THE JESUIT THE CHIEF, If not the only State-Heretique in the World.  
OR, The Venetian Quarrel.  
Digested into a DIALOGUE.  
BY THO: SWADLIN, D. D.  Bernard, Epist. 256. 
Quale est hoc, Principatum tenere, & Ministerium declinare?  
Printed in the Year, 1647.   

TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFUL, My very munificent Friend, Sir GEORGE GRYMES.  
Noble Sir,  
IN the following Papers (which are but a Translation of Eight Propositions, as they were canvased by two learned Roman Catholics) you will meet with some Primitive Learning under the name of Orthodox, and that will delight you; you will meet with some Modern Learning under the name of Hetrodox, and that will not displease you: In both you will find the business of Secular and Ecclesiastic Power at full discussed, which will be no great burden for you to read; and a great happiness to myself, that the world may therein see I am neither Popishly affected, nor ingratefully infected, since these lines walk under your Protection, (no friend to Popery, a great friend to Piety) and are Dedicated to you as a Tithe of that Gratitude, which is necessarily due from,  
Sir, Your most humble Servant, T. S. London, Nou. 19 1646.   

THE FIRST DAY'S CONFERENCE UPON The first PROPOSITION. HETRODOX.  
IS the wind in that door Orthodox? Are you become so deplorately blinded, and yet honoured with the reputation of a wel-founded Roman Catholic? Is it possible that any Roman Catholic can swallow the sweet Pill (but most deadly poison) of heretical Pravity, to assevere so distinctly as you have now done, and to believe withal so confidently as you now pretend, the power of secular Princes, or of our Holy Father himself, as a temporal Prince, doth claim a kind of Birthright by lawful derivation, Immediately as it were from the Almighty's throne, and without exception?  
Orthodox, The wind blows where it lists Hetrodox; But whether I be now transformed into a Baertimeus, or turned blind as a Beetle, in this Theological Argument, whether I have taken down a drachma, or so much as only a drop of heretical poison in this dogmatic assertion; I neither intent to show myself so self-conceited, neither purpose to look so big upon the tiptoe of my own private spirit, as to deprive your critic faculty of any fair 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 bar all manner of bees.  
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 perform with promptitude all due and requisite obedience unto the just and lawful behests of their lawful Princes, by the law of nations, is grounded and built upon one of these four Bases; Election, Inheritance, Donation, or Law of Arms; I mean Sword-Law, and right by valiant Conquest; So that all Princes advanced to the glorious Throne of sacred Supreamacy, or supreme principality, by any one or more of these four Bases of State, are condignly to be enroled and registered in the most noble Canon or Calendar of lawful Princes: And all such Princes (I religiously profess) in my conscience are crowned with Authority and Power immediately from God, to command, to enact Statute Laws, to exact due Tributes, to hear and determine causes, to inflict capital and other corporal punishments, to impose Pecuniary Mulcts of penal Statutes, upon all their natural 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 temporal power, at least by man's law, as it is held by all Catholic Authors; yea, by God's Law also, as before our parting I hope so materially and substantially to verify, that you shall be enforced to confess your error, to cry Peccavi, and glad withal, to deliver me your weapons in this Field.  
If you mean exception of Power, your Proposition is Heretical; For no Power of any Christian Prince or Monarch, can be free from subjection (in some sort) unto the power of Christ's Vicar, the universal 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 heresy; For it is the doctrine of sacred Scripture, and holy Counsels, That spiritual causes are not summonable, nor bound or tied to their Courts of Layics, not compatible of trials in the Kings-Bench, or Court of Common-Pleas, but in Consistorian Courts, and before Ecclesiastical 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 rank of solid, Catholic and Classical Authors, He delivers for positive doctrine, that exception or exemption of Ecclesiastics in temporal crimes and causes, is not commanded or prescribed of Almighty God, in the whole volume of the Bible; 
Medin. de Restitut. q. 15.  His express and formal words be these, Videtur oppositum esse verum etc. The contrary assertion seems 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 God's word, for the exempting of Clericks or ecclesiastics from the power of the secular arm and sword; I rather choose to affirm & maintain, that in former ages Clericks have obtained, and for the times present with great happiness do enjoy their exemption by the munificent Grants, by the gracious Charters, by the indulgent privileges of their noble Princes▪ again, Denique hac ratione unica, etc. To conclude, this one argument hits the Nail on the head, drives it home, and hits the Bird, like a Bolt in the right Eye: we can profess and justify no point of doctrine to be grounded upon God's Law or word, except it can be warranted by some authentical testimony of the same divine law or word; Exempting of Clericks hath no clear warrant passable or trivable in the law of God: ergo, 
Covar. lib. pract. q. C. 1●. conclu. 2.  etc. Covaruvias also stands as firm like a Colosse for the same assertion. In rebus temporalibus et in criminalibus quae spiritualia non attingunt, etc. In temporal matters and in criminal causes, having no correspondency with spiritual cases, the persons of Clericks and their possessions or estates, are not by God's word exempted from the jurisdiction of their secular Princes.  
Hetrodox, You know Covaruvias is challenged by Cardinal Bellarmine of partiality for the jurisdiction of the most Catholic King.  
Orthodox, And you know Cardinal Bellarmine is no less partial for the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction; It serves my turn, and makes much for my purpose, that Covaruvias holds both touch & weight, with other sound and Catholic Doctors, that he passes currant coin for an Author that builds not only 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 authentical testimonies of divers famous writers; Victoria and Sotus have sung the same note with Medina and Covarruvias pre-alledged; yea, Cardinal Bellarmine himself harps now and then upon the same string: But what need I to make muster of many Authors, when yourself Hetrodox (howbeit I suppose full sore against your will) have suffered no less, and the very same to drop and slip out of your own learned lips before? Namely, that Clericks are exempted, at least by man's law, as it is held by all Catholic Authors; in which words you grant and acknowledge by a kind of  and implicit confession, that all Catholic Authors hold exempting of Clericks, not warrantable by God's Law: with all the former Author's Chrisostome concurres, or to say better, he precurres them all, Manifestum est quod ista omnibus imperentur, etc. Who doth not see that all sorts and degrees of Subjects, (not only Seculars but also Regulars and Priests) are included within the circle of this Precept, and must come under the Lee of this Apostolical Rule? So that neither God himself, nor his divine Apostle who treats of Secular Power from the mouth of God, hath exempted or excepted any sort or degree of Subjects from the lawful power of secular Princes; But what quarrel have you to pick, or what exceptions can you take to the word immediately?  
