potentiam? Is his Holinesse every where by his Essence, by his presence, by his power, for as much as he immediately governes all Kingdomes, as they are governed by God himselfe? I know not Hetrodox how it is possible, that so vast, so exorbitant imaginations have taken roote in the Intellectuall Facultie of any Christian man.

6. Againe, to give but not to grant you thus much; (I mean, to give it for courtesie sake, though not grant it for a veritie) that our Popes governe all Temporall and Earthly Kingdomes, as they are governed by God himselfe, yet all the learned know, that God suffers the second causes to work, and himselfe is only con­current [Page 34] with all their operations; with all that are good he con­curres Positivè by position: with all that are evill, Permissi­vè, by permission. Then for example, when the operati­ons of the most Christian King are good, wherefore should the Pope not suffer him still to be in such action? Here I would have no man step in with a frivolous answer, the Pope will not suff [...]r the King so to doe, because the Pope is perswaded the Kings operations are wicked, and therefore hee will take order for the remedy and reformation thereof: For if the Pope should undertake the attempt and enterprise to reforme all wicked men, first he should be nothing like unto God, who many times per­mits wicked men to range in the waies of their own will: Se­condly, he should have a holy designe to attempt and enterprise the hardest labours of all other; as to tumble the great Turke downe from his Imperiall Throne, to pull his Regall Crowne from his Royall Head, or to convert all the Indies, or to reduce the whole World to the unity of the Church, and such like mat­ters of the highest stuffe; which because the Pope neither will nor can performe, it is easie for all men to judge, that his Holi­nesse, for all your sayings, doth not governe all Kingdomes as God himselfe doth.

7. Moreover, you faine would make men believe, that as God governes all Kingdomes, not depriving any of their Free-hold, whether it be Kingdome or Power; so the Pope governes Kingdomes, and takes not power from Kings; First, because those words of the Church are spoken of Christ man, and not of of Christ God (as the Lord Cardinall saith) of whom Herod was afraid that he would spoile him of his Kingdome; Hostes He­rodes impie, Christum venire quid times? O ungodly enemie, King Herod, what ayles thee to be afraid of Christs comming? Then Secondly, because no man is to busie himself like a Polyprag­mon with exercise of Temporall power within the Dominions of any other Prince, as a Prince Independent, neither can any man exercise the said power therein, without robbing the said Prince of his lawfull power within his owne Dominions, what man ever enriched himselfe without impoverishing of some other?

8. Again, you make it a crime no lesseheinous then Herefie, for a­ny man to teach the power of Jurisdiction given to the Apostles, [Page 35] is the very same power which Christ himselfe gave: My rea­ding tels me not a word of any other Text, where our Lord Christ hath given his Apostles the power of Jurisdiction; Ioan. 20. yea all the Doctors, nay Christ himselfe doth not furnish mee with any other Text, but in the same he teacheth us three things; the first is, Data est mihi omnis potestas in Coelo & in terrâ, All power is given to me both in Heaven and in Earth; And this he speakes to teach, that his good will and pleasure was to commu­nicate some part of his entire and absolute power unto his Apo­stles: The second, Sicut misiit me Pater, & ego mitto vos, As my Father hath sent me, so I send you; that is, my Father sent me to take away, to cancell all bonds for sinne, and to worke all that which Hetrodox and Cardinal Bellarmine hath produced and alledged conatrry to the foresaid second Proposition, and in like sort I send you now, O my Apostles, to doe and performe the said workes; In which words our Saviour Christ made not his Apostles entercommoners with himselfe in his whole Spirituall Power [...] No, no such matter, for hee communicated not unto them the power (say we) to absolve without Sacraments, nor power to institute Sacraments, &c. nor the power of his owne Spirituall and Heavenly Kingdome, so that Sicut, the word As, must be taken in a limited sense, and not without some dooles and bounders of Limitation: The third, that Christ breathed on the Apostles, and said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sinnes ye shall remit, &c. There our Saviour Christ likewise li­mits the word Sicut, As: That is to say, I give you Spirituall Jurisdiction over Soules, and over sinnes, O my deare and faith­full servants: Can there be any doubt or question hereof? No verily; For here the promise is fulfilled: What promise? The same that Christ made to Peter and the rest of the Apostles un­der the Metaphor of Binding and Loosing, of locking up in Pri­son with Keyes, and of delivering from Prison by the same Keyes: This runs currant, and so shall runne so long as the houre-glasse of old Father Time hath a drop of water, or a crum of sand to let fall; That for certaine the servitude or bondage from which we are delivered by Christ, is the slaverie of sinne; so that our liberty must needs be the liberty of Grace; Mat. 18. And that is the rea­son wherefore the promise of Christ made in Metaphoricall [Page 36] Speech, is expounded in these plaine and proper termes, whose sinnes ye shall forgive, Ioan. 20. &c. For to locke and to deliver with Keyes, to bind and to let loose, to forgive and to retaine sinnes, are phrases of Speech importing and signifying one thing, partly according to proper, and partly according to Metaphoricall Con­struction.

9. You maintaine that Pontificiall power is unlimited; but I cannot see your Assertion backt with any Reason or Authori­ty, neither can I find with what Leggs it walkes, or upon what stumps it stands▪ For the Lord God alone is cloathed and ar­med with unlimited power; The Principall himselfe is invested with unlimited power, but so is not his Vicar or Vice-gerent: And besides, to speake out of the teeth (be you never so loth to heare it) I cannot see how it is not repugnant unto Christian Faith, to affi [...]me, the whole power that Christ had hims [...]l [...]e as Head of the Church, and that now he retaineth in Heaven, hee hath communicated to the Pope; which doubtlesse whosoever affirmes (if your selfe be the affirmant) he affirmes, who affirmes the Popes Power is without limitation. Ioan. 20.

10. Againe, You have heard me onely stand for the power of Jurisdiction, which our Saviour gave in these words, Re­ceive ye the Holy Ghost; and you now urge the word Pasce, Feed; which word wraps in both powers, not only the pow­er of Jurisdiction, but also the power of O [...]der.

11. I have not restrained the Popes Power to this or that kind of Subj [...]cts, but have onely spoken in generall, and have yeelded to the Pope all that Spirituall Jurisdiction: By like, He­trodox, you thinke that you talke and conferre with a man of Wood, with a stock, that hath not so much as the least sparke of Discourse, or of Religion upon the Subject now in confe­rence: But you shall find your selfe deceived, and that you have to deale with an Antagonist neither stock-like, nor block-like.

12. Without any occasion you passe over the River to the Pastures; I meane to the word Pasce, Feed; and here you say, that in the originall Greeke it signifies, Peter, governe and rule my Lambes: Now Sir, I doe not deny, that Christ is the Spirituall King and Pastor of the Church, or that as Temporall [Page 37] Kings in Scripture are called Pastors, Feeders, and Shepheards in Temporals, even so Christ himselfe the Pastor is likewise King in Spirituals: Nor doe I deny the Pope to be Christs Vi­car, and vice-roy with a limited Power in Spirituals, a power e­very way most eminent, as extending over Christian soules: But from this can you Hetrodox well collect and gather, that our Holy Father the Pope is a Temporall King? much lesse a Spirituall King, as Christ is himselfe; and least of all, that hee hath any Temporall Power by right of hi [...] Pontificiall Dignity and Authority: St. John takes up the Greeke word [...] twice, and the word [...] but once: Hee thereby expounds that one word with two words, which without all doubt signifie Pasce, Feed: Nay, the word [...] properly signifies to feed, and by a Metaphor to rule and governe, as in the aforesaid Text, as in this Text of St. Johns Revelation: All this makes much against you Hetrodox, and nothing at all to favour your cause: Will you now give mee leave to make good my Exposition of the word Pasce, Feed, with Authority of the holy Fathers.

Hetrodox. Proceed at your pleasure.

Orthodox. Ter dictum est, Pasce, &c. Three times over the Lord Christ repeated the word, Feed, to St. Peter: And wherefore thrice? Forsooth to intimate that all such as are charged with cure of soules, are bound to feed their People tri­plici Pastu, with a three-fold Dyet; namelie with the Food of Gods heavenly word, with Food of good Example in life, and with Temporall Aid, so far as their meanes are not wanting: But alasse, this three-fold Feeding is now adaies changed by un­conscionable shepheards into a three-fold polling and pelting of their Flocks, by pilling and pinching their Subjects with intol­lerable burthens of exactions, without anie due regard at all to the said three-fold Feedi [...]g: Thus Chrysostome. Hom. 87.

Perpende verba, Pasce agnos meos, &c. weigh these words of Christ well, Feed my Lambes; that is, Feed my faith­full Flock not thine; use them not as thy proper Possessi­on, but as mine; I therefore asked, if thou lovest mee O Peter, because I have a purpose to recommend my little Flocke to thy Feeding, and to bee kept of thee as mine owne Goods and Cattells, that love which thou bearest [Page 38] my selfe in profession, I would have thee shew and practise to­wards my tender Lambes, Fat not, pamper not up thy selfe, like those unfaithfull Shepheards, of whom the holy Prophet cryed, Ezech. 34. Vae Paestoaibus, woe to the Shepheards of Israel, that have fed their owne bellies; That man that feeds himselfe, who gapes after his owne gaine, who hunts after his owne glorie, who removes every stone for his owne commodity, never s [...]e­king for the benefit of the Faithfull over whom hee beares rule, never aiming at Gods glorie in exercising the state and office of a Ruler: Tract. 132. in Ioann [...]m. Thus far St. Augustine, Qui hoc animo pascunt ones, &c. Such as feed the Flock with a mind to make the sheep their owne, and none of Christs, doubtlesse beare no love at all to Christ himselfe; St. Augustine againe:

Ibid. Sicut oves meas Pasce, non sicut tuas, Feed the Flock as my sheepe, and not as thine owne Cattle, in them seeke my Glo­ry, my gaine, and neither thine owne gaine, or thine owne glorie.

This Peter himselfe hath also taught; Feed the Flock of God which dependeth upon you, 1 Petr. 5. caring for it not by constraint, but willingly, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind, not as if ye were Lords over Gods heritage, but that ye may be examples to the Flock.

These be the exercises of the true Shepheard, and thus the words, Feed my Lambes, are to be understood; and not, that the Popes Feeding should be a Temporall reigning over all Tempo­rall Kings: The holy Fathers, you see Hetrodox, teach the contray; namely, that hee ought carefelly to shun and avoid all filthy Lucre, Acquists, Glory, Dominion, &c.

13. Againe, by Quodcun (que) solveris, whatsoever thou Pe­ter shalt loose, you understand every thing; And by this means the Pope shall have power to untie all kno [...]s, to set open all pri­sons, to transferre all Kingdomes, to deliver all the slaves in Turkie at his pleasure, nay, to solve all difficulties in all matters whatsoever: What man doth not perceive the f [...]lsity of this Doctrine? Our Lord Christ c [...]me to deliver Soules from sinne, and as the onely Redeemer; So teach all Divines: The Pope by like shall worke the same effects; hee shall cooperate in this great worke of Redemption, he shall bind and loose the sinnes [Page 39] of [...]; you have no reason Hetrodox to cast such colours on your false opinions, whereby to make the Pope Lord and Pa­trone of every thing with a Quodcun (que) whatsoever; For [...]ere is no such matter as you conceive in your dreames.

14. Againe, the word Soule, is understood and taken, some­times for the whole man, and sometimes for the Spirit of man above, according to the matter handled: Now your Argu­ment is drawne from one place to another; For St. Paul speaks of Temporall Dominion: The word Omnis anima, every Soule in understood of power over mens bodies, and in Temporality; But because our Lord Christ gave Spirituall Power to Peter, the word Animas, Soules, which is used in the Prayer of the Church, doth signifie the Spirit or Soule of Man, and not his Body, in Spirituality forsooth; and not in Temporality.

15. Those who wiped the word Animas out of the Brevi­ [...]rie, were inspired (as you believe) by the Holy Spirit of God; I never yet read or heard, that Gods owne Spirit is the Author of Dissention, strife, or Discord: But well I wot, Peace is one of the Gifts or Fruits of the Holy Spirit: The makers of the foresaid Prayer aymed at the Exposition of these words, Quodcun (que) ligvaeris, whatsoever thou shalt bind, by the word Animas, and by that other Text, Quorum remiseritis peccata, whose sinnes ye remit, as a just exposition of the word Ani­mas, because all sinnes (to speake properly) are bred and hatcht up in the Soule, not in the Bodie: And this they did to a speciall end and purpose; namely to drive certaine Opinastres from their Tenent or hold, That Popes are Domini in Temporalibus & Spiritualibus, the absolute Lords over mens goods, their Bo­dies and Soules, with a power to bind and loose all things; as it seemes, your selfe Hetrodox is of the same opinion: This Expo­sition they made by the word Animas, and by the same expo­sition they produced an excellent remedy against all Discords, which might grow betweene the Pope and other Princes about Meu [...] & Tuum, about Mine & Thine, whereas on the other side, those who last spung'd the Breviarie by taking away the word Animas, have ministred new Tinder and Match to kin­dle the Coales of great contention, discord, and litigious quar­rels: Besides, it is not unknowne to the World, that in the [Page 40] Bookes of the Councels, of the Canons, and of other Doctors, yea downe so low as to the very Breviaries, and Missals, many matters recorded and registred in favour of Layick Princes, have beene blotted and still are scraped out of the ancient Rolls; and all to make experiment, if, after long travaile and sore labour, that huge mountaine of opinion, de illimitatâ Potestate Pontificis in Temporalibus, touching the unboundable power of the Pope in Temporals, might be brought forth, reared up, and established in the Church of God: Conferre the Bookes printed in 30. and 50. with Bookes printed in these daies, as well the Bookes of Councels, as of others, and the notable evidence of a goodly vin­tage will manifestly appeare, so as it may be reckoned for a won­der, that after so great a vintage there be found some few clusters or bunches of Grapes, which make for the honourable Rights and Titles of our most gracious Princes: This way, if it shall be followed long, will prove the high way to crack the credit of all Scripture, and to bring the whole Church of God to finall Ruine.

16. Againe, In the text of the ancient Breviaries, you tell us the word Animas was never extant: These eyes of mine have seene Manuscript Breviaries of more then 200. yeares anti­quity, with some Breviaries printed, of more then an 100. The word Animas is extant in both; and were it not extant, yet I say it ought, for the removing of all occasions of discord, there to have a place.

17. Last of all, you confound the word of Disobedience with the word of Obstinacie: This I hold for a certaine Position, the man that disobeyeth a Law, cannot incurre the censure of Ex­communication; This likewise for no lesse indubitable, the man obstinate in sinne cannot be excommunicated, when he hath not beene admonished of his fault or offence before: But I never so much as dreamed to affirme the one or the other of these Positi­ons: I have hitherto onely affirmed, that for the enwrapping of anie man within the most sore bands of Excommunication, two things are of necessity to be presupposed; the one, that hee hath fallen into some sinne, the other, that being admonished there­of divers and sundry times, hee hath not repented; And what else is that but obstinacie in sinne? For if any man shall commit [Page 41] 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.

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 fif [...]h Pro­position, though I know you to be a most expert and skillfull master at the sh [...]rpe.

Hetrodox. Well Sir, let us leave complementall prefacing, and fall roundly to the matter: Your fifth Proposition goes up­on [Page 42] these same legs, if I well remember the termes: That a [...]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 S [...]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 C [...]l [...]y' [...] declared the same in these words; Ecclesiasticall Immuni [...]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 ten [...]erity dare set your face and foot against so many Squadrons of the Lords Armie, that is, against so many Vniversall Coun­cels.

Cap quam (que) de Consibus.Before the said Counsels, Pope Boniface left in good Record, as a matter notorious, and of none denyed, that Church-men, [Page 43] 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. Ca [...]. 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 Es [...]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 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 H [...]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 d [...]ff [...]s from theirs, who are commonly cited under the name of Heretiques; which to be plaine, i [...] likewise my opinion.