Hetrodox, Not few Orthodox, and more perhaps than your Ears are well able to brook, or your Stomach to digest: For this word may be taken two manner of ways; First, it may signify, that Princes as they are Sovereigns and Superiors, have a superlative and absolute power immediately from God, to command their Subjects; that is, the commandment of Subjects due obedience to their lawful superiors and liege-lords, is immediately descended or derived from God himself; Now this I grant is true, and of no good Christian to be denied or gainsaid: For how can he be Supreme Lord of Subjects, who hath no lawful power from God to command his People, or he a Subject, who is not liable to the bond of due obedience? This duty the Lord himself commands in holy Scripture. The light also of natural reason clearly shows the same duty, that every Subject should render and yield entire obedience to his own lawful Superior; But now again Orthodox, the same word immediately may import and bear 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 sense; The most Catholic King doth, or may lay claim to the Spanish in the same con-construction; The most illustrious Republic 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 several Subjects and native People: Now this latter construction of the word, is dipped in a deep 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 men's fortunes and shares four several ways, namely, by Election, Inheritance, Donation, Law of Arms, 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 temporal dominion and power over this or that People by the steps or degrees of those Titles, the said power falls not as it were into his lap, or to his lot immediately from God, with some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but by mediate proceed and actions of State, namely by means of Election, as in the case of Germane Emperors, and Kings of Polonia, or by means of inheritance, as in the case of Spanish and French Kings; or by means of Donation, as in the case of Princes holding their States in Fee, or by means of just War and Conquest, as in the case of Duke Godfrey, and other Christian Princes, Conquerors 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 Kingdom 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 claims 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 lies the difference between the Ecclesiastical Principality of our holy Father, and all other secular or civil Principalities: the Pope hath power over all Christians, not only by the universal right of God's 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. Peter's Chair, 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 perpetual and inexhaustible 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 individual person, from his Apostolic Primacy; neither is it possible for the Pope to be true Pope, and not superior to all degrees of Christians, as Christ's 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 foreign Prince his yoke, 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 immortal God, but only from creatures of mortality. In like manner, no mortal creature, no sublunary power, is able to pull so much as one feather out of the Pope's powerful wing: It is neither the College of Cardinals, nor general council, nor Pope himself, that can derogate, or diminish, retard or impair the least portion of Papal power; The reason, because Papal 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 Monarchical 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 less are they armed with power over Ecclesiastic 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 down in these terms: Secular Princes are not girded with any Sword of power immediately from God over their Laic Subjects, but only by means of some lawful 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 pains 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 judi. Notab. 3.  Potestas Laica praedicta, etc. The said Secular power comes immediately from God, for this reason, because men are furnished with Natural Reason engrafted by God himself; 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 formal, and more orderly Government. Navarrus for this opinion, or verdict rather, citeth and produceth Durandus, johan. parisians. Almanius, Gerson, with some other Catholic Authors, and then draws the whole to this fair head: As the Precept against Murder is by the Law of Nature Immediately from God, so the Authority of Secular Princes against all Delinquents, to inflict upon them capital penalties according to the merit of their cause, for the tranquillity and better Polity of the State or Commonwealth, is immediately from God alone.  
True it is, that some before others are mounted to the Chair of Sovereign State, as it were upon the backs and shoulders of men, I mean, by humane means; as either by Inheritance, by Election, by Donation, or by the Law and Right of Arms, as I have laid it down for an overruled Case and Principle in Common-Law; And now I avow punctually for the purpose; The very same principle can be no cross or over-thwart-barre to the abatement of any honour in the arms 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 work of man.  

Rom. 13.  First, not of men, as you pretend, because all power is of God, as S●. Paul affirms in express words: But authority of Princes is a power; item no mortal creature (I speak not now of supreme Princes) hath power to bind the conscience of any other unto the precise keeping of his commands, whereas the supreme secular Prince is invested with power to bind the consciences of all his own Subjects, to the due obedience of his Decrees, Laws, Acts, or Statutes; The secular Prince therefore is not armed with authority by mortal men, but by the immortal and eternal God himself: St. Paul frames the same argument and reason, Whosoever resists the Power, resists (the Apostle saith not man's 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 Papal power is immediately from God (saith Hetrodox) howsoever the Pope's election is acted by the suffrages and votes of Cardinals, who are but men, so howsoever the means 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 clear; The reasonable soul is not infused or inspired of God into man's body, before the same body be fitted and accommodated with all the organs or instruments, and with all natural dispositions, of nec ssity required to make the body a fit receptacle for the soul: Now all these abilities and means 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 immortal soul. This notwithstanding▪ shall any man's boldness abuse his reason so fare, as to make him affirm, the reasonable soul is not created and infu●ed in man's Body immediately of God, but mediantibus dispositionibus, by means of the corporal dispositions first fitted and prepared in the body? Fare be it from any Christian tongue to utter so great blasphemy; In like manner, howsoever the means 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 itself, and acknowledge (so that Habemus confitentem reum) the word immediately may be taken (as you contend) in two several 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 binds 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 sense and acceptation of the words, they both do signify 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 original 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which directly signifies authority to command, would be translated and turned, for the avoiding of equivocation.  
Briefly; The doctrine by me propounded in these two words, immediately, and without exception, is not only Catholic and sound, but likewise justified by verdict of your own mouth; And howsoever you pretend (to what purpose I cannot see) to mark 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 stigmatical reprehension, but rather give it a kind of stronger back, and more pithy, 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, needless, 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 Catholics must affirm, and are bound to uphold.  
Hetrod. Whatsoever you dream of my approbation, you shall never draw me to the bent of your Bow, nor work me to any good persuasion of your doctrine, with all your persuasions, uttered (as before) by wholesale and in gross; except you shall deal with me now also by retail, and shall neck up some error (keeping a kind of tally) in the several joints and branches of my last passage, making my said Errors in particular, not only visible, but also palpable.  
Orthod. I refuse not the Exception, and therefore will presently neck 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 himself, and falling from his Tenent, you sing out and warble these notes of a contrary air: If the power of secular Princes over Laics be not immediately from God, much less over Clerics; and a little after, The Proposition therefore would stand more firm, it would go more strait and bolt upright in these terms; 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 error.  
2. You confound title of power with power itself, 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 settled 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 soul; and yourself Hetrodox have been forced to grant it against your will, for you pass it currant and uncontrollable in the Pope's case, and affirm that howsoever his Holiness is elected and advanced to the Papacy by the votes of men, yet he receives power to sit in Peter's Chair, and to govern the Ship of the Church immediately of God.  
3. You condemn it as heretical, to hold, that secular and temporal power is not ordained and made subject by God himself to spiritual power: But hear me good Sir with patience, you can allege no text of holy Scripture, you can produce no definitive Sentence or determination of the Church, which may stand for a clear and indubitable Oracle, that Princes, as they are Princes, are in any degree of inferiority and subjection unto the Pope; but only (to speak in the sense 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, doubtless not Prince then regnant was (in regard of Princedom) the high Bishop's Vass●ll, or in state of subjection to the Pope: But as chrysostom testifies, the chief Bishop was then Lorded of pagan, or infidel, and heathen Princes, to whom (like a Freeholder or Copie-holder) he ought both suit and service, as to his Lord's paramount in temporalties; Etiamsi Apostolus, etiamsi Evangelista, be thou Apostle, or be thou Evangelist, neque 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 only so far forth subject unto the chief Bishop in spiritualities, as the said Prince is a christian; in which case the Prince and every private person are equal, or in one and the same condition; And therefore layic power, as it is a power, is not subject or subordinate unto Ecclesiastic power, save only so fare 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 Pope's power; And yet I trow, you know it is a power, and that an absolute power; to which cause (if I take not my mark amiss) you crowded and slily shuffled in the word christian, when you said, the Pope had power over all christians; wherein you speak this language, this in effect and no more; That all are subject, not ratione potestatis, in respect of power, but ratione christianitatis, 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 Regal Sceptre, and possession of his Crown and Kingdom, 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 war, and of lawful Arms, or of election, or of donation; from which you infer, that his power is not immediately cast upon him by God's gracious gift; I must now be bold to rejoin, and come upon you with an express negative. The Prince (be you Hetrodox well assured) will never suffer so lame, so lose, & so dishonourable stuff to scape his noble heart or lips: but if any shall be more bold, then observant and respective, to board his Highness with such a question, how came you Sir by that Sovereign power and authority to govern and command your People? He would readily and peremptorily shape him this religious and Princelike answer, I received it as the immediate gift of God; and asked or interrogated again, 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 King's dominions, are not his lawful Subjects, immediately by God's holy ordinance; but all christians are immediately the Pope's 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 therefore the secular and laic Prince have any power to command his natural Subjects to live in the state of Subjects immediately from God, than Obligation of all his natural Subjects to yield their due Prince all due obedience of lawful Subjects, is in like manner immediately from God: And as the title of a subject to this dominion, or breaking of some penal Statute, or committing some notorious offence within this dominion, makes me subject unto my Sovereign 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, etc. So none can be saluted and styled Pope, but by Canonical and authentical election of the Cardinals. Now then as the character of Baptism (say we) marks a man for the Pope's lawful Subject, in spiritualibus; Even so for a man to be born, or to break a penal Statute, (for example) within the Venetian dominion and State, marks a man for the Venetian Republics lawful Subject; and to be born, or to break a penal Statute within the Kingdom of France, marks a man for the French Kings lawful 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 Pope's power and authority, when he is gone the beaten way of all flesh, doth rest in the Church, or whether the Church remains void of such authority and power so soon as the Pope breathes out his last gasp? Surely those who stand tooth and nail for the Romish opinion (that I may take up the Style 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 dies, all the Bishops are at a stand, or nonplus rather, not able to break, nor so much as once to bend or bow the point of this pressing consequence, ergo when the Pope dies, 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 Hannibal the Carthaginian General 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 pour out dark riddles or Delphian oracles, and to broach mysteries not intelligible; Yea it is clear that Cardinal Bellarmine holds very firm and stiff, that when the Pope dies, the said power vanisheth like smoke out of the Church, for he contends, that when the Prince dies, the regal authority lives and rests in the community or whole body of Peers and people, at least for those Princes who are mounted to Kingdoms or other States by election; but when the Pope dies, than the papal 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 nail by the Parisians, by the whole Sarbone in general, and in particular, by Johan. Mayor, Ja. Almanius, Gerson, 
Cap. Novit de judi. Notab. 3.  as it is testified by Navarrus; yea Navarrus himself marshal's this opinion in the rank of doubtful Assertions, howsoever Cardinal Bellarmine there sets it down for certain, whereas in other passages he leaves it as doubtful.  