1. There is a great difference betweene these two termes, [Page 44] not Subject and exempt: For the man is not subject unto any Prince, Propositions fore [...]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 Pri [...]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, [Page 45] 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 p [...]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 [Page 46] 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 (qui liberiùs aliis locuti sunt) in medium protulerunt; objiciunt enim primò, nullam extare legem divinam, quâ Clerici eximuntur à Jurisdictione Principum laicarum, &c. It shall not here be amisse, to frame some briefe answer unto the Arguments produced by Conarruuias and Medina, who have suffered their tongues to walk & range more freely then other writers: For they first alledge, that Exemption of Clerics from the Jurisdiction of Laick Princes, is not warranted by any one tit­tle of Gods Law, &c. The L. Cardinall answers their Arguments, as Arguments of Catholique Doctors; and otherwise, by his leave, he suffers the knots of their Arguments to hold untyed, and without any Doctor-like resolution: And i [...] is no marvaile, that our side is not overshadowed with any great cloud or heap of authenticall witnesses; because likewise the Authors, who stand for the contrary opinion, are very thin sowen; Besides, this doubt is but new crept into the Schooles; and again, if a­ny man write with a free and full penne upon that subject, he is put unto his Recantation, like the Lord Cardinall, or that which is written to purpose, is cancelled and rased, or else he is charged with sore threatnings: Sotus indeed had freely deli­vered [Page 47] his mind of this matter; but in the end, subjoyning a cer­ta [...] cas [...]le without any foundation, which mar'd all that upon a good foundation he had built before, being not able otherwise to avoid some blow, he concluded the whole, with Servum [...] multa decet sentire, & pauca loqui, men that stand ob­vious to the lash of the whip, may debate of many matters in their judgments, but should not be too free of their tongues: And for my particular, I had never taken the liberty so freely and so fa [...] to imbarque my pe [...] in the faire ship of these eight Propositions, but as Necessitate coactus propter evidens periculum [...]iarum, as enforced by necessity in a desperate case of most evident danger of many Soules, and in the lawfull defence of my most Catholique and lawfull Prince his quarrell. In times of peace [...]any things are shut up under the hatches of the tongue, which in times of contentions, and quarrels learned men are enforced to write, if they have any spirit or courage to defend the truth: And howsoever I have now followed the free'st course, both in writing and speaking my mind to the full, though I be reproved and hated by such as your selfe Hetrodox, who [...]ve deeply interessed and engaged themselves in the maine, yet I shall never by Gods grace repent me of my paines, as if in so doing I had committed any evill; that of the Comicall Poet will ever stand good and true; Obsequium amicos, veritas odium p [...]ri [...], Obsequious Flattery finds many friends, but plain-dealing Truth may go shake her Eares.

4. My opinion is the better founded, the more true, and the more infallible; because it is confessed by Cardinall Bellarmine, that no Scripture, no Councell, no Canon, and none of the holy Fathers hold the contrary, as in the Defence following it shall well appeare; and as before hath been shewed out of Thomas, Augustine; and Jerome, cited for the contrary opinion, which in­deed hath no approbation, but only of some few Canonists; who, howsoever they affirme and maintain, that Exemption of Cle­rics is grounded upon Gods Law, doe not understand Gods written Law, and lesse the Law of Nature; neither by necessa­ry consequence, but only by a certaine probability: As thus King Pharoh exempted all the Idolatrous Priests of Egypt from all Tribute, and Artaxerxes freed the Priests of Israel from the [Page 48] like burthens; It may therefore seeme in probability à Simili, from the like, agreeable to Decency, That Christian Princes ought in like manner to exempt Christian Priests from pay­ment of Tributes, and other Taxations of like nature: This Argument, I must confesse, is drawn from holy Scripture, which is Gods Law: But it strongly makes against our Adversaries in their Tenent, because it concludes, that Secular Princes, and not God himselfe, ordained the said Exemption, the very Asserti­on, which I maintain; Besides, Arguments drawn from a simi­litude are of small force, or none at all: For by the same reason it might be thus argued; In the old Law, which is Gods Law, Priests were permitted to marry; Ergo, it is by Gods Law, that Priests are now married in the Evangelicall Law: And that de Jure Divino by Gods Law, is understood by the fore-named Au­thors, according to this my Exposition. I appeale to the Lord Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe in the place before alledged.

5. The new opinion of the Lord Cardinall, and newly brought into the Church, without any reason or authority, concerning this matter, hold by three strings.

1. That Exemption of Clerics from Secular power is not built upon Gods written Law, because it is no where comman­ded in holy Scripture; much lesse upon the law of nature, or the law morall, which Divines likewise call the Law of God, as the Docalogue, or ten Commandements, &c. wherein the Lord Cardinall Medina, Conarruuias, and my selfe doe all a­gree.

2. By Gods Law again, he understands a certain Decencie and Conformity with the examples of K. Pharoh and K. Artexerxes, and from their Examples he collects, that Christian Princes are t do the same, but dares not say, they are bound to that strain of Benignitie; whereupon he confesseth in a manner, that doubtlesse it appertaineth unto Princes to grant such Immunity or Exemption; but yet Princes are not bound to shew such Grace by those Texts of Scripture, for as much as in the said passages there is not so much as the least umbrage or shadow of any such obligation to be seen or found.

3. By Gods Law, is as much to say, as by the Law of Nati­ons; A new device, and never heard of before; And that his [Page 49] Lordship proves thus: The Law of Nations is derived from Gods Law naturall; Ergo, it is Divine or the Law of God: Then again, that it is by the Law of Nations he assumes, that all Nations have exempted their Priests; but shewes not in what matters, whether in their Tributes, or in other Causes; nor proves the universall, nor is able to prove the same, that all Nations have exempted their Priests; for that is false, nor al­ledgeth for his opinion any one Doctor, that by Gods Law, sig­nifies by the Law of Nations; nor finally shewes, that Exempti­on is grounded upon the Law of all Nations: Lib. de Cler. cap. 19. Let him be sear­ched.

This opinion as new, and hanging by loose gimmals, is rea­dy to nod, to totter, and to ruine of it owne accord; yet shall it not be amisse to touch in briefe divers things concerning the same.

1. There is great difference between Gods Law written, the Law of Nature, and the Law of Nations: For howsoever the Law of Nations is a Secondary Law of Nature, according to the great Master Thomas Aquinas, by reason it is derived from Principles both of Natures Law, and of Gods Law, as in like manner the Law Civill is; neverthelesse it is not Divine, but only Nationall and Humane Law, neither hath any man ever thought it was Divine.

2. Every thing done by some Nations, cannot be called the Law of Nations, and consequently Divine; For it is a com­mon and ordinary Custome of Nations to seeke, and to exer­cise Revenge; and yet Revenge hath no ground, no warrant from Gods Law; nay it is directly prohibited by our Lord Je­sus Christ himselfe: Audistis quia dictum, &c. you have heard how it hath been said to them of old, Mat. 5. thou shalt hate thine ene­my; but I say unto you, love your Enemies.

3. Albeit some Princes have granted such Immunity or Pri­viledge in some particular case, as in the exempting of Priests from Tributes; neverthelesse the Exemption in all cases is not in force by Law of Nations, because most Nations neither have practised, nor do this day exercise any such course of Benigni­ty: For example; In the Law of Nature all the First borne (ac­cording to the common opinion) were Priests; shall it hereup­on [Page 50] be concluded, that all the First-borne in the world were exempt, at least from Tribute? The Lord Cardinals Argu­ment proves not a haires bredth more; which to me seems an answer little beseeming a man of his Lordships incomparable learning.

4. If his Lordships Argument had any force at all to prove, that Exemption is by the Law of Nations; it should only work this conclusion, that Princes ought to exempt Priests from Tri­bute; But our question turnes not upon that hindge: No, the main question consists in this point; Whether Ecclesiastics are exempt in all Temporall matters and causes, without speciall and gracious priviledge of their Princes?

5. That is called Jus Gentium, the Law of Nations, which ever was from the beginning of the world unchangeable, and shall so continue unto the worlds end; as that of just Domini­on and Servitude; That of Marriage for the perpetuall preser­vation of man-kind; That which all Nations indifferently have observed, and still observe to this day, Turks, Pagans, Christi­ans, Jewes, &c. But for Christian Priests to be exempted, it cannot stand by the Law of Nations; because they were insti­tuted by Christ; and besides, All Nations have not exempted their Priests.

6. To conclude: Whereas Christ our Lord hath so deepely charged all Christians to practise Humility and Subjection; whereas also St. Paul on his part hath absolutely commanded every Soule to be subject unto the higher Powers; though Exemption had been by the Law of Nations, that is observed of all Nations; Wherefore might it not be abrogated, or at least derogated, by Divine Law Positive? As Christ was able to re­peale and disanull that Custome of Nations, concerning the re­venge of Enemies, with a new Law?

Hetrodox. If you have now sufficiently fore-layd all your grounds for this present matter; it is time that you apply your selfe to your best Defence, and to trace out my particular Er­rours.

Orthodox. Well remembred; you shall see mee trace them out one by one in my defence, as men use to trace Hares in a Snow.

Two things I have affirmed before; the one, that Ecclesiastics and their Possessions or Goods are not exempted from Secular power, meaning (as hath been said) in such Cases and Causes unto which the said Secular power doth properly extend; for so much the word Exemption signifies: The other, that Eccle­siastics enjoy no such Exemption by the Law of God, but by mans Law, without growing or descending to any particular; whether the said mans Law be the Law of Nations, or the Civill, or the Canon Law: Howbeit my opinion is the same that Medina holds, and other Authors alledged for this purpose; That Exemption goes by Priviledge of Princes: Now to your Errours in your late and last opposition, which I find to be Eight.

1. The sacred Councell of Trent (you say) hath determi­ned, that immunity of Clerics is by Divine Law: Sess. 25. cap. 20. But in the said Councell and Session which your selfe have cited, I can read no such Determination: The Councell there treats onely in generall of Ecclesiastick Immunity and Liberty; adding this Adjunct or Epithet, Divinâ ordinatione constitutam, ap­pointed by Gods Ordinance; It doth not say, whosoever shall affirme that such Immunity in Temporals is not by Gods Law, let him be Anathema, let him be accursed: Nor doth it determine, it is by Gods Law; but speakes in a generality, in­cluding that Immunity or Exemption which is in Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall causes: And how those words, Appointed by Gods Ordinance are to be taken or understood, I appeale to the Glosse; unto which the Doctors are alwaies referred, whenso­ever Exemption in Temporals is avouched to be appointed by Gods Ordinance, or by the Law of God: For the Glosse it selfe saith, Est de Jure Divino, id est, deducitur ab exemplo, &c. It is by Gods Law; What is that? It is drawne from the exam­ple of the Patriarch Joseph and Artaxerxes the Persian King: Where the Glosse doth not meane, it is from Gods Law, as by any way of Precept; but rather, that by Princes it is granted by reason and occasion of those two Examples, read in holy Scripture, which is Gods Law: But I deny not Hetrodox, that by these Examples it is decent for Princes to grant by Patent or or Charter such Exemption from Tributes; or that Princes ha­ving [Page 52] once granted the same by the said Examples, for the Tri­butes in particular (whereof we now intreat, and of none other Subject) should revoke, repeale, and nullifie the said Grant of Exemption, Extra casum necessitatis, except in cases of necessi­ty: I onely maintaine there is no prec [...]pt, neither in Scripture, nor in the Divine Law of N [...]ture; T [...]t either the persons of Cleries, or their Good [...] & Possessi ns as Free-hold can be exemp­ted, except onely the Prince be pleased out of his Royall Grace and Prerogative to seale such priviledge of Exemption: Then Sir, with your favour, the Councell having determined no more then is by the foresaid Canon cited, must have and carry this construction; That first of all the Councell grounds no Deter­mination: Secondly, That it provides for Exemption in Spiritu­all Causes: Thirdly, that in case it speakes of Exemption in Temporall, it speakes onely per quandam decentiam, probabili­tatem, & similitudinem, by way of Decencie, Probability, and Similitude, as the Glosse and other Doctors avouch, whom I neither dare nor purpose to contradict: For I speake of Gods Law, not by way of Similitude, but in propriety of termes: This, Hetrodox, is the reason, wherefore neither Medina, nor Iansenius, nor Conarruuias, and others (who printed their workes and writings after the Councell of Trent) never said they held any opinion against the Councell, and yet are directly of my opinion: Sess 25. Moreover, the said Session was dispatcht in Post-hast and Precipice (if I may take up the Diaries own word) when the French Prelates were departed from the Councell, and the Spanish for their part had put in Protestation, that mat­ters were precipitated, and hudled, and shuffled and cut by the nimble fingers of cunning Gamesters: The Acts of the said Councell are not in these daies to be cited with like integrity to those of the ancient Councels; which foule Defect, by the godly-wise and learned, is justly attributed to the disgrace and disaster of our times: And for this reason I am perswaded, the holy Fathers in that Councell assembled subjoyned the fore-said words; That in case any difficulty should grow and arise in fu­ture times about the Determinations of that Councell, the Pope might have full power to procure and worke sufficient redresse and remedy thereof; either by convocating the learned of those [Page 53] Provinces, where such difficill and intricate questions did spring and grow; or otherwise by calling a Generall Councell, or else might by some other meanes provide for the Quiet and Peace of the Christian Common-wealth: So that first I say, those words of the Councell are cited amisse both by the Lord Cardinall and your selfe; For the Councell saith not, Ecclesiae & personarum Ecclesiaesticarum Immunitas in Temporalibus est instituta ordina­tione divinâ, That Immunity of the Church and of Ecclesiasti­call Persons in their Temporals is appointed by Gods Ordinance: but onely saith, Princes ought not permit inferior Magistrates to infringe and violate the Immunity of the Church, or of Ec­clesiasticks, howsoever it be appointed by Gods Ordinance; whether meerly Ecclesiastick, or Temporall (as the Glosse runs) granted by Princes, according to those Examples Registred in holy Scripture: But all this while the Councell doth not de­ny, that such Immunity is granted by Princes, in Temporals, howsoever after the Examples of King Pharoh and King Ar­taxerxes; Then I say againe, that for so much as no such Exemption is found in any place of Scripture, but rather the contrary written by St. Paul; therefore the Sacred Councell is to be expounded, as it is expounded by the Glosse; Rom. 13. for o­therwise the Councell had maintained an Errour, which we Catholiques are bound at no hand to admit or acknow­ledge.

2. The Councell of Coleyne which you alledge, was not Generall, but Provinciall; It Decrees nothing by Determina­tion, it delivers no more then the Glosse, but speakes lesse in the teeth, and more cleere then the Councell of Trent: For it doth not say, that such Immunity is commanded by the Law of God and man, but onely rather introduced or brought in by Gods Law after a sort; namely because P [...]inces have been mo­ved and incited by the Examples of Pharoh and Artaxerxes in holy Scripture (which is Gods Law) to grant Priviledges un­to Ecclesiastics, or unto some others, for not payi [...]g of Tribute, not because it is commanded in any Text of Scripture, but as taking that good Example in holy Scripture, of their owne accord.

3. The Lateran Councell, which you also produce, is not ac­counted [Page 54] Generall, (as the Lord Cardinall himselfe hath not stic­ked to acknowledge in divers places,) and so it wants weight of Authority: Besides, that which the said Councell affirmes, is not held for indubitable; And if the Counc [...]ll meane, that Prin­ces have no power over Clerics in matters meerly Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall, upon the matter per s [...] in it selfe they hold a truth: But if they meane, that Clerics are exempted in Criminall cau­ses and Temporall matters (which Priviledge Clerics enjoy not by Gods Law as hath beene proved) then the Councell is not in any wise to be followed: Besides, the Councell cannot under­stand it otherwise then according to the Glosse; and that is de­nyed of none.

4. You are pleased to cast upon me the reproachfull name of Goliah, whom you might better liken to David; because I fight Pro castris, & non contra castra Dei, for the Hosts of God, and not against his Hosts; that is, for the Doctrine of the Apo­stles, for the holy Scriptures of Christ our Saviour the highest Priest, and for the holie Fathers; neither doe I averre anie thing (as hath beene declared) against any one of the Sacred oecu­menicall Councels,

lib. 1. de Cler. cap. 28.5. The Canon of Bonifacius is understood according to the Glosse, and so much is testified by the Lord Cardinall.

6. Pope Iohn VIII. and Pope Symmachus are to be under­stood in Causes meerely Ecclesiasticall, after the manner before declared, and not otherwise: But of these two Popes more shall be spoken to purpose in another place; It is very certaine they have not determined any thing against our Tenent, as will easily be perceived by him that shall be pleased to take a fight of their Determinations.

7. Your owne two Examples doe rather weaken and pull downe then build up and fortifie your Tower, in two respects: First, you alledge that Pharoh and Artaxerxes granted their Priests free Charter of Exemption; I can aske no more, for I affirme the very same, and no more; viz. that granting Privi­ledges of Exemption belongs to the Prerogative of Princes: Then againe you say, that Princes have learned this lesson im­mediatly from the light of Nature; whereas else-where the Lord Cardinall tels us, that Exemption is not immediately taught by [Page 55] the light of nature, but by the Law of Nations, Et per quan­dam Similitudinem, and by a kind of Resemblance or Simili­tude.