7. You stand much for the word pasce oves, feed my sheep, as expressly 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 only for the said words pasce oves, feed my sheep, but also for the words dabo claves, I will give thee the Keys, to be spoken both alike without all question unto Peter, howbeit in the person of the whole Church, as the Parisians do both strongly and perspicuously prove. Nor can it be a good consequence, that because feed my sheep, and I will give thee the Keys, 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 equal authority, howsoever Peter for his faithful confession made of Christ, as also for bearing a most remarkable excess of love and affection to the person of Christ, might seem perhaps to deserve some title of preeminency and prerogative of dignity above the other Apostles. The plain verity hereof appears by that famous passage in the Gospel, where Christ having most gracious and heavenly communication with all the Apostles together, 
Mat. 18.  and as it were in a knot, vouchsafed to use the very same words unto them all, that he had used unto Peter before, Quaecunque ligaveritis, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; 
Lib. 1. de Rom. pont. C. 12.  and whatsoever ye shall lose on earth shall be loosed in heaven; of which passage the most illustrious Cardinal Bellarmine himself hath advisedly been pleased to afford this fair exposition; est igitur communis, etc. It is the common exposition of S. Jerome, Anselmus, Hilarius, with divers other writers upon this passage, 
Tract. 22. & 49. in joh.  as also of S. August. that our Lord there speaks concerning the power of the Keys, whereby the Apostles and other successors of Christ do bind and lose sinners; which power a little after the same Lord Cardinal affirms 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 sheep, and tibi dabo claves, I will give thee the Keys, 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, etc. If the Church was not in Peter sacramentally, for certain the Lord jesus would never have said to Peter, I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven; And if these words were personally spoken to Peter alone, than the power and use of the Keys rests not in the hand of the Church; the action of binding and losing 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 Keys, and then he received the Keys, 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 Apostles, etc. The virtue and efficacy of this power was conveyed unto the rest of the Apostles, it was passed over in Peter to the principal and chief rulers of the Church. S. Cyprian hits the bird in the right eye, Erant & caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus, etc. 
De simple. Praelat.  The rest of the Apostles had equal 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 clear concerning the authority given to S. Peter, that in a like and equal degree it was conferred upon all the Apostles, and the Church.  
It shall suffice thus briefly to have touched, 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 Keys, as the fulfilling of the promise in pasce oves, feed my sheep, is no less appliable and appropriate unto the other Apostles, and unto the Church, then unto Peter himself, in the judgement of the Fathers; But I proceed to point out more of your palpable errors.  
8. The Pope (saith Hetrodox) hath no power to alienate any one Province from his Papal and spiritual 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 only 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 lawful tenure. Secondly, because howsoever a large part of Christendom takes knowledge of the Pope as of their superior, and lives within the vergerie and precinct of his papal power, nevertheless 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 himself in the honourable Title of our Lord, and without addition is called our Lord, even as Christ himself 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 staff of that common Title, and ordinary style, that he honours himself withal in his letters pontificial, when he writes himself 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 believe 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 do reign 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 excess of high majesty (as he shall appear himself at his second coming) but in great humility, as himself came at first, as Saint Bernard speaketh. 
Ser. de Ad.  Yea S. Peter himself teaching the office of Pastors in the Church, commands them to feed the flock of Christ which dependeth upon their charge, caring for the Flock, 
1 Pet. 5.  not by constraint, but with a willing mind, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind, not as Lords over God's heritage, but as fair ensamples to to the Flock of Christ. Upon which passage, 
Ad Eugen. p. p.  that good Father hath built and founded this Aphorism, Apostolis interdicitur dominatio, indicitur ministratio; The Apostles are prohibited to lord it over the Flock, and are expressly charged to walk in the state or quality of servants to the Flock. Hence it is, that when the Lord Christ spoke 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 only high Priest, having, as the Apostle speaks, 
Heb. 7.  an everlasting Priesthood; He alone is the sovereign Judge, There is but one Lawgiver and Judge, who is able to save and destroy. 
Jac. 4.  As for the Pope himself, and other Ecclesiastical 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 essential to his Chair, Jure pontificatus, only and simply as Pope, or in right of pontifical Priesthood, hath no power at all to make alienation of any thing whatsoever, but rather, forasmuch as his power is a spiritual power, and over souls, he can make no alienation of souls 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 souls, but spiritual power, to convert and to direct souls unto life eternal. Which kind of superiority, howsoever it is of spiritual jurisdiction, and of the greatest eminency, yet forasmuch as it is not endowed 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 Territories, Crown, Lands, Demesnes, 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 halt importance and consequence, Nisi in evidentem utilitatem, etc. except it be for some evident benefit, and most honourable acquist unto the Crown and State.  
9 You contend that secular Princes may suffer loss of their Subjects, whereas the Pope lies not obnoxious or obvious to hazard in that kind. Oh that I could here truly say, There speaks an Angel; but see, see, how many Countries, Nations, Tribes, and Kindred's, have quitted their obedience to the Roman Church. A word shall suffice, that most beautiful, flourishing, nobilitated & renowned Cedar of Libanus, which in former ages hath spread itself both fare 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 less to beautify the whole aged Trunk.  
10. Your tenth error lays itself open and perspicuous in a most pernicious, nice, and tickle assertion; That neither by the General Council, nor by the whole Corporation and body of Cardinals, the chief Bishop's power can suffer the least diminution; and yet by the Subjects, the secular Prince's 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 Papal power, when death seizeth upon the chief Bishop his mortal body, doth remain in the Church, or whether the Council be above the Pope: only this I hold to be indubitable, that In causa haeresis est supra Papam, in case of Heresy the Council 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 privileges 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 Sovereign and absolute Prince? Surely none, for by what authority? Who dares now show himself upon the Stage, to broach and to draw the vessel of such pestiferous and scandalous doctrine? What? Is there a power in any people to depose their lawful and Sovereign Prince? To pair the nails of his power? To make a Sovereign Prince In esse, no Prince De facto, but a mere Subject? To pull the Imperial Crown from his head, the royal Sceptre out of his hand, the purple robe, or mantle royal from his shoulders, and to kick him after a sort, or to tumble him down from his Regal Throne? Can there be a more desperate device, more dangerous and forcible Bellows to blow the coals, and to kindle the flames of most detestable rebellions, of odious and insupportable Seditions, of dreadful conspiracies, of Absolom-like, or Judas-like treasons in the very bowels of the State? I am loath to be a meddler or a stickler, and to have any hand in choking or drowning the venomous seeds, or in quenching the pestilential sparks of these horrible combustions with ink of Pen; It is for noble and heroical Princes themselves, in these cases interested In Capite, to rouse up their brave spirits, and (if the matter must needs come to blows) to draw the Sword in defence of their own so just and honourable a quarrel: I must confess, it sorts well with a Prince's honour, to rule out his absolute power by his grave Council of State, and the wholesome Laws of his Realms and Kingdoms, as it concerns and beseems the chief Bishop himself, no less to square and to compass out his power by the council of his Cardinals, provided they be no way interested or engaged and overborne with passion, but still have an eye to reflect upon the good of the Pope, and the good of the Church; always directed by the laudable Canons, and the venerable Council. For howsoever the absolute Prince perhaps, Non tenetur suis legibus quoad obligationem, is not liable to the conserving of his own laws by plain terms of obligation, tenetur saltem quoad directionem, yet without perhaps or peradventure, he stands bound to the conserving of his own Laws, at least for the office and duty of direction.  
11. You assume, or presume rather, that Monarchical 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 affirm that she is not subject like the Moon, unto the like mutation and change.  
First, if the case be put concerning Christ himself, who is the supreme & sovereign Pastor of the Church, there is no question but his Monarchy 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 infer) but by reason that Christ himself 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 republic? Let men read the fifteenth of the Acts, there Peter proposes the case, he puts down the Proposition, he makes the Declararation: Simeon hath declared as proloqutor, than james gives the sentence or determination, as Precedent of the Council; 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 Faithful, send greeting; It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, etc.  
Whether S. Peter was then installed in the primacy, like the Venetian Duke, who holding a most honourable pre-eminence and rank in that most illustrious and renowned State, is nevertheless restrained and kept in a State of Subjection to the whole body of that Republic; I leave the matter to be discussed and sifted, by those whom it may or doth chief concern. It sufficiently makes for my purpose, that whereas Decrees were published in the Primitive Church, under the name of the republic, 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 yourself Hetrodox, by whom it hath been denied before.  
12. Your last error 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 miss the mark, and err from the sense two manner of ways: For if by Title you mean 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 less humane or of men than the other: The Conclave itself shall never be able to prove me a liar 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 Ecclesiastic power, which the chief Bishop challengeth and assumeth to himself, 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 follow by good consequence, that God gives the superiority and power Ecclesiastic to the chief Bishop, not immediately without means, but mediately, or by means: id est, Per Christum mediatorem, by the Mediator Christ, or by the means of Christ; and this mediate power of the Pope is no Sovereign or Princely power, but a Vicariate or deputed power; it imports not Dominion and Sovereignty, but rather Service and Ministry. And hereupon the chief Bishop takes it for no disparagement, for no vility, for no abatement in his high and honourable Style, to be titled the servant of God's servants, a Pastor, a Bishop, etc. All which titles imply Ministry rather than Lordship, and humility rather than greatness: 
Mat. 11.8.  For dominion and grandene are not suitable, not sortable, not compatible with a chief Bishop's house, as he is a Bishop, 
Luk. 7.25.  but with King's Courts.  
Hetrod. I find Orthodox, that you have the Prince of Philosopher's Eleuches at your finger's end; but withal 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 coin, but comes out of S. Paul's Mint; yea rather it bears a right stamp of the Holy Ghost, speaking with S. Paul's tongue, or at least writing with S. Paul's quill: The Apostles words are thus couched and extant in the text; Let every soul be subject to the higher Powers, 
Rom. 13.1.  for there is no Power but of God: which text is expounded by chrysostom in these express terms, Facit hoc Ap. etc. The Apostles purpose and intent is to show in these words, that Christ hath not brought his divine Laws and Ordinances into the Church, of any such intent and purpose, as to undermine and subvert politic Regiments and civil States, but for the better establishing and reforming of humane governments; And there the Apostle teacheth withal, that all Subjects and inferiors are bound to the due performance of his Apostolical precept and charge; not only seculars, but also cloistered Monks and Priests; for so much is testified and verified in his first words, Let every soul be subject unto the higher Powers, be thou Apostle, Evangelist, Prophet, or of any other degree, condition, or quality in state of a Subject; Neque tamen pietatem subvertit ista subjectio, howbeit godliness by this kind of subjection shall never come in danger to be subverted. Thus fare chrysostom.  
Hetrod. You go too fare Orthodox; I neither can bear in myself, nor forbear you any longer; The passage which you allege and quote out of Paul, treats of power in a generality, and teacheth obedience of Subjects to their lawful Sovereigns and Superiors in gross, or to Superiors of every sort and degree, and of every calling, to be by Gods own Ordinance; It doth not directly show, that such and such persons are subject in their callings to the secular Prince, by the immediate Ordinance of God. It is not denied 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 Pope's authority and power. Some other power is likewise of God, but mediately, as by means of succession, or of election, or of some other humane title. And as for Chrysostoms' testimony upon S. Paul's passage, it is thus to be answered; The holy Father affirmeth not in his testimony, that Priests and Monks are bound by S. Paul's precept and authority, to render obedience unto secular Princes, but rather unto their own Superiors whomsoever. It is no less true, that Ecclesiastics are bound to keep and observe all such Laws politic and civil, as are not repugnant unto Ecclesiastic Laws, and such as are necessary for common commerce between Ecclesiastic and Laic persons: For in the course and carriage of temporal affairs (as Pope Nicolaus writeth unto the Emperor) the Church makes good use of the Laws Imperial: Howbeit, Ecclesiastics are not bound and tied to such observance of secular Prince's Laws, by way of any force, but only by way of direction: that is to say, Vi rationis, non vi legis, by virtue and right of reason, but not by virtue and right of Law: Let me give this instance for example, The temporal 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 lawful price, and because in reason of State, as also in common reason, the price taxed by any lawful Prince within his own Territories, must pass the muster of lawful prices. Howbeit, say it comes to pass, that some Ecclesiastic breaks the said law, yet can he not for such delict or transgression of the Law, be fetched Coram nobis, before the civil Judge or Magistrate by Sub paena, or by any other of the King's Writs, nor can he be punished by the Laic Prince, to whom he is not subject, but by process out of his own Ecclesiastical Superiors Court.  