8. Things taught by the light of Nature, it is to no purpose for P [...]inces to g [...]ant by Priviledge; And whereas Clerics are exemp [...]ed in particular (as it is avouched by St. Thomas) by the Priviledge of Princes Propter naturalem quandam aequitatem, in respect of a certaine naturall Equity; his words are to be taken in a sound sense: And how? That such Priviledge is founded upon the rule of Reason, which is called naturall Equitie, upon which rule of Reason or naturall Equity, all the grounds and rules of the Law Civill are established; but hereby St. Thomas doth not conclude, they are established by Gods Law naturall, but are civiil, revokeable, &c.

Hetrodox. Now you have tickled my Eight Errors, is there yet any more to be said for your Defence?

Orthodox. There is more: For beside all that hath beene de­clared in my first Proposition, that under the old Law Priests were subject unto their naturall Prince; 1. Reg. 2. and besides that Solo­mon deprived Abiathar, and exauthorised him from the high Priest-hood of the Jewes; In the Primitive Church untill the Raigne of the Emperour Iustinian, there is not read or found in the whole bodie of the Law any Priviledge of Exemption gran­ted to Ecclesiastics.

[...] Hetrodox. And have not I made evident Demonstration, when I refuted your first Proposition, that under the old Law the Priests and Levites were subject unto the Prince Ecclesiasti­call? And whereas you have affirmed, that Moses was a Poli­ticall or Civill Prince, have not I proved by testimonies of Scriptures and holy Fathers, that Moses was invested in the Authority of high Ptiest?

To your Example of Solomon I make this answer, that Solo­mon exercised and ex [...]cuted a power against Abiathar, as the Minister of Gods Divine-Will, who had made known before that he would bring the posterity of Heli to a finall end, for so the Scripture hath subjoyned, ut impleretur sermo Domini quem locutus est super domum Heli, that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled which God had spoken touching the house of Heli [Page 56] in Siloh; Besides, the Acts or Deeds of Princes goe not for Lawes.

But now Sir, that before Iustinian there was no priviledge of Exemption in the Church; that is I would have you know is apparently untrue; For the Emperour Constantine who raigned more then 200. yeares before Iustinian, and was the first Em­perour that cleerely made profession of Christianity, presently declared Ecclesiastics to be free from the common burthens of the Common-Wealth; as we read in Constantines owne Epistle to Avilinus, E [...]l. Histor. l. 1. cap. 7. Cod. Theo­d [...]s. cap. 31. Quaest. Pract. recorded by Eusebius: But besides this Priviledge of Constantine, there be many other Priviledges of Emperours, more ancient by odds then Iustinianus, as your owne Darling and Minion Conarruuias by you cited makes report.

Orthodox. I last alledged certaine Examples, which I now perceive have put your learning to some plunge: For hitherto your Discourse hath beene onely from Exemption of Tributes; and such Exemption you say is taught in Scripture by the exam­ple of Pharoh and Artaxerxes; But whereas you dare to make good proofe and cleere Demonstration, How Clerics are exempted in Criminall Causes, from which they are not exemp­ted, no not by Iustinian himselfe in the Novell, I find you puz­zel'd, perplexed, and (as wee say) in more then a peck of trou­bles; as appeares by these your particular Errours:

1. You tell me, you have proved in the first Proposition, that Moses was high Priest: Surely this I have not denyed; But I have affirmed, that howsoever Moses did withdraw, and retire himselfe from the exercise of the high Priest-hood, and setled Aaron in that high Office, neverthelesse he still judged the Le­vites: And this argues he did it as a politicall or Civil Prince, and not as high Priest, because if it had appertained to the high Priest, no doubt, Moses would have committed that charge to Aaron, who was the type of the high Priest of the Church, and not Moses.

2. He that will read the Text shall cleerely see, that Solomon proceeded against Abiathar, Viâ ordinariâ by the ordinary way, and not by any particular Revelation, and yet as the Minister of Gods Justice: For every secular Prince is Minister Dei in iram ei qui malè agit, the Minister of God to take vengeance on him that doth evill.

[Page 57]3. You expound these words after your owne fancie and to serve your owne turne ( ut impleretur Sermo Domini, that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled,) as if the Lord had bound Salomon by especiall charge and particular precept so to thrust Abiathar out of his pastorall charge: But you must not be suf­fered to dazle mine eyes with any such slubbered Exposition: For the wisedome of God reacheth from one end to another, VVisd. 8.1. and comely doth she order all things; that is to say, by ordina­rie waies and meanes, quando de extraordinariâ Revelatione non constat, when there is no full assurance and certaintie of extraor­dinarie Revelation; to alledge Examples and Anthorities after this manner, is to flie unto those answers whereof the Poet saith, Nisi Deo dignus vindice nodus inciderit, Except some difficultie shall grow and arise, which requires not mans wit, but Gods Wisedome to unriddle.

4. The Acts of Princes, you say, are no Lawes: No more be the Acts of Popes, especiallie of such Popes as have come too short of Solomons Wisedome, when he judged Abiathar, which doubtlesse was before Solomon fell into his Apostacie or Defecti­on: But besides, it smels verie stronglie of Errour for anie man to affirme (as you seeme to doe) that Solomon who was endow­ed with a Spirit, not of Angelicall, but of Divine Wisedome, and in particular, to give right Judgement of all matters, did stumble by erroneous Judgement in Abiathars case.

5. Lastlie, Whereas I according to the matter, as also from antecedent and consequent examples, doe treate of Exemption from the Court, and of all Ecclesiastics; you turne it into the generall: I doe not denie, that Constantine, and some other Em­perours before Iustinian; have granted previledges of Exempti­on unto Ecclesiastics, because it appertains unto Princes to grant such priviledges, But I speake of Exemption from Courts and publike Judgements, with a Distinction of the said Courts by a Law In corpore Iuris, in the bodie of the Law, as hath beene shewed in the first Proposition, which was never acted by anie Emperour before Iustinian: And for this point, having read the Code not in a sleight or superficiall course, I trust I may affirme without ostentation, that I cannot be deceived in so cleere a matter.

But leaving these you [...] E [...]r [...]n [...]s, I now proceed: St. Paul saith, Act. 25.10, 11. I stand at Cae [...]a [...]s Judgment Sc [...]e; I [...]ppeale unto Caesar: And to p [...]ss [...] [...] Example [...]; In the li [...]e of the most Christ [...]an Empe [...]our Otho I. We read, that Otho, Authoritate propr [...]â, by his own Au ho [...]i [...]y d [...]posed Pope John XII. because he was notori [...]usly wi [...]d.

In Summa sua. lib. 2. cap. 96. Hetrodox. This Argument iv [...]n [...]ed and framed by certaine Heretiques of old, i [...] we l [...]aken off by the Card. de Turre cre­mata; namely that S [...]. Paul w [...] constrained to appeale unto Caes [...]r, and to [...]gn [...]z [...] him for his J [...] g [...] de F [...]cto, non de Jure, in Fact, but not in Right; because [...]he power of Peter in those times was neither believed nor knowne: And therefore if St. Paul then had answered, that hee knew no other Judge but Christs Vicar, hee had moved the Jewes b [...] whom he was ac­cused, Act. 28.19. and the Gentiles by whom hee was judged, to breake forth into some loud laughter, Paul himselfe saith, coactus sum, I was constrained to appeale unto Caesar.

As touching the Historie of Pope John, and the Emperour Otho, I observe a double falsity and errour in your briefe relati­on: First of all, those two words, Authoritate propriâ, by his owne Authority, are most false both for the Fact and also for the Right: In point of the Fact how? Because Otho well knowing, that himselfe being Laick had no power at all to judge an Ecclesiasticall person, he referred the matter to the Councell then assembled in Rome, to determine what was therein to be done; Sancta Synodus quid decernat, edicat, let order be set by the Sacred Councels Decree; Thus Otho to the Councell, so that Otho deposed not Pope Iohn by his owne Authoritie, but by the Councels Authoritie and Decree.

Likewise for point of Right; because you find not in any Ca­tholique Author, that Popes can be deposed by Emperous, but on the contrarie, that Emperours may lawfullie be deposed by Popes, as Otho IV. by Innocentius III. and Frederick II. by Innocentius IV. In Summa. l. 4. p. 3. 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.

N [...]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 [Page 60] 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 Gentil [...]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 speaki [...]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 [Page 61] 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 El [...]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 o [...] 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 Achivi, when Kings doe a [...]isse, the people smart, I trust in this case to be pardoned: Well then, one of these two points come here to be granted; Either that Pope Iohn deposed himselfe, and that hath no truth, or else that hee was deposed by the Councell, and that is denyed by Cardinall Bellarmine, or your selfe, or both; or else (to make the reason [Page 62] goe upon three leggs) that he was deposed by the most Religious Emperour Otho, after the Example of Solomon, by whom the seditious high Priest Abiathar was deposed and condemned, and that is the point which I maintaine: And in case this was law­fully practised by Otho, (as by the lawfull succession of Leo af­ter Iohn it appeares it was done) then it must needs follow, that what was done by Otho, he did the same Authoritate propriâ by his owne Authoritie; Pope Iohn by his owne enorme De­licts having driven and forced the good Emperour to doe that Act, which none would ordinarily have the boldnesse to doe, in respect of the Reverence due to that holy See: And howsoever O [...]ho wrought herein by counsell and advice of the whole Coun­cell, whereupon he said Sancta Synodus edicat, the holy Synod shall set downe the Edict; yet as the Historians of those times bea [...]e w tnesse, Otho gave the Definitive sentence with his Pla­cet, it is our pleasure.

But no more of that, or of your Errours: What say you to this Example? If Exemption stands by Gods Law, what meant Pope Adrian I. to take such care and order, that Charles the Great should have the whole Authoritie to make Election of the Romane high Priest, Cap. Ha­drian. l. 63. Can. in Sy­nodo. or Bishop? The same was likewise done by Leo VIII. in favour of Otho I. as men may read in the same Distinction.

Hetrodox. You make mee to mervaile much at your strange acutenesse in this Argument: I beseech you Sir, what hath Exemption of Ecclesiastics to doe with nomination of persons to the Pontificiall See? Are not Ecclesiastics in France exempted in these daies, because the King now nominates men to Chur­ches, to Benefices, to Ecclesiasticall promotions when they be­come void? And wheresoever Ius Patronatus is in force, is Exemption there lost, because there the Patrones have the right of Nomination, when they are for the most part Laics? For a time then the Emperour Charles, by the Popes Priviledge had power to nominate some to the Papall See, when it became void; The Emperour for all that did not give the Pope any Authority, and lesse could he take it from the Pope; For, as hath been said, God himselfe giveth Papall Power to the Person once nomina­ted or Canonically elected, by which Power the Person so no­minated, [Page 63] by Gods owne Law and Ordinance becomes the Su­periour, the H [...]ad, and the Pastor of all Christians, whether Princes or private persons.

Of the Priviledge granted by Pope Leo to the Emperor Otho, I might pronounce the very same sentence, if the said Priviledge had not beene altogether void, vain, and without effect; which is by me so affirmed, under supposition, In Cap. Hadr. & in Synodo. that Gratianus in the Canons before cited, hath written the truth, and no more then truth.

But our most Illustrious, and no lesse learned Cardinall Baro­nius gives forth cleere and manifest evidences, Tom. 9. Annal. pag. 323. that Gratianus was deceived, and that such Priviledge to chuse the highest Bi­shop, was never granted unto any Emperour; And so this your whole Argument falls in pieces to the ground, because the Con­sequent is rotten, and the Antecedent false.

Orthodox. Of the Lord Cardinall Baronius it hath been spo­ken plaine enough before, that in the case of Immunities his Au­thoritie lacks weight; I have likewise heard it avouched, that as untill this time he hath given himselfe an ample priviledge and liberty to correct Fathers, Canons, and Histori [...]ns; in like man­ner he pretends to correct and amend the Councels, to his owne humour and to his owne end: But in case hee shall assume and usurpe any such licence (which God forbid) for certaine he shall never mend the Text of St. Paul, St. Chrysostome, St. Thomas, and others: Why then should we give any credit, liking, or eare to the Novelties of the Lord Cardinall Baronius, but rather give some answer to your Errours?

1. Nomination to the Popedome (you say) is even as No­mination to Benefices; That Sir, with your good l [...]ave, is false, to use your owne termes: For the Popedome is not a Benefice, but a Supreame Spirituall Dignitie, instituted and ordained (as Catholiques belie e) by our blessed Saviour; and in case it be a Benefice; then the Right of Nomination thereunto belongs to the Emperour, and none other.

2. If Exemption of Ecclesiasticall persons be de jure divino, surely no Ecclesiasticall person can come under submission to Se­cular Princes, and least of all he that is of so high Dignitie; For none can draw them into that state of Subjection without great [Page 64] sinne; Ergo, Exemption is not by Gods Law: Of this Argu­ment Cardinall Baronius hath taken some sight and knowledge, which puts him on with all his force, might, and maine, to denie the foresaid Canons: Thus the Argument holds firme and true, both for Antecedent, and for Consequent, neither ought so an­cient Canons to be denyed: You likewise denie that Leo was true and lawfull Pope, when the lawfull Election of that Leo hath beene approved by another Leo, namely IX. and by the rest of the Popes to these present daies and times.

And shall I now goe further with you Hetrodox; The Doc­trine for which I now stand, is not onely the Doctrine of St. Paul, Sotus. lib. 4. Sent. dist. 25. Conar. cap. 31. pract. Quaest. but likewise maintained by St. John Chrysostome, by Thomas Aquinas, by Sotus that most excellent and famous Divine, by Conarruuias, who citeth for his purpose Innocentius III. Alcia­tus, Ferrarese, Medina, with some others: And these two Doctors, by name Sotus, and Conarruuias, are in this particular point so much the more to be regarded and esteemed, because they both have written since the time of the Tridentine Councell.

Hetrodox. Hold a while Orthodox, St. Paul and St. Chry­sostome doe not meddle with Exemption of Ecclesiastics; but onely teach, that all men are bound to obey their lawfull Superi­ors, as before I have proved.

St. Thomas denies not Exemption to be grounded upon Gods Law, howsoever he affirmes it stands upon the strong Pillars of mans Law; For it may be fixed, nay it is fixed upon the Bases both of Divine and Humane Law, as the Sacred Canons have not onelie testified, but also justified.

As for Sotus: Albeit he denies Exemption to be warranta­ble strictly by Gods Law, yet he affirmes it is agreeable to natu­rall Reason, yea he subjoines, that no Prince, nor all Princes to­gether, can derogate from the said Exemption: So that directly and cleerly the Doctrine of Sotus is contrarie to the present and moderne practise of the Venetian State, which dareth so manie waies violate the said immunitie, as if it rested in their power to make such Derogation when they please: Besides, that Sotus did write since the Councell of Trent; it is nothing so: For howsoever he was present in the first Sessions then celebrated under Paulus III. yet he died before the Councell ended; and [Page 65] so he could not see that last Decree, wherein is declared, that immunity of Churches and Ecclesiasticall persons was brought in by Gods Ordinance: For if hee had seene the said Decree, doubtlesse h [...] durst never have opened his mouth, nor set his pen on worke by way of contradiction to the said Decree?

Conarruuias hath ever shewed himselfe (as hath beene tou­ched before) more then partiall in defence of Regall Jurisdicti­on: And neverthelesse even he himselfe hath [...]aught a Power to be in the Pope, whereby he justly and lawfully can free Ecclesi­astics from the Secular power, and that no Prince (be never so absolute and Supreame) can pull the least h [...]ire from the Crown of this immunity: By this i [...] appeares, that Conarruuias him­selfe condemnes the Actions or doings of the Venetian Lords; so that in advertising us how much these two Authors, Conarru­uias and Sotus are to be regarded and esteemed, you know not Orthodox what you speake and affirme.