Orthod, Let me have leave Hetrodox, to give you the stop in your full career, know you Hetrodox what you say? Is the Apostles text, Let every soul be subject to the higher Powers, to be understood of power in general, and not of secular Prince's 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 Waistcoat either of double or single stuff, I mean, without any one reason of proof at all. But how can it be possible, that Paul there speaks of power in general? Is it not his full and whole scope in that Chapter, to stop the mouths of those, who slandered the Christians of that age and time, to be seditious routs, to profess very scandalous and pernicious doctrine? to wit, that Christians were not bound to the obedience of secular Princes, but were exempted from all secular jurisdiction? S. Paul then speaks 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 epithet Sublimioribus, higher, is a plain term of restraining the word Power; And that S. Paul did foster and fancy none other conceit or meaning, I appeal to the judgement and authority of chrysostom, of Thomas, of Augustine, of Theophilact, expositors of the same text, who agree not in consent like harp and harrow, but jump and accord all in this one clear 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 general, and of papal power in particular, which in S. Paul's 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 general, how can these words following in the same context, (Give tribute unto whom ye own tribute, for he doth not bear the Sword for nought) be dexterly and aptly applied 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 Scholars; what? Have these also power to exact lawful tribute, and to condemn their Subjects unto corporal death?  
Our Saviour, to show that his Kingdom was not of this world, as he spoke 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 Kingdom were of this world, then would my Ministers fight without all question; but now, because my servants fight not in my quarrel, that I might not be delivered to the Jews, for certain my Kingdom is not from hence.  
Exacting of tribute, and bearing the Sword to take vengeance on those that do evil, is directly so proper to the secular Prince, and to his Ministers, that by no means it can or may be applied to any other power: S. Paul therefore speaks there in particular, and not in general; And howsoever it may seem, that some things there spoke and taught by the Apostle, may by Allegory and in a spiritual or mystical sense be applied to the spiritual Prelate; as by name, that he bears the Sword, viz. of God's word, or the Sword of Excommunication; and that he exacts tribute, viz. of Tears and repentance; yet whensoever any dogmatic point is handled, it is needless to seek a knot in a rush, needless to hunt after Allegorical constructions and senses, most of all needless to pick out contrary senses, as in our present case. This doctrine makes very much for the firm establishing of the secular Prince's authority thorough all Christendom; & therefore in this argument or subject, we neither ought nor need to run and fly unto allegories, but are to stand firm, and to hold us fast by the proper and literal 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 gloss 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 evil: 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, etc. The Kingdoms of this world are not disposed by the devil, but by God; for the King's heart is in the hand of God; 
Prov. 8.  By me Kings reign. S. Paul thus, Be subject to the higher Powers: Thus fare Irenaeus.  
Tertullian thus, Quod attinet ad honores regum, etc. 
Lib. de Idolol. c. 25.  Touching honour due to Emperors and kings, we are commanded to carry ourselves 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, etc. 
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 deals and works by holy and wholesome admonition, that none be puffed up with pride in this regard, that God hath called him to Christian liberty, that no man be persuaded to run out of his rank, and to quit his assigned station, in the peregrination of this life; that none be of this false belief, that he ought not stoop to submit his neck unto the yoke of higher powers, ordained for the time to bear the chiefest sway in the managing, ordering, and governing of temporal affairs. For whereas men consist of soul and body, so long as we continue in this life temporal, and have use of temporal things, as good stays 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 affairs are ordered and administered, with some degree of honour: thus fare 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 general, as you pretend. The next, S. Augustin himself, a Bishop, of Episcopal authority and jurisdiction, there saith, Nos, We, even we Bishops must be subject unto the powers. The last, S. Augustin useth an emphasis in the word Oportet, we ought, which word implies a necessity of subjection.  
By all the fore-alleadged authorities it well appears, how great difference & large distance there lies, 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, etc. Touching the first, we are to consider, that some Christians in the primitive Church denied (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 himself, If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed; Now the liberty granted by Christ, is that spiritual liberty, by which we are freed from sin, 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 remains in bondage, and under the law of sin. The man therefore once freed by Christ, shall never be obnoxious to subjection, either spiritual or carnal, when Christ hath delivered up the Kingdom unto God, even the Father, and hath laid aside or put down all rule, with all authority and power; In the mean time, so long as we are clothed with corruptible flesh, we must be subject unto Lords carnal; 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 own subjection; Submit yourselves to all manner of Ordinance of man for the Lords sake, whether it be unto the King as supreme, or unto Governors, 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 evil. Servants be subject unto your masters, not only to the good and courteous, but also to the froward. Thus fare Thomas Aquinas, a Religious; who for all his religious orders, made no bones to say, Oportet nos, etc. We must be subject. His words do neither admit nor need any comment or gloss, he speaks not with a Bar in his throat, but with a clear voice, and like himself: the Prince of scolastick and catholic Doctors.  
And who dares deny S. chrysostom to be a catholic Doctor? His clear verdict upon this passage of S. Paul is extant with general aprobation and applause: Facit hoc ideo, etc. It is the Apostles purpose here to teach, that Christ hath not brought his Laws into the Church, of any intent or purpose, to repeal, to reverse, to annul, or abolish the laws and rules of politic government; but rather to reduce the order and frame of civil government unto a better form of institution. S. Paul therefore speaks there of politic or civil power, not of all power in general, (as you Hetrodox are pleased to avouch, comprehending therein the Pope's power, and I wots not what powers besides) but only of secular power. And how foul an error it is, to expound holy Scripture according to a man's own private spirit or fancy, yea contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, I refer you to the council of Trent, Session 4. And whereas you strive for the Pope's power to be immediate from God, and not mediate by election of Cardinals; but in a certain correspondence to the immediate power of Moses & Aaron from the Lord; If you can show and prove that God at any time hath spoken to the chief 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 Pope's power, but also his election is immediately from God. But if God in former times hath spoken, and yet speaks to the chief 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 practices? 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 partial and precipitate Elections? In a word, what an idle and superfluous convocation of Lord Cardinals is that, wherein the Pope's election is made, when his Holiness is immediately elected of God, just to an hair forsooth, as Moses and Aaron were elected? What new doctrine is this? Almighty God, as the prime and supreme cause, permits the second causes to act and work in their kind, and according to their efficacy. And howsoever in the election of Popes and other Princes, he is assistant after a more special and particular manner, for a common and general good; yet he never violents or enforces the liberty of elections. Nay, rather he expressly shows and makes known (I speak of God's 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 individual person to win the spurs, and to prevail in the election, before all others, as it pleased him to provide and take order in the case of Moses and Aaron: yea sometimes for the punishment of our sinners, Almighty God suffers a wicked Prince, and as wicked a Pope (if not much worse, and more wicked) to be advanced by course, and order of election: but when the election is once consummate, God then gives the Pope, (as we Catholics profess) a Vicar's power of Christ's own institution, and gives the Prince that power which was instituted by the author of man's nature, with nature itself; nor can I here see any such difference, as you Hetrodox do seem to infer, 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 chrysostom speaks clearly of Princes and politic Magistrates, of whom also S. Paul himself speaks, (which I have sufficiently explained before) you spare not Hetrodox (which is your next gross error) to affirm, that chrysostom there handles not power of the said Princes and Magistrates in particular, but speaks only of power in general. Now Sir, can it stand with any probability or possibility, that where S. Paul himself treats of secular Princes, and their power in particular, there S. Paul's most faithful expositor doth make the subject of S. Paul's discourse to be of power in general?  
Secondly, those powers whom S. Paul terms higher powers, chrysostom thorough his whole Sermon calls by the name of Princes and Magistrates; I mean such Princes and Magistrates as enact politic laws, bear the weighty burden 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 wars in the Subjects defence; they see and cause due punishments to be inflicted upon all seditious and disordered breakers of the King's peace, debauched and wicked persons: Tell me Sir, who are those by whom th●se worthy works, and the like are done, but secular Princes and the civil Magistrate?  
Thirdly, Doth not chrysostom directly testify, that whereas the Apostles were famed and defamed rather to be seditious, to preach disobedience unto Princes, and to the common laws? S. Paul therefore by way of precept hath delivered all the dogmatic points couched in the said Chapter.  
Fourthly, chrysostom affirms, that aswell here, as in other places S. Paul commands every subject and servant in the whole State, to be subject no less unto his lawful Prince, than servants in Families are subject unto their private masters.  
Fiftly, what means chrysostom by those words, Facit autem hoc ideo, etc. It is the Apostles purpose and scope to teach, That Christ hath not established his laws in the Church, thereby to nullify civil States and Regiments, but rather to ground and establish them upon a more perfect and rectified form: these words do plainly testify, that he speaks of secular Princes in particular, unto whom all Subjects own their obedience, according to the politic laws of the State.  
Lastly, Chrysostoms' conclusion so stops up all passages, that you are not able to take your heels, and make any fair escape, Ostendem quod ista imperentur omnibus, etc. S. Paul doth teach, that all sorts or degrees of Subjects, not only seculars, but also Priests, and Monks are liable to this Apostolical charge; yea, so much is punctually set by the Apostle at his first entrance into the matter, when he saith, Let every soul 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 terming them sometimes Princes, and sometimes Magistrates: At last, he doubles his files, reinforces the argument, and pays it home, with etiamsi Apostolus, etc. Be thou Apostle, Evangelist, Prophet, or what may be else; for such condition, degree, or state of subjection, is no engine to work the subversion of piety or christian religion. Thus chrysostom, 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 level 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 lawful Princes is exceeding profitable unto all sorts of Subjects, the same Father after his usual manner and method of teaching, makes demonstration to this purpose; that generally subjection of inferiors to their superiors is never without special benefit, and singular fruit; As for instance, and by name; The subjection of the wife to her husband, of the son to the Father, of the scholar to the instructor, of the younger People to their elders; of which remarkable profit and benefit, not only the Fowls of the air (which fly after one guide, as he comes in his vicissitude and turn to make the flight) but also the Fishes in their streams, are partakers after their several 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 himself 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 enjoined to serve: Howbeit chrysostom takes not up the said enumeration, to show that S. Paul there treats of power in general, (as you Hetrodox are pleased to give it for indubitable) but only to signify, that subjection of inferiors to their superiors, being so profitable as appears 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 allege that Clerics are not bound Vi legis, by force of law, but only Vi rationis, by force of reason, to yield subjection and obedience unto secular Princes, or unto their wholesome laws: But how great untruth lies in this your distinction (which as it seems you have borrowed of Cardinal 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 evil, fear, For he is the Minister of God, to take vengeance on him that doth evil. 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, than the divine Apostle Paul himself: but for my part I give more credit (hear me with patience) to S. Paul, to the tongues and Pens of the holy Ghost, then to all other Penmen and Writers in the world.  