Lastly, whereas you draw in Conarruuias alledging for his opinion Innocentius III. that point must not be past over in si­lence: For here two Errours come to be discovered and repro­ved: Of the one your selfe Hetrodox is culpable: Of the other Conarruuias: You are first out of the right way, because Co­narruuias never cited Innocentius III. for his Patron in this cause, knowing full well that Innocentius goes against him in the quarrell, and stands against him in the gap: Then secondly, Co­narruuias is in the wrong path, or in a wrong boxe, because hee alledgeth for his opinion Innocentius IV. whereas Innocentius IV. affirmes in the very same place, In commen. cap. 2. de majorit. & obed. that Exemption granted by the high Bishop with consent of the Emperour is not full, and therefore it is to be confessed, that Ecclesiastics are exempted from the power of Secular Princes by God himselfe: It was not possible for Innocentius IV. to affirme in clearer termes that Exemption of Ecclesiastics is grounded upon Gods Law, and yet Conarruuias hath face enough to affirme, that Innocentius IV. denies the said Exemption to stand by the Law of God; whereupon Pan [...]rmita [...]us writes, [...]hat Innocentius IV. holds Exemption of Ecclesiastics to be tenable by Gods Law: Have you any more to say?

Orthodox. No Sir, not for proofe of the Proposition, I will [Page 66] therefore now addresse my selfe to handy strokes and blowes with your Errours.

1. St. Paul, and St. Chrysostome, you say, doe speake in ge­nerall; But I have evidently proved already that both of them have treated in the particular.

2. St. Thomas you say holds Exemption to stand in force by Gods Law: But I have clearly shewed, that St. Thomas holds it is by the priviledge of P [...]inces, and founded upon Principles or grounds of Reason, upon which all humane Priviledges and Lawes are grounded, as also that St. Thomas was not the Au­thor of the Booke De Regimine Principum.

3. Sotus and Conarrunias affirm (you say) that all Princes joyned together are not able to derogate one haires bredth from those immunities which they have once granted, or have accepted and received by the high Priests Canons: And in this point your Speech is absolute; whereas the said Authors write with termes of condition, that is, Ordinarily: For Sotus affirmes in parti­cular, that ad vi [...] vi repellendam for the repulsing of force by force, in certain cases the Priviledge of Exemption, may be dis­abled, removed, and taken away: Thus Conarruuias and Me­dina likewise are to be understood, according to the opinion of all the Doctors in the matter of Priviledges; which indeed can­not be derogated, but in case of necessity, et propter finem supe­riorem, and for a higher end or purpose; As the Pope every day derogates from the Priviledges granted by his Pontificiall Chaire.

4. You reprove the State of Venice for violating the Privi­ledges of Church immunitie: you wrong that most illustrious and flourishing State; For they have alwaies judged their Eccle­siastics (time out of mind) in heinous and atrocious delicts and offences; And in so doing they have observed the contents of Iustinians Novell, in points to them seeming good and conve­nient, not because they are tyed to that Novel [...], but because they have thought and judged it good to maintain in their Dominion and State, that which in the eye of Iustinians great wisedome, learning, and judgement, seemed good to be observed and main­tained in his Dominions.

Touching the Lawes made by the Lords of Venice, about [Page 67] Church-mens goods, it hath beene answered, that all such Lawes are de Temporalibus quae nondum pervenerunt in Dominium Ec­clesiasticorum, they are concerning things Temporall not yet be­longing to Ecclesiastics as just Lords and true Proprietaries of the same; and hereof in the opinion of all men there is no doubt: And that Law which was made Anno 1333. they might after­wards justly ampliate by the same Authority, by which they first made the same, which never yet was contradicted by Ec­clesiasticall persons.

As for other immunities, which the said Lords of Venice have granted to the Ecclesiasticks of their Dominion, either by Priviledges, or by Canons received and approved, or by custome continued, the said Lords maintain them all as pure & chast Vir­gins in violated and untouched; yea, according to the sacred Coun­cell, they are protectors of the said Immunities, neither will they at any time after any priviledge, except it be ad vim vi repellen­dam for the driving out of one naile by another, et ad redimen­dam vexationem for the repressing of wrongs, which all the Doctors permit, & propter bonum commune evidentissimum, and for some most evident benefit of the publike.

5. Innocentius IV. holds that the Emperours consent is to be sought for in the matter of immunities; and for that purpose Innocentius is alledged by Conarrunias.

6. You charge me with errour in citing Innocentius III. for Innocentius IV. Sir, it was the Printers errour not mine: And in the Answer is not read Third, by letters [...]f Alphabet (as the Lord Cardinall Bellarmin [...] hath caused to b [...] printed of purpose to make the Errour more inexcusable) but by numbers, in this manner, III.

7. Sotus (you say with a nice distinction) did not write after the Councell, but in the midd time of the Councell; my meaning is, that Sotus was personally present in the Councell, and his Booke was printed after the Councell, so did Conarruuias, Me­dina, and others write after the time of the Councell, and yet were never prohibited by any Authority, as writing any thing contrarie to the Councell, which makes mee to collect and con­clude, that in affirming the said Councell hath determined Ex­emption to be grounded on Gods Law, you are cleane out of the [Page 68] truth; For had the Councell made any full Determination to your said purpose, without all question the foresaid Authors had beene prohibited by Authoritie.

But I must now tell you plainly Hetrodox, they shew verie good and great Cards for their game, I mean, their Demonstra­tions are not fectlesse, but full of efficacie: For besides the affir­mative authority of St. Paul, of St. Chrysostome, and of St. Tho­mas, besides the common use and custome of the Primitive Church, they produce likewise two negative Arguments most effectuall: The first, If Clerics themselves, and the Goods of Ecclesiastics be exempted by Gods Law, where is that Law re­corded and read? In what Gospell? in what Apostolicall Epi­stle? in what Booke of the New Testament, or of the old? The Second, That no Secular Prince Christian carrying a watchfull eye to the tranquillity and honourable government of the State, doth stand upon this point, but onely permits Ecclesiastics to enjoy such Exemption as to himselfe seemes best, and such as he dislikes, he will not suffer them to reape any fruit or benefit from the same; And howsoever by the Law of man, some understand the Canon, yet by so much as may be gathered from the Do­ctrine of the first Proposition, we are to understand the Privi­ledge of Princes, and the Custome dissembled by the said Prin­ces, or the Canon received, which Canon cannot be above Gods Law, so that if Secular Princes have lawfull power over their Subjects by Gods Law, I cannot see how this their Power can be diminished or taken away by the Canon, which is but a Law of man; it is a common rule of the Legists, Quotiescu [...] (que) con­currunt duo jura, minus debet cedere majori, when two Lawes are in termes or in point of concurrence, the rest ought ever to stoope and give place unto the greater.

Hetrodox. The Affirmative Arguments have beene answered before; what need you make so many repetitions of one and the same matter? Now to your first negative Argument; This point hath beene discussed at large by many Catholique Authors, both Divines and Canonists; The grounds of their opinion are to be sought in their writings; and my selfe have briefly before pointed to certaine passages, as well of the old Testament, as of the New; and this for one, Ergo liberi sunt filii, therefore [Page 69] the Children are free; Gen. 47. 1▪ Esdr. 7. Mat. 17. where by Children are meant Ecclesia­stics, it St. Ierome's and St. Augustines Expositions be not rejected of Divines.

Againe, you are not ignorant Orthodox, that by Gods Law is understood not onely the holy Scripture, but also the light of Nature, or (to speake in other termes) Reason and Natures Law: lib 1. de li­bert. Christ. cap. 9. Thus Iohn Driedo: Exemption of Ecclesiastics holds by the Law of God, for so much as it is dictated and taught by Reason and by the Law of Nature; because all men by the light of Rea­son and Nature understand, that persons and goods or things consecrated to God, are proper to God himselfe; and therefore no Reason that Secular Princ [...] should exercise any power over the said persons or things: And that this point is a light of Na­ture, it is easie to be knowne, because in all Religion, Exod. 30. Numb. 1. Gen. 47. Arist. l. 2. Caesar. l. 6. de bello Gall. Plut. in vitá Ca­milli. whether true or false, this Law of Exemption is observed: Among the Hebrewes the Levites were exempted, and among the Egypti­ans the Priests were exempted, and among the Grecians the Priests were exempted: The same is recorded of other Gentiles, in Caesar, in Plutarch, and in other Authors, for brevitie sake here pretermitted.

To the second Negative Argument I returne this Answer: We find it not in Sotus nor yet in Conarruuias; It is doubtlesse a Fiction of your owne braine, and besides it is no Argument, no Reason, but a meere Cavill and Calumniation invented against all Princes, as if all Princes were Machiavials Disciples, and granted or tooke away Exemption from Clerics, as they find it profitable or unprofitable to Reason of State; But wee know that in the Church of God there be many Religious and pious Princes, who feare God as they ought: But in case it were so in truth (which must not be granted) that many Princes give neither place nor way to Exemption any further then it is pro­fitable to Reason of State, what art, what skill of Reasoning shall I call this? Many Princes permit not Exemption; Ergo, Exemption is not by Gods Law? As much in effect for forme of Argument, great skuls, whole troopes of Christians give them­selves to robbing by the high-way side, or to luxurious unclean­nesse in darke corners, or to beare false witnesse in open Courts; Ergo, these Precepts of the Di [...]alogue, thou shalt not steale, [Page 70] thou shalt not commit Adulterie, thou shalt not beare false wit­nesse, are not by Gods Law. It should have beene proved that such Princes as permit not Exemption otherwise then to their own liking, doe well, or doe not ill; and then the Consequent would not have come in amisse; Ergo, Exemption is not by Gods Law; But from the simple Fact, or to say better, from the simple prevarication of a Law it cannot be concluded, that the said Law is contrary to Gods Law.

Your next discourse after, about mans Law, as whether it be Canon Law, or Priviledge of Princes, or Custome, is idle and altogether in vaine; for besides that Exemption of Ecclesiastics is by Gods Law, it is every way by mans Law; because there be many Canons, many Civill Lawes, and a must long continu­ed Custome, which make all for this Exemption; This neither will nor can be denyed of any, but such as are of no reading at all.

Finally, that conclusion which you make of Secular Princes power over Ecclesiastics, that it can be neither taken away nor diminished by any Canon, because the Canon is by Mans Law, and the power of Princes by Gods Law, is a false Con­clusion, drawne from a false Principle, and repugnant unto all Catholique Doctors, as well Divines as Canonists: False, because it is contrary to many Decrees of Councels, Popes, the Lawes Imperiall, and the light of Nature: Drawne from a false Prin­ciple, because the power of Princes over Laics is not grounded upon Gods Word: Against all Catholique Doctors, as well Divines as Canonists, because both Sotus and Conarruuias, comp­ted the chiefe Pillars of those who maintaine that Exemption is not warrantable to Ecclesiastics by Gods Law, have not stucke to testifie by their learned pens, that Popes have plenary power to exempt Ecclesiastics, that all Princes are bound to uphold and maintaine the Popes Exemption, as also that no Prince, (no not all Princes together) hath one dram of power to annihilate or disanull, or in the least measure to diminish the said Papall Ex­emption.

Thus much is affirmed and witnessed by Sotus and Conarru­uias, in the very same passeges by your selfe Orthodox produced and alleadged: It hereupon followes, that you have now broa­ched [Page 71] a new, an erroneous, a scandalous, a schismaticall and a se­ditious Doctrine: If this notwithstanding, you shall affirme it is no new Doctrine, you shall be sure to find none other Au­thors, Fautors, and followers of this Doctrine, but Heretiques, and in particular Martyr a Lutheran upon the 13. chapter of St. Pauls Epistle to the Romanes.

Orthodox. I have made no long Repetition, but onely a short remembrance of some former speeches; what need such a hot reprehension for putting you only in mind what I have said be­fore? Now then Sir your Errors.

1. In defence of your opinion de Iure divino, you find no place of Scripture to warrant your assertion; whereupon you fall into this new and strange Doctrine, that Exemption holds by the Law of Nations, and that Law of Nations is Law Di­vine, or the Law of God: No marvaile, for I suppose you have spoken this (to please your selfe and flatter others) against one who of late hath written according to the Doctrine of the best Authors; In such a mind how could you doe lesse then fall into such a Noveltie?

2. You affirme, the Doctrine of repealing and revoking Pri­viledges in case of necessity is not approved by the foresaid Au­thors: By your leave Hetrodox it is not onelie by them appro­ved, but likewise by all that handle the matter of Priviledges, and yet are not so to be ranked and reckoned with Machiavelists, which Sect is more dispersed and scattered in other Cities and States (I will not say in Rome) then it is in Venice, where the Lords aime at none other marke, but publike Tranquilities, Re­ligion, Justice, and in case of necessitie to represse force by force and strong hand; All which things and actions are permitted by God himselfe, by Catholique Authors, and by the Law of Na­ture, which, in case all the writers in the world should bind their pens to the Peace, and condemne them to perpetuall silence, would [...] unto us a Law. Rom. 2.14.

3. Y [...] [...]eject and reprove the Division into the Law of Na­ture, Canonicall, Priviledge of Princes, and Custome; whereas all Authors make the same Division to the very same purpose; and in very truth it is very necessary.

4. Whereas the Text of St. Paul is manifest; All power is [Page 72] [...] [Page 73] [...] [Page 72] of God; Rom. 13. [...] Sap. 6.1.2.3. and that other o [...] Solomon: Here therefore O ye Kings, &c. for the r [...]le is g [...]ven you of God, and power by the most High: All this notwithstanding you doe not blush to af­fi me, [...]ha [...] [...] have proved, the powe [...] of Princes over their Laick Subj [...]cts is not by Gods Law, but by Mans Law, and much lesse their power over Clerics; It is not possible to speake of Exemption in such broad termes, and not speak against Scrip­ture inspired by the Holie Ghost.

5. You say, the Power of Princes may be taken away and dimin [...]shed by the Canons, I take this to be false de Jure, and never taught by any judicious Divine: The Pope (will some Divine say) may admonish and exhort a Prince to admit and re­ceive his Canons of immunitie, but I never yet read in any Di­vine, that Popes have Power to force Princes, when the Ca­nons treate of matters neither Spirituall nor just, yea St. Bernard reproves Pope Eugenius with a Quid alienos fines invaditis? si vol [...]s utrumque, perdes utrumque; Why will you thrust your sickle into another mans harvest? If you will flourish with both Swords, you shall beare neither of both.

6. True it is, that Popes have power to make Canons con­cerning Exemption, and other matters; Howbeit no Canons can challenge or carry any force where they are not lawfully published and rec [...]ived: For all Canons are Lawes of men ac­cording to all the Doctors, which to bring in and impose obli­gation, do necessarily require the two-fold condition, of lawfull publication, and generall acception: Therfore the sacred Councell of Trent binds not in some Provinces, because it was neither law­fully published, nor admitted and received in the said Provinces, as other Canons in some other Provinces: Hereof none of the D [...]ctors (to my knowledge at least) hath ever doubted: Sotus, N [...]varrus, and Conarruuias require beside the Canon the con­sent of all that are interessed: The reason; Because when the P [...]p [...], not being otherwise Dominis totius orbis in Temporalibus Jur [...] Divino, Lord of the whole World in Temporals by Gods Law, makes anie Canons prejudiciall to L [...]ick Jurisdiction, it is n [...]c [...]ssary (to make them stand in any force and ver [...]u [...]) for the said Canons to be protested by th [...] content of him that is Lord of the said Jurisdiction; otherwise there would be found in the said Canons a meere Nullitie: This Doctrine is held for most [Page 73] certaine by Conarruuias, by Sotus, by Navarrus, by Medina, Navar. cap. Novit. and all those who treate of this matter upon the safest and fir­mest foundations.

7. You contend, that Princes cannot diminish the Authori­ty of Canons received: True, so teacheth Sotus and Conarru­uias; but here is to be understood this word Ordinarilie, and because they have given their consent for the admitting and recei­ [...]g the said Canons, it is not fitting for every light cause and [...]rifling occurrent, to deprive them of Priviledge: Howbeit none denies, that in case of necessity the Priviledge may suffer derogation and admit diminution; yea Popes themselves daily use to derogate from their owne Priviledges.

8. Lastly, you come on with a false and crooked inference, and be sprinkle me with villainous waters, or at least mine Au­thor, and me in him: In which veine of reproachfull termes I forbeare to follow your Example; and will onely conclude, that my Authors Doctrine is true in the Superlative, Catholique, grounded on holy Scripture, and Fathers of the Primitive Church, whereas your Doctrine. Hetrodox, and your Masters Cardinall Bellarmine, merits those Epithets, which the Judi­cious no doubt will marke and brand it withall, if ever this my Defence may be so happy to come in their sight.

Hetrodox. By this full conclusion it seemes Orthodox, that you have done with all your Propositions in Thesis.

Orthodox. You guesse right Hetrodox; But have you any hu­mour to heare the Doctrine of the rest in Hypothesis, at large confirmed?

Hetrodox. I have in earnest; for so hideous is their aspect at first sight, that I am almost astonished therewith, and am wrapt with a kind of wonder to thinke what can be well spoken in their Defence.

Orthodox. I purpose to dispatch them all three to morrow in one day: Be stirring early; for wee will make no more daies, and spend no longer time in Conference.

Orthodox. I Am glad to see you Hetrodox thus risen with the Larke: We have three large and long courses to run in this one day; And therefore I will pre­sently set forth E. carcoribus.

Hetrodox. Be it so, and I will run close, so long as my breath shall hold without breaking my winde. Prop. 6.

Orthodox. Then heare the sixt Proposition: The Venetian Prince is the lawfull and naturall Signor of the Venetian S [...]e; He never knew any Superior in Temporals, but God himselfe; He makes Lawes touching the Goods and Possessions of Eccle­siastics within his Dominions: Hee punisheth Ecclesias [...]ll persons in grievous and atrocious cases; He disposeth of [...] before they are past over by meane conveyance unto Ecclesiasti­call persons; And this he doth by that Authoritie which [...] [...] ­mediately receiveth from God, and whereof he hath never been deprived, either from Priviledge granted or by Canon received: Hee hath continued in possession of this Authority, by cust [...]e continued (I say not for many yeares, but for many Ages, or hundreds of yeares,) And in doing all these things hee doth no­thing amisse, he runneth no course of sinne.

The reason; Hee that doth nothing against any Law, doubt­lesse doth no sin, much lesse he that keepes the Law: And more, He that holds and maintaines his owne Dominions, sinneth me, neither should he be forced to follow their opinion, who [...]o [...]d Exemption to be derived from Gods Law: For every Christi­an is free and at his owne choice, to follow that opinion which likes him best, alwaies provided, that his opinion be Catholique, yea, to follow one Doctors opinion grounded upon sound rea­sons, though it be against a full tyde and current streame of Do­ctors, [...] pralud. is no sinne; which point is right well proved by Navar­rus: It can therefore be no sinne to follow the Doctrine of St. Paul, and of so many famous Doctors of great markes alledged [Page 75] in the first and fifth Proposition; And to speake truth, I cannot excuse those who hold the opinion, that Ecclesiasticall Exemp­tion is authorised by Almighty God: For to my understanding, they seeme sometimes to speake as not well founded, sometimes as ill advised, sometimes as men running a race of too great haz­zard, and sometimes as too much the servants or slaves of Adulation.

Hetrodox. Now at last you discover to the full your intenti­on, hitherto cunningly concealed; But because you have no grace or gift in speaking without jumbling and mingling all kinds of Errours together, you so point out in your discourse the Prince of Venice, as if he were some absolute Monarch; For you make him the naturall Signor and Lord of the Venetian State: Now Sir if that be so, then the Republike of Venice [...]th lost her libertie, and cannot in Right be called a Republic, [...]use it hath a Lord, and a naturall Signor or Lord: A Lord [...]one that can dispose of his owne at his owne pleasure; Hee can give, sell, lay to gage or pawne, and make it over when, how, and to whom he lift or thinkes good: And a naturall Signor or [...]rd is one, that hath Dominion by Herison, by Succession of bloud, by Birth-right, not by Election or Donation: But whe­ther it be convenient for the Duke of Venice to be the Naturall Signor of the Venetian State, I referre my selfe upon the matter to the judgement of everie man, or of anie one, that knowes the state and affaires of that noble and illustrious Republic.

You say moreover, the Prince of Venice knowes no Superi­or in Temporals, but God alone: Doe not you hereby make him a Lord no lesse absolute, then Supream and Soveraigne Kings, to whom the Common-wealth hath past over all her power? But if the Republic be a true Republic, and free indeed as it pretends, doubtlesse it hath not past over and transferred all her power to the Prince, but hath onely communicated and conferred upon him such part of her power, as to herselfe seemeth good: Shee can augment or make little enough, or take it away altogether; She can make the Prince shorter by the head, whensoever hee shall attempt to practise or make himselfe the Head, Lord, and Patron of the Republic, which was her practise of Justice and Power upon the person of Marinus Fallerius; And so by con­sequence [Page 76] the Duke ought to know for his Superior, not God a­lone, but likewise his Republic, or the Grand Counsell: But passe we from these Errours; For if they doe not pinch the Venetians, they need the lesse to pinch strangers; Let us then come to the point and knot of the controversie.

Both your Author and your selfe Orthodox affirme, the Duke of Venice hath not sinned in making Lawes prejudiciall to the Church, and in committing Ecclesiastics to prison, for which Acts he hath been reproved by the Pope, and after that in defect of his obedience, hath beene censured with Excommunication: That he hath not sinned, you prove by three reasons: First, be­cause the Duke hath power immediatly from God over the Per­sons and Goods of Ecclesiastics; Secondly, because the Pope was never despoiled of the said power, neither by Priviledges granted, nor by Canons received and admitted: Thirdly, be­cause the Duke hath still held possession (and yet holds the same to this day) time out of mind: Your first reason is false by your owne affirmation in your last Speech, and by evident experience: For you affirme in your last passage, that the Duke of Veni [...]e hath power to punish Ecclesiastics in grievous and atrocious De­licts or crimes; your owne affirmation therein is a manifest sign [...] that his power is not immediately from God derived, but from some other, by whom the said power was granted with some li­mitation; For if the Duke had power over Ecclesiastics imme­diately from Gods Law, then he should have it in all cases, both grievous and light, both atrocious and not atrocious: Likewise you affirme, the Duke hath power to dispose of all Goods, not yet made over and transferred to Ecclesiastics: What can you meane by this Limitation, but onely that hee hath not absolute power over Ecclesiastic Goods, and so hath it not immediately from God? For were it so, he might not be limited by anie other, as the Popes power is not limitable, because his power is imme­diatelie from God: Besides, I demand whether the Republic hath power to diminish and encrease the Dukes Authoritie, and whether it can depose him from his Magistracie, when he beares not himselfe therein according to the Venetian Lawes? Out of all question the Republic hath power so to doe: The Duke then hath not his power immediatelie from God, but from his Re­public, [Page 77] and so the Dukes power is an Humane power, limited, and subject unto a higher Power, which is also Humane.

Your second reason stands in like degree of untruth: For if [...] Duke or Prince hath not despoiled himselfe of his power by [...]no [...]ledges of his owne grant unto Ecclesiasticall persons, that [...]y hold true, because he never can be despoiled, who never was [...]sted: Now the Prince of Venice was never invested with [...]e such power; For the Venetian Republic tooke his begin­ning, when Ecclesiasticall persons were before exempted from [...] power: It may be further alledged, that when a Laic chan­ges his coat and turnes Ecclesiastic, then the Prince is despoyled of the power that he had before over the same person: But how [...] spoiled? Forsooth by Divine priviledge granted to Ecclesi­ [...], and also by many Canons received thorow all Christen­ [...] in such manner and forme, that no Prince, nor all Princes together can derogate from the same: So Sotus, and so Conar­ [...] as before: But suppose, Si quis sua­dente. q. 4. we were destitute of all other [...]es and Authorities; That most famous Canon, which ex­communicates all such as lay violent hands upon Clerics or [...], may be sufficient, the Absolution in which case is reser­ [...]d to the Apostolic See, without exception of any Princes or [...] Lords; This Canon was never yet revoked to this day: [...] when Martin V. in the Councell of Constance was inclined [...] p [...]derate the sharpe censures of Excommunications, and to [...] order that it might be lawfull to have conversation with Excommunicate persons; neverthelesse he excepted all such as [...] declared Excommunicate by processe of Quorum nomina, withall those who notoriously doe lay violent hands upon Ec­clesiastics; For without all further declaration it was his will and pleasure, that conversing with all such persons should be a­voided, and that his foresaid moderation should not at any hand extend to the benefit of such, as by violence had laid up any Ec­clesiastic.

Your third reason drawne from possession time out of mind, is refuted by the words of the Venetian Lords themselves; For they in Anno 1605. renewed a Law, enacted in Anno 1536. That Goods Immoveable might not be given to the Church, for none other cause and reason, but onely because it had never been [Page 78] observed to that present yeare, as by themselves it is confessed: Besides, against Justice, no possession or Custome [...] stand in force; It is therefore a notorious falsitie to say the Duke of Ve­nice hath not sinned in making the [...]id Lawes and in [...] up Ecclesiasticall persons; But wh [...]soever sees or heares th [...] day the most grievous and horrible acts of Excesse done by the Vene­tian Duke in committing Priests and those of Religious Orders to prison, in compelling and forcing Ecclesiastics (contrarie to their conscience) to violate and breake the Apostolicall Interdict, in filling Monasteries with Souldiers, and last of all, in raising of public persecution against Churches and Religions, (as in fo [...]er ages Valens an Arrian Emperour, and after his [...]s Hi [...]uricus King of the Vandals an other Arrian hath done) [...]ow can that man professe the Duke doth not sin, if he be not [...]e­ther blinded with passion, and given up, as the Apostle [...], unto a reprobate mind? I passe over your words which [...], that he sinnes not who doth nothing against the Law, [...] that keepes the Law, nor he that followes the Doctrine of St. Paul; These points are too well knowne, and fitter for [...] ­low and light-witted children, then for solid and [...] vines.

But your last Censure, that such as [...] in Ecclesiasticall Exemption to be fixed upon the Pole of Gods Law and [...], seeme to you not well founded, or ill advised, or over [...], or grosse flatterers, is not a censure given against men [...] Blasphemie pronounced against the Holie Spirit; For the [...] which we maintaine is the expresse sentence of the La [...] and Tridentine Councels, both generall; So that if we acknowledge, according to the truth, that the sacred Councels, most of all the Generall Councels, are assembled in the name of the Holy Ghost; and if we be able to say with that first Councell h [...]ld at. Jerusa­lem, Visum est Spiritui Sanct [...] & nobis; it hath seemed good into the Holie Ghost, and unto us, then it followes, that you make th [...] holy Ghost sometimes not well founded, sometimes ill advised, sometimes too venturous; and sometimes too full of flatterie.

Orthodox. These two positions have beene sufficiently made good before, the one, that the power of Temporall Prin­ces comes immediately from God, howsoever the m [...]ne of [Page 79] attaining unto the said power is by the meanes of men, and that Almighty God hath not exempted any one Subject from the just Lawes and commandements of the said power, the other, that the Popes power, albeit Spirituall, cannot curbe or barre Temporall power from the exercise of their just Dominion over their owne Subjects; From these Principles proved point by point, in my last passage there is drawne this necessary conse­quence; That when the Pope by his Spirituall power inhibits the Prince of Venice to exercise his Temporall power over his owne Subjects, then the Prince of Venice is not bound to obey the Pope therein, and that in case of such disobedience the Prince committeth no sin or offence: This Hetrodox I trust is no fetching about by the bowe full bent, but going to the matter in a strait [...] by the string of the bowe; Now for so much as you charge [...] mine Author to be men who cannot speak without inter­ [...]ing all kinds of erroneous materials, it is necessarie for me to [...] off this aspersion of Calumnie & reproach, and to let you see [...] a Christall Glasse, the Errours couching in your own oppo­ [...]ns, Errours without all doubt so much further from excuse, as they are so audacious and shamelesse to reprove other mens [...] and sound Doctrine for Errour.

1. The most illustrious Republic is the naturall Prince of his own [...], in all my Authors Propositions he never speaks word of the Duke; He names the Duke not so much as once, but still speakes of the Signorie, or of the Republic, or of the Prince: Whereup­on you Hetrodox do nothing but confound the word Prince and the word Duke, and with the word you also confound the pow­er of the persons; So that by the Prince of Venice you under­stand the Duke, who is onely Head of the Republic, and shee onely the Prince: So manifest is this your first Errour, that all [...]n take fight and knowledge thereof: This one Errour marres your Market, for it [...]ps the force and authority of all your other oppositions concerning this matter in your head.

2. You seeme to have so base a conceit of me and my Author, that you presuppose we cannot distinguish the Prince when hee signifies the Republic, and when the Duke, who is but a parti­cular person, though the first and chiefest in the Republic, or else that all those, by whom the Authors worke was revised, were [Page 80] so close muffled, as they could not descry so manifest an Error; you seeme so desirous to find Thornes amongst flowers, that I doe not marvaile you see sometimes one thing for another, and call vertue her selfe by the name of Errour.

3. Whereas in my Authors answer no mention is made at a­ny time of the Duke, but of the Republic, of the Signorie; and whereas the Author treats not but of her Dominion and power, it was your part Hetrodox to understand, the word Prince is Generall, signifying as well Emperours, and Kings, as Repub­lics, or Common-wealths, and that in this place it did not sig­nifie the Duke, but the Republic: Besides, the Authors words admit none other sense: For the Prince of Venice (as this Au­thor speakes in plaine and expresse termes) never knew any Su­perior in Temporals but God alone; will any man understand this to be spoken of the Duke, who so long as hee was Procura­tor of St. Mark, acknowledged the Duke for his 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 D [...]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 tri [...] (or to t [...]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 [...]pp [...]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, [Page 81] 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 M [...]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 [Page 82] 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, [Page 83] 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 which executes the Jurisdiction of the Prince in Venice, and not the Duke.

10. You say the Authority of the Republic over his Subjects i [...] 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 [Page 84] 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 [Page 85] 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 [Page 86] 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, Expressis verbis, by perspicuous termes, or by Gods Law Naturall or in any other manner: To all such doubtlesse any former Epithets will be found agreeable.

The first of our three Races is now runne, let us rest for some few minutes, if you please, that wee may gather the more breadth, for the better performing of the other two courses.

Orthodox. SO long as the Signorie of Venice is not culpable, and commits no sinne, howsoever the State stands now and lyes under the Censure of Ex­communication by the high Bishop, or Pope Paulus V. in the Breve of Censures published by his Holinesse; howsoever the sacred Temples and holy places lye now under the Interdict; neverthelesse the sentence of our holy Father the Pope is of no force, to no effect, and as no Sentence; First by the Law po­sitive, because the order prescribed by the Canon hath not been observed duly and Canonically, as we read in the manifest: Se­condly, by the Law Divine, Can. de Senten. Excom. in 6. because all Authority to Excom­municate stands tyed to a condition, with a Si peccaverit, &c. if thy Brother sinne against thee, &c. So that where no sinne, there no place for Excommunication, and the sentence fulmina­ted against one that hath not sinned, Nulla est ex defectu mate­riae, becomes no Sentence for Defect or want of due matter; And I would not have any mans wit so blasted, to thinke that howsoever the Signorie hath not offended, (as hath beene pro­ved) nor doth offend in holding their owne Right, neverthe­lesse they offend in shewing their disobedience to the Pope, and persisting in their opinion; For Constancie in a good opinion is not Obstinacie, and he that hath not offended should not be ter­med obstinate or disobedient; For as hee that keepes the Law doth a most holy and meritorious worke, so he that is not obe­dient in matters which cannot be commanded or enjoyned him to performe, commits not any sinne or offence at all.

Hetrodox. In this Proposition you are bold to affirme two things; That our holy Fathers Excommunication and Inter­dict is a sentence of Nullity, both by positive Law, and also by the Law of God: By positive Law, because the order prescri­bed by the Canon hath not been observed in this case: A noto­rious falsitie; For in the Title De Sententia Excommunicatio­nis [Page 88] in 6. there be only three Canons by which the Judiciarie or­der is determined: In the first Chapter the sentence is com­manded to be put down in Scriptis, in the Chapter, Solet, it is commanded, that no man shall be Excommunicated, after hee hath appealed: In the Chapter, Statuimus, it is commanded, that no man shall be excommunicated, except first he be Cano­nically thereof advertised by three Admonitions: And albeit every Defect makes not a sentence to be no sentence, yet in the present case we need not flie unto this excuse; For the sentence of our Lord the Pope was given in Scriptis, and with all the three Admonitions of eight daies for the first Terme, eight for the second, and eight for the third: No Appeale interposed, nor could be interposed, where the Pope is the Supream Judge; So that with all exactnesse the Judiciarie Order commanded by the Canons De Sententia Excommunicationis in 6. hath beene duely observed, it was your part Orthodox to produce the Ca­non, and to demonstrate in which of these three points it hath not been observed, but alas you could not as it seemes, and think­ing it sufficient by like to beguile the ignorant, you passe it onely in generall termes.

By the Law of God the sentence of our Lord the Pope (you say) is without any validity and no sentence, for want of mat­ter, because Excommunication is a punishment which may not be inflicted without some precedent offence; and for as much as the Signorie of Venice hath not offended, the Lords of that State could not be subject unto Excommunication: This hath beene answered before, where I have shewed how the Signorie hath most grievously offended.

First, In making unjust Lawes against the Church, and in com­mitting Ecclesiasticall persons to prison; then againe, in being disobedient unto the high Bishop, and refusing to be reformed by his Holinesse in their evill waies: But were it a matter of doubt, whether the Signorie hath sinned or no; it is most cer­taine that doubt is to be put out of doubt and resolved, not by the judgement of the Signorie, but of our holy Father the Pope, the Supreame Judge in Christs roome and place; If the Pope then be the Judge over sinne (which point you have confessed in the fourth Proposition) then the Pope, and none but he, hath pow­er [Page 89] to discerne, whether a thing be sin or no sin, that's his proper office: A figure whereof we have in the old Testament, where it was the Priests office to judge, whether one was infected with Leprosie, or free from that infection; Now the Pope, the Priest of Priests, hath judged the Duke of Venice to have grievously sinned, to be all-over-run with a Spirituall Leprosie of great Malignitie and Contagion; whereupon [...] Holinesse, by sentence of Excommunication, hath separated the Duke from the company and fellowship of the Faithfull: How can the Duke be defended or excused in this case? It is true, that con­stancie in a good opinion is not (as you have well said) to be coun­ted and termed obstinacie; provided the question remaine and long in a doubtfull ballance: But when the question is once judged, and ended by the Judge, to whom all men are bound to give credit (as in this case) then the opinion of all such as main­taine the cause of the Venetian Signorie, is no longer an opinion, but an Errour; and then constancy therein is obstinacie.

Orthodox. Your oppositions to this our seventh Proposition have been effectually reproved before, as touching matter of Right: It onely remaines to give your Errours by tale, Bona Em­phytheotica, et ager Em­phytheoticus i.e. vestiga­lis & macer. Nam Em­phytensis est genus loca­tionis, quo inculti ac deserti agri colono alicui eâ lege in perpetuum locantur, et quamdiu praestituta merces sol­vatur, nun­quam ad Dominum revertatur. in your Exposition touching matter of Fact.

1. Before his Holinesse denounced sentence against the Lords of Venice, he Canonically gave them Admonition (you say) three severall times. I would faine know how that can be, when his first Monitorie was no Monitorie, but onely a Declaratorie and a Definitive Sentence, without any Monitorie at all going before; Againe in the third Monitorie the cause of Emphythea­ticals (as they are termed in Rome) not once mentioned in the first and second Monitorie, is interserted: This one point (were there none other) drawes the sentence into Nullitie; Besides, when Monitories are no Monitories, but sentences (like those of his Holinesse, for want of Juridicall citation they have that inexcusable Defect, which makes every cause void, every Sentence no Sentence: But of this matter I forbeare to speake any more, presupposing it is most evident, as a matter tossed from one to another in every Venetians mouth; Howbeit I build not so much upon this foundation; because I have this an­swer of Rome at my fingers ends; When the Pope doth any [Page 90] thing against the Canons, that is, the Pope is Supra Canones, he is above the Canons; How this can hold water or weight with truth, I leave to your consideration; For that Canon is grounded upon the order of Brotherly correction, prescribed by our Saviour himselfe, the alteration of whose Ordinance is too far out of the Popes reach.

2. The [...]ce of our holy Father the Pope (you say) is not a void [...] [...]nce, of nullified by Gods Law, and that you have sufficiently proved the Venetian Lords have most grievously sinned; I doe not deny, that you have in Affirmation charged the noble Lords with I wor not what grievous offences; But Sir, that you have made any Demonstration of your bold Assertion according to your stout pretence, that you must give me leave to deny againe and againe: Will you have my Reason? It is inde­monstrable that such as goe not against any Law doe fall into sin; That such as tooth and naile doe stand for defence of their anci­ent Rights and Possessions doe fall into sinne; That such as o­bey God rather then men fall into sinne; That such as re­sist violence doe fall into sinne: Such are the lawfull and lauda­ble Actions of the Venetian Lords, and therefore they doe not fall into sinne, as to effectuall purpose hath beene declared be­fore: Whereas your oppositions against this Doctrine have not one myte of probability (no not in appearance) much lesse of certainty or Demonstration, as you pretend.

3. I have confessed the Popes power extends unto Spirituall matters, and is over sinne, you hereupon doe inferre, that the Pope hath power at all times and in all causes to judge, what is a sin, and what is no sin; This your opinion smels of Durandus his Chimnie and smoke, an opinion of all men reproved; but your opinion is much worse; For Durandus doth not professe, that in every sin we should stand to the Popes judgement, whe­ther it be sin or no, for that is not necessary; He onely affirmes the Pope hath power to judge all Christian People, ratione pec­cati, for sinne, at his pleasure, and to draw all matters into his Court; Whereas you Hetrodox passe a whole degree further: For if the Pope shall judge an action of vertue to be sin, though I be never so certain it is no sin, you forsooth will have the Popes judgement shall make it sinne: This perswasion containes in­tolerable Errors.

[Page 91]1. The first whereof is, That in judiciis Facti in judgements of the Fact, our holy Fathers judgement is infallible: False; for in cases of the Fact he may erre, and hath oftentimes erred; So teach all the Doctors in the Fact of Pope Stephen, and Pope P [...]osus, with other Popes of whom Platina writes: This Doctrine is held for most certain in the Church; The Pope then may erre, in affirming a thing to be sin which is no sin, so the Pope can be no infallible Judge.

2. The second; Howsoever in a doubtfull case, whether a thing be sin or no, recourse may be had to the Popes Judgment, or some other Doctors, yet in cases which are certain and cer­tainly known, such recourse to the Pope for his Judgement is not necessary: For example, I know for certaine it is a sin to steale such a rich Jewell, or such a piece of Plate: again, I know for certain, it is a vertue to defend my Life, my Land, my Lea­ses, and to serve God; Shall I give credit and faith to the Pope, [...]he should affirme the contrary to that whereof I am so certain, and no way doubtfull? Those Authors who grant all Autho­rity to the Pope, and judgement between Leprosie and Lepro­sie, that is, whether it be Leprosie or no Leprosie, doe grant it only in doubtfull, b [...] not in certain cases; For in matters cleer, evident, and certain, either the light of Nature, or the sacred Scri­pture, or the common estimation and account of all men, is unto us a Law; vox Populi, vox Dei.

3. That in the present case and assures of the Venetian Lords, to make the world believe they sin, it is all sufficient for the Pope to speake the word, and to say, the Venetian Lords doe grievously offend and transgresse the Lawes of God, of the Pope, of the Church, &c. Whereas you know Hetrodox, it is the per­verse, the froward, the wicked intention that makes a thing to be fin, according to that of Bernard, Tolle voluntatem, & In­fernus non erit, if a man be cleare from all wicked intention, he shall be cleere and free from Hell-fire for ever; because according to St. Augustine, Peccatum est dictum, factum, concupitum con­tra legem, sinne must be something spoken, or acted, or cove­ted against the Law of God; If one therefore hath a good inten­tion, he goeth not against Gods Law: Howsoever the Pope shall say he sinnes, yet he sinnes not; which according to all [Page 92] the Doctors (as hath been said) must be understood in re certâ; Now because the Venetian Lords are certainly assured, they have not sinned or offended, and carry a cleer conscience f [...]e from any sinister and evill intention, this knowledge is their suffi­cient warrant, without running to the Pope for his judgement, in such a cause especially, wherein his Holinesse makes himselfe both Judge and Partie.

4. The Supreame Judge (you say) hath judged the Duke of Venice to be covered all over with Leprosie from head to foot; the Duke is therefore unclean all over: Why good Sir, the an­cient Priest under the old Testament judged not of any mans Le­prosie: He onely said, thou art an unclean Leper, and therefore I will not suffer thee to enter into the Temple; Now this judge­ment belongs to all Physitians, and indeed to all other men, when the Leprosie is manifestly seen, and when every man knowes the partie to be smitten with Leprosie: Besides, if it be doubtfull, whether a man be leprous or no, men may runne to the Priest, or goe to the Doctor to be certified of the truth: But when a man is already assured and certain, that he is not rotten but sound, not run over with knots and knubs, but of a cleer and smooth skin, what needs he run or send his Vrine to the Physi­tian for the matter, except his Phantasticon be like unto the im­maginative apprehension of one, who being Infra limites sanita­tis (as Physitians use to speake) as whole as a Fish, when his Physitian told him he had an Ague, in his Phantasie so deepely made impressions of the Physitians words, that he was in a trice surprised really of an Ague, and thereof soone dyed: To be short; If Christ Jesus the Supreame Judge indeed who cannot erre, should say contrary to the judgement and assured knowledge of the Venetian Lords, you sin in these your Actions, when the Lords are certain and sure their Actions are not sinfull, doubtlesse the Lords would stand to his Judgement, because it is Divine and infallible Wisedome: But for as much as his Vicar may erre, and hath actually erred in judiciis Facti, in certaine and evident matters, who doubts there is no standing to his judgment? No man ever affirmed, the Popes judgement concerning sin, whe­ther a thing is or is not sin, should be interposed in certain mat­ters; but onely professe, that in matters doubtfull men should [Page 93] stand to the judgement of their Superior: And who that Supe­rior may be according to the diversity of occurrences, I referre myselfe to the judgement of the Doctors.

5. The question in controversie betweene the Lords of Ve­ [...] and the Pope, you say, is dubitable; It is not dubitable to the Lords for matter of Fact, but certaine: And albeit some Doctors should hold the contrary, that neverthelesse doth not make the question doubtfull unto the Lords; For ita prabent as­sensum um parti, & ommino denegons alteri parti, they in such wise give their assent unto the one side, as they make sure work to keep it back from the other side: And this makes the opinion certaine, at least probable and not doubtful; For every autho­rity or apparent Reason doth not make an opinion doubtfull, but [...]ly such Authorities and Reasons, as are thought and estee­med marchable to the contrary Reasons, and grounded upon [...] common Doctrine of Conscience: Now because the Rea­sons produced and brought against the opinion of the most illu­ [...]s Republic are not able any way to make it a doubtfull opi­nion, it shall be needlesse to runne unto the judgement of any other Superior: One pause more Hetrodox for a short rest, and so to the third Race.

Orthodox. HOwsoever it goes for a true Rule or Principle of St. Gregorie the Pope, Sententia Pastoris justa sivè injusta timenda, the Sentence of the Ecclesiasticall Judge or Pastor, be it just or unjust, is to be fea­red; yet doth it nothing serve the purpose in this case; For there is a great difference betweene the unjust sentence of an Ec­clesiasticall Judge, and a sentence which is no sentence: Navar. de censuris Eccl. cap. 27. Sotus 4. Sent. Dist. [...]2. Thus Navarrus, thus Sotus, and that an unjust sentence is to be fea­red, but a No-Sentence is not to be observed: The Censures therefore published by our Holy Father Paulus V. being of no force or vertue, but vaine and void, as hath beene declared be­fore, [Page 94] because they are like a man [...] writing in the Water or in the Ayre, I am in this opinion service, that Ecclesiastics in Venice ought not in conscience to [...] the same Censures, not to in­novate any thing in their Church; For albeit Navarrus dis­coursing (in the place left [...] and alledged) of Excommunicati­on which hath no v [...]ty, [...]t [...]pure nullity, hath pronoun­ced in these [...]; Se [...]ti [...]lida se [...] nulla, nihil aliud ope­ratur in for [...] [...] i [...] quam quod obligat Excom­munis at [...] ad [...] a [...]um [...] qu [...]d Populus sibi persuad [...]t vel pers [...]ad [...]re [...] cau [...]as nullitatis propter Scandalum; the in­valid and void sentence (he meanes of an Ecclesiasticall Judge) is of no force to worke any effect, either in the secret Court of Conscience, or in the open Court of Judicature, but onely to bind the person Excommunicated to the observation of the said Excommunicatorie sentence, untill the people be wall perswa­ded, or at least should be perswaded, touching the nullitie there­of, and that for the avoiding of public scandall, yet for certaine this Doctrine of Navarrus [...]es very strongly for our present Cause: And wherefore? Forsooth because the Reason of the Nullitie hath beene made manifest unto all the Venetian people: And suppose it is yet not manifest unto some, they ought doubt­lesse to have taken it for manifested, by that course which the Venetian Prince hath taken for the manifesting thereof unto all men in all their solemne Edicts and publike Proclamations; So that in this case there is no publike scandall to be feared. I goe further, and say more, that some Religions by Order can by no meanes be excused, who erring perhaps by their little know­ledge, or perhaps out of some other sinister affection, have cho­sen to leave the City rather then to persevere in mini­string the holy Sacraments, and celebrating the Divine Service, as for the good of Religion and of the Common-Wealth, by their Prince his Ordinance they were enjoyned; wherein they have offered scandall unto all, because Ipsi sibi fuerunt Lex, they have been a Law unto themselves, and have not followed the example of the Cathedrall Church, of all other most holy and most ancient Religions, as like wise of all the other parish Chur­ches; To which Religious persons in a straine and fit of godly zeale, I say with our Saviour Christ, it had beene better that a [Page 95] Mill-stone had beene hanged about their necks, (I forbeare to say the rest, and they cast into the bottome of the Sea) then to have given so great a scandall unto any of these little ones: Be­sides, to defend the liberty of their naturall Prince, the maintai­ner, preserver, and upholder of Peace, Liberty, and Religion to all the people, is a Principle grounded upon the Law of Nature, that is, Law Divine, or the Law of God, whereas all Ecclesi­asticall sentences are grounded upon the Law positive, which ought alwaies to give place unto the other, and most of all, when [...] have a Constat of the Nullitie; Some therefore deceive them­selves, who take this controversie to be de Fide; for it is only a Moribus: And if any thing be expresly set downe in holy Scripture, which makes this Controversie to stand in matter of Faith, it is the opinion of the Signorie, which they have groun­ded on the expresse Doctrine of St. Paul.

Let me here freely deliver my mind, most learned Hetrodox; I could wish, and would exhort all the Clergie of the Venetian S [...] (if they were now present) not onely to celebrate Divine Service, and to communicate or administer the Sacraments, but likewise to performe all other Ecclesiasticall Duties, which, be­fore the publication of these late Censures, they have beene ac­customed to practise in their Church, both for that I am in good hope they are all fixt already upon that Resolution, and likewise to avoid scandall; not onely because Sententia nulla minimè est observanda, cùm constat de nullitate, a void Sentence binds none to the observation thereof when the Nullity is apparent, but al­so because they ought at no hand to rend themselves from their Head (the Prince) without any reason or cause in controversies of Jurisdiction; yea, I am of opinion, for the same reason, ther all such as shall not heare Masse (at least upon Holie daies) du­ring the time of this Interdict, shall commit sin, because they re­fute so to doe without any lawfull cause and reason, the sentence being void, and the Masse being celebrated in all the rest of the Churches: I would not have men to feare where no feare is, nor cause to feare; nor to give any cause, why those, who alwaies have beene faithfull to their Prince the most illustrious Republic, should draw upon their own heads any such imputation as this, Filii matris mea pugnaverunt contra me, the Sons of my mother [Page 96] have fought against me; but I would wish them rather to fight and strive, how they may best obey that Apostolicall Precept, let every soule be subject unto the higher Powers, Rom. 13.15. not only because of wrath, but also for Conscience sake; I make no doubt at all of their constancie, for I rest well assured, they are almost ready to lay downe their life for their Prince: The Lords of Venice have ordained on paine of death, That all the Religions in the City shall keepe their Churches open, and shall celebrate Di­vine Service, as they have done before: Have the Lords made this Decree out of any feare, least such of the Religions to whom they stand well-affected, who both know and follow the true Doctrine (as in a manner they doe all) would now doe other­wise than they have done, or would not goe on to celebrate and exercise all the Offices of their Ministerie? No sure; where­fore then was that grievous penalty ordained? Forsooth onely that none of the said Offices might be intermitted in that Citie which ever hath stood Catholique, and now professeth to con­tinue Catholique more then ever: Whereupon she will not suf­fer any change at all to be seene in the exercises of Piety, or [...]e intermission of the said exercises to be unto any an occasion of their Precipitation; For which mischiefe the Prince for the Churches behalfe and for her benefit, by Gods Law is bound to provide a Remedy by all meanes possible: Last of all, I com­mend to the Religions the Doctrine of Navarrus, as a most safe haven, Cap. Novit. de judiciu, Notab. 3. & manu. cap. 27. de Censuris. wherein they may ride without all danger; and this it is, That what Exemption soever they enjoy, the same they en­joy not by Gods Law, but by the Priviledge of their Princes, who have power to retract, diminish, dilate, and amplifie the said Priviledges when and how they please, according to such new reasons as rise, and as good occasion shall be represented for the doing thereof to the common utility and publike benefit or advantage of the Dominions under their Subjection; For the same power the Pope exerciseth in the priviledges of Indul­gences, and other matters depending upon his Spirituall Autho­rity, which by him sometimes are annulled, sometimes dimi­nished, and sometimes augmented.

Hetrodox. From false Principles you inferre a false conclusi­on; That for so much as the sentence of our holy Father is of [Page] no validity, therefore it ought not in any wise to be feared, and that by consequence the Priests of Venice and thorow the whole Venetian Dominion, are bound in conscience to celebrate all Di­vine offices, as if they had not beene interdicted at all.

First you affirme, That according to the Doctrine of Na­varrus, the Sentence of the Pope, when it is Nulla, is to be feared and observed, untill the people shall be thorowly perswa­ded of the Nullitie, to the end there may breed and grow no scandall; Then you subjoyne, the Venetian people are fully and wholly perswaded of the Nullity of the Popes Excommunica­tion, by the Dukes Edict, as much to say, when the Judge af­firmes his Sentence is just and in full force, and the Malefactor sales it is unjust and of no force, when the Malefactor should be credited, and the Judge not believed: What Sentence at any time shall goe current for just and in force, if the Malefactors word and credit may be taken?

Next you affirme, That certaine Religious persons are inex­cuseable, for chusing to depart out of the City, rather then to celebrate Divine Offices; and that very many thereby have beene scandalized: Alas good Sir, the said Religious have no need of your excuse, and if any other have beene scandalized by their obedience to the holy Father, the words of our Saviour to the Pharisees will serve well to remove and take away the scan­dall, Sinite illo [...], they are blind leaders of the blind, Mat. 15. let them a­lone.

Then you affirme, it is enjoyned by Gods Law to defend the liberty of their Prince; whereas Ecclesiasticall Sentences are en­joyned by mans Law, and that ought ever to give place unto the Law of God: At every word you take the Divine Law in your mouth, no mervaile your Argument runs in this divine forme: To defend the Princes liberty is by the Law of God: Ecclesiastical Sentences are by the Law of man, the Law of man gives place unto the Law of God; Ergo, the Priests ought to despise the Popes Excommunication and Interdict, and to defend the Li­berty of the Venetian Duke: But heare you Sir my answer; If it be by Gods Law to defend the Liberty of an Earthly Prince, much more it is by Gods Law to defend the liberty of the Church, the Spouse of the Heavenlie Prince.

I say moreover; The liberty which the Duke of Venice pre­tends now a daies, is a liberty to clap up such in prison as are none of his Subjects, and to make Lawes against Justice and Pie­ty, and therefore it is according to Gods Law, not to defend, but rather to impugne such a Liberty: And I yet subjoyn, that Ecclesiasticall Sentences (as touching Power) are by Gods Law established, Mat. 10. and founded on the Gospell.

And againe you affirme, That some are deceived in thinking this present controversie to be de Fide, when it is onely de Mo­ribus, and that if any thing be expressed in Scripture which makes this businesse to be de Fide, it is the Republics opinion, expressely taught by St. Paul: I answer; The Principall con­troversie is not de Fide; Neverthelesse, those who have under­taken the defence of the Venetian Cause, have in their discourses mingled certain Errors in matter of Faith: And whereas in your accustomed way, of Wisedome, no doubt, you tell us the opinion of the Signorie is expresly taught by St. Paul, your wisedome doth not marke, That such things as are expressely taught by St. Paul, cannot be called opinions; For then it should follow, that some doubt might be made of St. Pauls Doctrine, because opinions are ever doubtfull and uncertaine; The truth is Hetro­dox, the opinion of the Signorie is not found in St. Pauls Epi­stle to the Hebrewes: Obey them that have the oversight of you, Hebr. 13.17. and submit your selves, for they watch for your soules, as they that must give account for your Soules: Now against this Doctrine, which goes not in the Church for an opinion, but for a most certaine Article of Catholique Faith, your Lords of Venice deceived by such as your selfe, no DD. but Seducers, are precipitated in these daies, and carried headlong as it were downe the streame.

Moreover, you affirme that Priests ought not in any wise to make a rent or separation from their Head the Prince; What can a Protestant Heretique of England say more? Who ever heard, that a Secular Prince is the Head of Priests, and conse­quently Head of the Church, but since Henrie VIII. turned Re­bell to the Pope, and caused himselfe to be stiled Head of the English Church? for all this you Orthodox dare tell us, that in these Treatises there is handled no matter of Faith, but onely of Manners.

Besides, you highly extoll the Ecclesiastics of Venice, in be­ing most ready to lay downe their life for their Prince: Surely they must needs be a new and strange kind of Saints, that are so willing to spend their life in the cause and quarrell of a Prince, by whom they are compelled to commit Sacriledge, and to dis­obey the Vicar of Christ; The Saints, till now, have been com­mended in the Lyturgie, to be Triumphatores, qui contemnentes jussa Principum mernorunt praemia aeterna, to be valiant and Tri­umphant Champions, who contemning the Precepts of Secu­lar Princes, have merited Eternall rewards: From henceforth by like, the Hymne shall have need to be altered, that we may sing, Isti sunt Triumphatores, qui contempserunt Deum, ut ser­varent justa Principum, These are the valiant and Tryumphant Champions, who have contemned God, to keepe and observe the Precepts of Princes; at least if wee shall believe these new Doctors.

Againe, The Lords of Venice (you affirme) have comman­ded the Religions upon paine of death to keepe their Churches upon, and to celebrate all Divine Offices, that vain feare might not cause nor bring them to be intermitted in that City, most Catholique in all former Ages, and now professing to continue Catholique more then at any time heretofore: You shall receive no answer to this point from the lips of Hetrodox, the Holy Ghost shall give the Answer by the mouth of Samuel: 1 Sam. 15.22.23. Hath the Lord as great pleasure in burnt-offerings and Sacrifices, as when the voice of the Lord is obeyed: Behold, to obey is better then Sacrifice, and to hearken is better then the Sacrifice of Rammes; for Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and trans­gression is wickednesse and Idolatry: If you shall reply, that Samuel there speakes of obedience to God; heare what our Lord saith in the Gospell: Hee that heareth you heareth me, Luke 10. and hee that despiseth you despiseth me: The Venetian Republic there­fore may be well assured, that such Divine Offices and Sacrifi­ces, as are offered against obedience to Christs owne Vicar, can not be pleasing unto Christ himselfe, they cannot appease and pacifie, but incense and kindle the wrath of God against all those by whom they are offered, and all those by whom the Priests are compelled to present any such oblations.

Againe, you puts us in mind to peruse the Doctrine of Na­varrus, and are bold to affirme, That Navarrus makes for your side in all that before hath beene declared: At last, you fall upon a course of exhortation, that all men would retire themselves un­to the secure port of this Doctrine, that such Exemption as all Ecclesiastics now enjoy, are not enjoyed by Gods Law, but by Priviledge of Secular Princes, in whom there is full power to retract, diminish, dilate, and amplifie the said priviledges at their pleasure: I answer; Herein Orthodox doth unjustly defame, and undiscreetlie blemish the reputation of Navarrus, as one that favours and bolsters Orthodox in so many Errors as Ortho­dox hitherto hath taught and uttered in this Defence: But for so much as Navarrus his workes are extant in print, and read of all men, I referre my selfe to the Readers judgement: But Sir, that Secular Princes by any power of their owne, may retract or diminish the Priviledges of Exemption granted to Ecclesia­sticall persons; that's a Doctrine so false and so new, that by Co­narruuias himselfe, an Author of all other least favourable to Ec­clesiasticall Exemption, it is in Specie reproved and condemned; Thus have I fully satisfied, if I be not greatly deceived, all your Objections in your owne conceit, worthy to be highly prized, and had in great Estimation, if not Admiration.

Now comes my turne to advise, to exhort, and to beseech (as with my best heart I doe) the most noble Republic, and her most excellent Prince, deeply to weigh and consider in their most grave and incomparable wisedome in what Doctors and Teachers they repose their trust: In Summa. cap. 25. nu. 16. What? Is Navarrus wholly on their side, when he pronounceth it is a sin, to constraine or command Ecclesiastics not to keepe and observe the Interdict? When he pronounceth Clerics and Monkes are exempted from the power of Secular Princes, Cap. Novit. de judiciu. notab. 6. nu. 30. by Gods Law, as touching Crimi­nall & Spirituall Causes, with others of the like nature, annexed to Clericall Order? and after when he subjoines this to be the common Sentence of Divines and Canonists? So that according to the Doctrine of Navarrus, the Prince that casts either Cle­rics or Monkes in prison, or presumes in a Criminall cause to judge either of both, sinneth against Gods Law, he sinneth like­wise against Gods Law, when he commands Clerics or Monks [Page 101] to say Masse or Divine Service, because these things are Spiritu­all: and lastly he sinneth against Gods Law, if he attempt to an­null, or to diminish Exemption granted to Clerics or Monkes by Almightie God: Thus the Lords of Venice may see, how falsly they have been instructed by some of their owne Doctors, and how under the name of Navarrus they have been deceived: The same fraud and imposture hath been put as a trick of cunning up­on the said Lords by all such as to this day have given themselves the reines of libertie to put in print certain Librets or small Pam­phlets of like matter and stuffe, but all farced and stuffed with Novelties and lies; Againe I exhort and beseech all Ecclesia­stics to thinke that none can beare more ardent, sincere, and in­dulgent affection to the Child, then the naturall Parents, Fa­ther, and Mother, that howsoever they have (as Paul speaketh) many Paedagogues, Teachers, or Schoole-masters, yet but one Father: Their Mother is the holie Romane Church, their Fa­ther is the High Priest or chiefe Bishop, by whom (in Christs place) they have had their Nursing and Education, untill they are now grown great, and capable of the Inheritance of the Ce­lestiall Paradise; They are therefore to presuppose this Mother, and this Father wish and worke for their building up in Faith, in Truth, in all wholesome Doctrine, much more then these Paeda­gogues, who teach them Rules and Lessons backwards, by that order commonly called Arsie-varsie; Last of all, I exhort and beseech, not onely the said Lords, but all Ecclesiastics in the Ve­netian Government and Territorie, well to consider and thinke upon Gods Judgements, which many times he brings the high­est and stoutest Princes to feele even in this life.

Pope Gregorie VII. for the sins of King Boneslaus interdi­cted the whole Kingdome of Polonia, excommunicated the King, and deprived him of the Regall Title; The King persisted indu­rate and impenitent; God punished the King; first by making him underprised or despised by his owne Subjects and abhorred by strangers: This potion wrought not upon the King: God sent a second scourge, by raising Rebellion in some part of the Kingdome, with great dissentions and seditions in the rest; This Medicine also tooke no effect; God sent a third scourge, made the King runne as it were out of his wits, wander tho­row [Page 102] Woods and wild Forrests of Chase with his pack, or ker­nell of hounds at his heeles, fall downe suddenly dead, and sud­denly to be devoured by his owne dogs: Such was the horrible end of this King for despising the Excommunication and Inter­dict of Christs Vicar, though the King never had the heart, ne­ver presumed to command the Interdict should not be observed by his people or Subjects: The Emperour Ludovicus Bavarus made the same end: He despised the Censures of Pope John XXII. and after that of Pope Benedict XII. His own horse up­on a time fell upon his body by mishap and at unawares, and so he suddenly dyed, without anie time to be absolved of his sins, and from the said Censures; The same God is now that was then, and of the same Omnipotencie which then he had: So that if Almightie God hath so severely and rigorouslie punished those, who forced not others to despise the Discipline and Censures of the Church, but onely have themselves in their owne persons despised the power and Authoritie of the Keyes; What mar­vaile, if in these times present he shall punish those, who not onely themselves despise the said Censures, but likewise by threatning of death, compell and inforce their Subjects to despise the same; Let us therefore be obedient to the voice of the Holie Ghost in the Psalmes: Psal. Ps. Ps. To day if ye will heare his voice, harden not your hearts, and elsewhere, Touch not mine Annointed; and yet elsewhere, Be wise now therefore ye Kings, be l [...]ed ye Judges of the Earth; lay fast hold on Instruction, least he be angry, and ye perish in the way.

Orthodox. There speakes, not an Angell, but indeed the Spi­rit of God; If you Hetrodox will lay hold on this Instruction; you should be sure not to perish in the way: But my Proposition you say is false, because it is drawne out of false Principles, which you have battered with your Pieces downe to the ground: No such matter Sir, they stand as firme and stedfast as ever they did; There is no necessitie to make repetition of my former Defence, and therefore I will hasten to make Demonstration of your Er­rours.

1. You confound two severall Actions of great Disparitie, the Action of a Superiour Judge; who in the Tribunall Seate of Ju­stice, doth judge the Sentence of another Judge, inferiour and [Page 103] subject unto himselfe, to be void and of none effect; and the acti­on of a private person, who thinkes and holds the same sentence of the same Judge to be of no validitie, because he judges it such by certaine evidence and assurance concerning the Nullitie thereof: The first Juridical Action cannot be exercised, but by one to whom the foresaid Authoritie and Superioritie doth properlie belong: the other Action may be exercised by anie one of mean and com­mon judgement: Now Sir, the Prince of Venice doth judge, e­steeme and hold the Censures of his Holinesse to be forcelesse and fectlesse, not as Judges Superior to the Pope in Causes of that Nature, but as those to whom it is lawfull and permitted by the cleere and manifest evidence of the Fact it selfe, to hold and e­steeme them for no better: This being lawfull for all private persons, must needs be much more lawfull in Princes for the conservation of Libertie, Peace, and Religion in their severall States.

2. Whether a Sentence be unjust and in state of meere Nulli­tie or no, credit (you say) should not be given to the Delinquent or Malefactor, but rather to the Judge: I have not affirmed that either the one or the other should be credited; For both may be interessed and blinded with passion: But I onely affirme, That he should be credited, who discovers and manifests the truth of his Assertions by certaine and evident reasons; And in so doing he doth not sin or offend, because he doth not anie thing unlawfull or unpermitted: Neither can anie power what­soever controule or curbe his judgement, and restraine his free opinion, from affirming a thing to be certaine, whensoever by the certainty and evidence of strong reasons he is induced to af­firme and hold the said opinion, nor the judgement or free opi­nion of those, to whom the said certainty and evidence is appa­rent, from affirming and holding the same opinion; I say more­over, that howsoever those upon whom any unjust Sentence is executed with force and violence, cannot shun or avoid the exe­cution thereof, neverthelesse they may in publike declare their griefe and sorrow for such injustice, and yet shall remaine quit from anie merit of blame: No more are those to be blamed, who lay open to the whole world the Nullity and Injustice of a Cen­sure published, when it is lawfull for them, not onelie to hold [Page 104] and affirme the said Censure to be invalid and unjust by the cleer evidence of the Fact, but also to refraine from the observation of the said Censure.

3. You presume to say, the Religious of Venice by depar­ting out of the City and abandoning the same, have not given any scandall to the Church, or State, or other private persons: you shall not now heare anything of mine own invention, Head, or Braine, but onely wha [...] with mine Eares I have heard the scandalized people not mutter and mumble betweene the teeth, but manifest in bread termes of Speech; The people say that some few Religions in the City should not preferre and prize their owne judgement above or before the Cathedrall Church, the observance whereof was given to the Religious by the sacred Canons for a Rule of observance in the matter of Censures, and should not by their Example condemne others, no lesse learned and Religious then they presumed or perswaded themselves to be: Secondly, that little handfull of Religious forsooke the Ci­ty, as men ambitiously gasping after Chapters and Bishopricks, to gaine and purchase grace at his Holinesse hands, and not as men thinking and in truth perswaded the cause to be just on the Popes part: Thirdly, that whereas the Religious had been al­waies before defended, protected, and succoured in all their ne­cessities by the Prince, they did ill to declare themselves wanting in Loyaltie and Fidelitie to the Prince in a Temporall cause, and wherein the Prince himselfe wanted neither good [...]or important Reasons of State: Fourthly, their profession was nothing a­greeable or correspondent to their Fact; For they made profes­sion to go into the most remote Regions and Countries, amongst the Indians, and Heretiques, (partly Ethmics, 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 [Page 105] 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, [Page 106] 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, [Page 107] 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 Spirituals, who is the Pope, but of the Head in Temporals, who is the Prince; to whom the Subjects are obliged by more then manie Titles and Tyes: Let men read over the 23. Homilie of St. Chrysostome upon the E­pistle to the Romanes: But Protestants tell another tale, and sing in another Keye; Namely, that a Prince Temporall is like­wise Head in Spirituals, but I for my part dare not go so farre: The end of any operation (which makes the operation good and laudable) is over the principall, not secondary and consequent, according to the common Doctrine of Divines: For Example; [Page 108] Our Lord Christ desired to dye, and voluntarilie exposed him­selfe to death, even the death of the Crosse; This death could not follow, if Judas, Pilate, the Scribes and Pharisees had not sinned; This notwithstanding, no man must or dare affirme, their sin was the end of Christs death or suffering, and that his worke of immense love did merit anie blame at all, for and in re­spect of their wicked and sinfull action: For to determine the goodnesse and justice of an Operation, then reckoning must not be drawn from the secondarie, but onelie from the Primarie and Principall end: In like manner say I, the Subjects end is to per­forme obedience unto his Temporall Prince in those things which may justlie and lawfullie be commanded by the Prince; The Subject cannot performe such duties enjoyned by his Prince, without renouncing his obedience to the Popes invalide and void Sentences: In this case it must not be said, the Subjects Action is to despise the Pope, or to contemne his Papall Au­thoritie; For the Subjects end is to obey him, whom he is bound to obey, and by whom he is lawfully commanded; his end is not in anie wise to despise the Holie Father, and his Censures, which neverthelesse upon a necessarie consequence he doth not observe, as one preferring the Superiour and Primarie end before the Inferior and Consequent.

13. I have not affirmed, that Subjects laying down their life in obedience and for the defence of their Naturall and lawfull Prince, are holy Martyrs, but onelie that in so doing, they doe not ill, but rather well; neither can it be said of such good and faithfull Subjects, These are the noble and tryumphant Cham­pions, who have contemned God to keepe the commands of Princes, but rather, These are the victorious and tryumphant Conquerors, who to keepe Gods commandements have obeyed their Princes.

14. You confound the name of God with the name of Man; Samuel speakes of Gods name, Hebr. 5. who cannot erre; I speake of mans name, qui circundatus est infirmitate, who is compassed a­bout with infirmities; And in that sense are those words un­derstood, He that heareth you, heareth me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth me, that is, when Prelates deliver things just and conformable to their owne power, then they are to be heard, [Page 109] then to be obeyed; St. Paul himselfe otherwise had strayed from the right way when hee withstood St. Peter to his face, who then was to be blamed: Galat. 2.11. And in case this were universally true; then such as had imbraced the Doctrine of John XXII. had not done amisse; and yet his Doctrine was manifest and no­torious Heresie; For he affirmed the Soules of the blessed Saints did not see the face of God so soone as they departed out of the Bodie, but were to expect and stay for the sight of God untill the last Judgement: John XXII. held this Hereticall opinion, as Pope Adrian VI. and Gerson have directly delivered: Last­ly, to what purpose doe the Summists affirme, That invalide and void sentences ought not to be observed, if the Popes voice, Gers. serm. de Assump. or the voice of inferiour Prelates can justly challenge to be obser­ved in all things? yea, our blessed Saviour would have the Do­ctrine of men to be well tryed like Gold, and well fifted like Meale; A fructibus, ye shall know them by their fruits: yea, St. Paul giving▪ touch of the times to come, Mat. 7. when Prelates would not attend to wholesome Doctrine, but would suffer themselves to be led and carried away by their owne humane fancies of new Doctrine doth admonish Timothie his Disciple, that he should not be like unto those Teachers; All Teachers therefore are not to be heard, and in all matters, but onely such as teach Doctrines agreeable to sacred Scripture and holy Truth, as also conformable to the example of Christ, and of his Saints.

15. You call that Doctrine of Diminishing and Ampllating of Priviledges a false and new Doctrine: It is nothing so; you know that Popes every day doe the like, by their Spirituall pow­er: What shall then let a Temporall Prince to doe the same by his Temporall power? Conarruuias and Sotus are to be under­stood with the word Ordinarilie, and out of the case of necessitie; For in case of necessitie, for Example, To rebutte and repell force; (for so speaketh Sotus) or in other cases of necessity (and so speake all those who treat of Priviledges) my Doctrine and Assertion is uncontrouleable and undeniable, most ancient as well for the Right, as for the Fact.

16. Navarrus frames this Argument, Plus differt Christianus à Pagano, quam Clericus à Christiano; There is a greater diffe­rence between a Christian and a Pagan, then is between a Cle­ric [Page 111] and a Christian; but a Christian remaineth subject unto the Lay-Prince; Ergo, much more a Christian, entred once into Clericall Orders remaineth subject unto the Lay-Prince: This Argument ( Navarrus is resolute) stands insoluble, and not pos­sible to be dissolved, but by confessing, That Exemption is grounded upon mans Law. Thus Navarrus, from the number which you Hetrodox have cited, untill the Reader comes to the Corollarie.

17. It is very true, That when Subjects are prohibited to keep a valide and effectuall Interdict, it is a sinne; and this point Navarrus himself doth directly avouch: But we now speak of an invalide interdict of no force, no interdict at all; And trea­ting of such an interdict, wee should have recourse to the Do­ctrine of the said Navarrus himself, reduced to these Proposi­tions following:

Prima, Nemo tenetur nostrâ aetate servare interdictum ali­quod, nisi denuntiatur: In this our Age, none is bound to keepe and observe any interdict, except it hath been denounced.

Secunda, Ne (que) tenetur servare interdictum, quando est nullum in se, & nullitas est sufficienter publicata, exceptis Religiosis, qui de­bent illud observare, si Ecclesia Mater id observat: No man is bound to keepe an interdict, which in it self is void, and when the Nullity thereof hath been sufficiently published; except re­ligious persons, who are to keep and observe the said interdict, if it be observed by the Mother Church, the Cathedrall Church.

Tertia, Interdictum est nullum regulariter in eisdem Casibus in quibus est nulla excommunicatio; An interdict is regularly none in it self, and utterly void, in the same Cases, wherein Excommu­nication is of no validity or force.

4. Quarta, Excommunicatio est nulla sive invalida, quando con­tinet intolerabilem Errorem, quem habet illa quae datur contra ali­quem, ex quo rectè aliquid fecit; Excommunication is none, or of no force, when it containes an intollerable errour; and such is that Excommunicatory Censure, which is denounced or given against any man for well-doing, or after he hath executed some good Act, or done some good work.

5, Quinta, Excommunicatio invalida seu nulla nihil operatur in foro interiori sive exteriori, &c. Invalide or no Excommunica­tion [Page 110] workes none effect, neither in the inward, nor in the out­ward Court, save that it bindes the excommunicate person to the observation thereof, untill the people may be really per­swaded of the nullity thereof, for the avoyding of scandall.

6. Sexta, Idem dicendum de suspensione, & interdicto nullo, quod dictum est de Excommunicatione nullâ, The same is to bee pronounced of invalid suspensions and interdicts, that hath been asserted and averred of invalide Excommunications.

Now the Venetian Prince having commanded an Action of vertue; namely, the non-observing of a non-interdict quod ver­gebat in periculum Divini cultus & Religionis, which tended to the manifest hazzard and danger of Gods Worship and Religi­on: Surely, they have not sinned, but have observed the Doctrine of Navarrus to a haire.

18. None of us deny the Pope, or chiefe Bishop, to be the Vicar of our Father in Heaven for Spirituall Causes: but wee say moreover, The Prince is the Father of the People in Tempo­rall Causes; and withall, That as the Son hath reason to diso­bey the Father, who seekes to deprive him of his own particular goods and portions, to him appropiated, either by reason of Dowry, or otherwise. Even so the Prince ought not to obey the Bishop, (howsoever, he goes for the Princes Father in Spiritu­als) when the Bishop pretends to deprive him of his Temporall Goods and Jurisdiction.

19. The Lord Cardinall Baronius hath assumed, and presu­med the Venetian Republic to be decrepit, and in that considera­tion, a blind Buzzard, or dreaming Dotard: And you Hetrod ox from the Lord Cardinall Bellarmine, have learned on the con­trary, to call the Venetian Republic so young a Child, as it hath need of Paedagogues. I tell you Sir, the Republic is not decreipt, or an old fool; much lesse a child to be taught his Primmer; she is the Queen of Cities, a Prince of perfect age: When this Prince collective determines any matter, case, or law, they do it with great and singular wisdome, they alwayes aime at Justice and Piety, they have no need of any to teach them lessons in Temporall Affaires, or in the Government of their States and Subjects; they are over all Christendome not only reputed, but also renowned for most wise and prudent Senators: What is [Page 112] written by some Authors on their behalfe, is written by the said Authors, of their own simple and voluntary accord, in defence of the truth, and the just cause of their Prince.

20. You confound the name of Paedagogue with the name of Doctor; whereas by Cicero in his Dialogue de Amicitiâ, they are distinguished: For, the name of Paedagogue notes a servile exercise of such as attend and wait upon Children: the name o [...] Doctor signifies a liberal and noble exercise, in teaching Ex Ca­thedrâ, out of the Doctors Chaire. I know not one Paedagogue that hath set pen to paper in the defence of the Republics cause; but many famous and eminent Doctors, with whole Colledges, have taken the paines to write in their favour.

21. The example of King Boneslaus is nothing apt, nor ac­commodated to the case; King Boneslaus was an impious and most wicked person, infamous and notorious for many fowle crimes: The Republic is a Pack (if I may so speak) or an uni­ted and uniform knot of pious and Catholic Senators, great lo­vers of Justice, and renowned Zelators of Religion.

22. If all that have not observed the Interdict, and have prohibited the observation thereof, should have so miserably ended their dayes, as King Boneslaus dyed, or should have been so unhappily poysoned, as Bavarus was (not dying of any sud­den death as you pretend.) I wonder how the most Christian Kings, Philip the Faire, and Lewis XII. could escape the like miserable deaths and unfortunate ends: nay, how their whole Kingdome did not perish in like manner: Now, that not falling out in the same unfortunate manner, it is a manifest signe; That all those by whom the observation of the Interdict is inhibited, or not observed in their own persons, shall not be taken away by the like miserable and sudden death.

23. Now I come to the conclusion of this my Defence, with two other Examples of Popes; for as much, as you Hetrodox have been pleased to gall us (as you imagine) with two Exam­ples of Temporall Princes: what can you say for Iohn XII. Hee excommunicated the Bishops, by whom his cause had been dis­cussed, by Commission from Otho 1. Emperour: The Bishops did not obey, they declared the Nullity of his Excommunicatory Sentence. Have you read at any time, that any one of that Coun­cell [Page 113] perished by a miserable death? And have you not read, how the said Pope came to a death so infamous, and so miserable, that I think it neither fit nor lawful to story the same; first wan­dring (no lesse then Boneslaus) for some space of time, thorow the wild woods, with wild and savage Beasts. The other Exam­ple is of Pope Boniface VIII. He excommunicated the French King; Philip the Faire, and interdicted his whole Kingdom: the King scorned the Popes Bull, or Breve of Excommunication; The Pope thereat [...]o stampt and storm'd, so far took pepper in the nose for a medicine, that it burnt up and consumed his En­trails (as may be supposed) his Bowels, and his very Heart; so that he dyed at last a miserable death: of whom Platina thus; Moritur hoc modo, &c. Thus dyed Boniface; He, whose care and study was to tame and trample upon Emperours, Kings, Princes, Nations, and People with terrors, rather then to teach them holy Religion; He, that presumed to give & to take away Kingdoms at his discretion; He, that went to drive men out of their habi­tations, and to bring them back again; He, that above measure thirsted after gold and treasure, ransacking the Coffers, and rip­ping up the Bowels of all Exchequers. Let all Princes therefore learn by his example, as well secular as religious Princes, not proudly and contumeliously (as this man of whom now wee speak) to rule their Clergy and People, but in a holy and modest manner of Government, as Christ and his Disciples, with all o­ther his true and faithfull followers ruled, and chuse to be loved of the people rather then feared, which will justly be the down fall and break-neck of all tyrannous Princes: So that by these two Examples, you may see Hetrodox, that your Argument ab ex [...]mpl [...]: drawn by name from the example of Boneslaus and Ba­varus, is of no force, but weak as water. First, because your com­parison of the Princes is impertinent and in [...]pt. Secondly, be­cause I would haue you know; that if some Princes interdicted and excommunicated have met with a miserable death, some Popes in like manner, Interdicters and Excommunicators of o­thers, have drunk of the same cup, and have been scourged with the same whip of a miserable death.

By all that hath been hitherto dilated in our sixe dayes Con­ference, concerning the Doctrine of eight Propositions, five in [Page 114] Thesis, three in Hypothesis; the same Doctrine is manifestly de­clared to be found, Catholic, and tr [...]e, conformable to divine and holy Scripture, to generall Councels, to sacred Canons, to imperiall Constitutions, to the example of holy Popes, of most prudent Kings and Emperours, to the Doctrine of the holy Fa­thers, I and of those Catholic Doctors, who have written and printed since the sacred Councell of Trent, by name Navarrus, Medina, Couarruvias, Victoria, Sotus, & Cornelius, Jansenius.

That all those three Propositions, which make up the main of the controversie, are most certain and true, Catholic and most firmely founded, as extracted from the sweet Fountain of holy Scripture, from the goodly great Rivers of Generall Councels; of sacred Canons, of Imperiall Constitutions, of unreproveable Histories, of worthy Saints, and of Catholic Doctors. The three Propositions be these.

1. The chiefe Bishop, Nudus a Donariis & Privilegiis Prin­cipum, & jure Pontificatus, as Navarrus writeth, and St. Barnard; that is to say, stript and left naked of Princes, Donations, and pri­viledges, and only measured by the right Pole of his Pontificall Priest-hood, or high Priestly Dignity, nullam habet laicam Pote­statem, can claime or challenge no kind of Laic-power, neither in the highest degree, nor in the middleward, nor in the lowest ranke, ne (que) actu, ne (que) habitu, neither for Fact, nor Habit.

2. In temporall matters, and in other Delicts Temporall, quae Spiritualia non attinent, having nothing to doe with Spiritu­als (for that phrase is used by Couarruvias) Ecclesiastics are not exempted from the secular Prince his power, in the whole, or for the whole, and by the Law of God, but only for some De­licts, and in some cases, or matters, and that either by the privi­ledges of Princes themselves, or by Pontificial Canon, which the said Princes have received and admitted, or else by custome long approved.

3. That a void and invalide Sentence, when there is a cleere Constat of the Nullity, ought neither to be observed, nor so much as feared; So that of all the former Doctrine in this whole De­fence, that may be averred of the Venetian Republic, which the Holy Ghost hath spoken of the white Dove in the Canticles, Et macula non est in te, and thou art without spot; most of all in [Page 115] those her two wings, I mean in the defence of her Catholic Re­ligion, and of her liberty; which two Prerogatives proper to her self, and to this day pure Virgins, we hope and trust so much in the favour of our Lord God, that he will be graciously plea­sed to conserve in their Virginity without spot for ever.

The Sun is now setting, the three Races run, and high time to repaire to lodging and rest; Glad would I bee to understand Het. how you rest satisfied with my Defence of these eight Pro­positions: but however, in your approbation of my Discourse, or my contrary resolution, I am resolved to rest ever at your service.

Hetrodox, know this to be my resolution Orthodox; I must be, I will be semper unus & idem, ever one and the same; I de­part in the same beliefe, wherein I came the first day to this Campe-fight, or single Combate: Howbeit, common civility commands to render due thankes for the merit of these Dis­courses and Christian Charity, much more commands Hetrodox, or Card. Bellarmine (which you please) the Champion of Rome, even to wish nothing, but good and happinesse to Orthodox, or Ioannes Marsilius Neapolitanus, the worthy Champion of Ve­nice, and yet with a Salvando la querela, with a saving this learned quarrell, conference, or contention.