Produce but one clean authority out of the holy Evangeli, or out of the canonical Epistles, or out of any other like Books and writings, for the disobliging of Clerics in temporals from due obedience to the Laws of civil Magistrates, where the said Clerics have not first obtained some privilege of exemption from the civil Magistrates, (as I have in a manner stricken you stone blind with a clear and punctual text of S. Paul, to the same sense expounded by S. chrysostom, 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 yield up my weapons, with open confession, that you have driven me, not like a right bred Cock of the game, but like a rank bastard or dunghill Bird out of the Pit. That Clerics are to be freed and exempted in spiritual and ecclesiastical causes, we Catholics do maintain it stands with reason; but in secular and civil causes, I see not with what force of reason it can be born out: Is it because Clerics have received the clerical and Priestly character? Surely no such matter; no more than a man that receives the Sacrament of Baptism, & the character 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 vassalage 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 Foreign Prince, are not loosed and set at large from their subjection, by any reason, or in any regard of their clerical character: For this old axiom stands without all control, Si non de quo magis, ergo neque de quo minus, where the More is not consequent and firm, the Less is never good and valuable: The reason whereof is grounded upon these words of chrysostom, Neque enim pietatem subvertit ista subjectio, This degree and state of subjection is no Ram or other Engine to batter and beat down the Walls or Bulwarks of Religion: It stands moreover without check upon the former doctrine of Thomas; That Christian liberty is altogether spiritual, and against Sin; it is not carnal, or of the flesh, it is no freedom or exemption from secular jurisdiction: But be it said, though not granted, that Cleries own subjection & obedience, not by force of Law, but by force of reason: I now press you Hetrodox, to express what you mean by force of reason, I suppose you understand with Bellarmine, and all other Authors, the law of reason to be the law of nature: This now supposed and granted to be their meaning and yours, Thereupon would very fain learn, what need so many monitories? To what end so many thundering Canonshot of excommunication? Wherefore some few years past have not many Priests and other Ecclesiastics of the Venetian state stooped, and yielded obedience unto the particular demonstrations, Laws, and reasons of State, published by that most illustrious and renowned Republic, which all Christian Princes have judged and approved no less reasonable than honourable? The law of nature is a fare stronger binder, than the laws of Magistrates; and therefore it neither will, nor can brook 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 Keys: Now I answer, This cu●s not off the power of Christian Princes and Magistrates, to enact and establish Laws Politic, which may bind Ecclesiastics to the good behaviour, in the politic and civil Government by the sword: For in your verdict, Clerics are bound at least by force of reason to keep and observe the said politic laws. 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 less power, as the supreme and Sovereign Judge, to punish every transgressor of the same law: how think you Hetrodox, is it not so?  
Hetrod. Very good Orthodox, be it so.  
Orthod. And who, if not secular Princes have power to make Laws, which may bind Subjects of any calling, condition, or quality, both in temporals and in conscience besides? The secular Prince than is armed with power to judge, and with a Sword to cut off, or to bring in all sorts of Subjects, who like Outlaws and Rebels forsake their assigned Quarter, and fly out of the pale of lawful obedience: A Cleric of any Order, by the character thereof is made subject unto his Prelate (say we) in all duties essentially annexed to his holy Order and Function: But for a man born a Princes natural and lawful Subject (so soon as he hath gotten any degree of holy Orders on his back) to be made free & exempted from the subjection of his Prince; That, in my understanding is a very Monster, and prodigious creature, not in Evangelicall doctrine alone, where humility and subjection are prized and valued at a very high rate, but also even in the light of nature, which (were all written Laws 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 God's law, that Clerics may not live in wedlock? Would you have it rest in the Pope's power to slate in these days the roof of that old Fabric 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 Bulls and Breeves, that all such as had received the first sharing and shaving, with all others entered into the four 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 supreme States, that all christian Princes by the vigour and rigour of their most holy and wholesome laws, 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 Holiness, a fit silver stirrup, whereby to mount into the golden Saddle of perpetual patronage, dominion, and lordship of all Christendom, even in temporal estate: How so? Forsooth by causing all degrees of People to be sheared. or else to undertake some one or other of the four inferior Orders. This liberty Hetrodox is removed and distant all the degrees in the Zodiac 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, nevertheless in temporal matters, causes, and judgements of Court, still they remained under the authority of Moses their temporal Prince, as right well is proved by Covaruvias.  
Hetrodox, How now Orthodox? A fling at Moses too? 
Cap. 31. qq. Pract. council. 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 than Aaron? I know Covaruvias descants upon this plain song with unperfect cords, yea, with flat discords; I therefore do esteem his music not worth a blue point: I credit divine Scripture and holy Fathers fare above Covaruvias by great odds, who in matter of jurisdiction is carried with full sails of partiality: But hear me a little.  

Psal. 98. Exod. 40.  Is it not extant in fair and faithful 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 principal office and chief charge? That Moses as high Priest, and in quality of high Priest, consecrated his brother Aaron, made the Sons 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: styles 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 marvel the Levites, who were the only chief Ecclesiastics of those times, were subject unto Moses, as unto their own proper Head and peculiar Judge.  
Orthod. You need not Hetrodox to put yourself in so great a heat, when you deal with any well grounded Catholic, to prove by the authority of Fathers, that Moses was either Priest or high Priest, 
Levit. 8.  and (before himself was in the order and calling of high Priest) invested Aaron in the office of high Priest, viz. That he might the better apply himself to the exercise of the civil government: surely this point is not denied, neither by Covaruvias himself, nor by the Author whom I defend, whose word is (Rimasero) the Levites remained subject unto Moses, etc. But Covaruvias, with many catholic Doctors, doth avouch, that doubtless it is an evident sign and strong presumption, that in temporal matters and in civil judgements, the Levites were not subject unto the High Priest, but unto the temporal Prince or Judge: Because when Moses, by a kind of mean conveyance and resignation (as Catholics would have it) transmitted or transferred his whole authority of high Priest, and his attendance upon the sacred service unto Aaron: yet by no means did he then deprive, or divest himself 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 essential 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 rob and cozened Aaron of such a collop, as the moety, or one half 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 less than a whole moety, or one half of his entire charge: again, because exemption of Clerics, being as you pretend, so grounded on God's 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 politic employments and affairs. 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 infer: 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 allege, adorning Moses with all the foresaid titles, I dare take upon me to affirm, they witness the state and condition of Moses, only before the time of Aaron's consecration; but none of them all do qualify Moses high Priest Quoad exercitium, in point of executing of the high Priests Office, after Aaron himself was once made and consecrated high Priest: For the Church with two heads in spirituals, had then been a very Monster; withal, the unity of the Church and of Christ himself, had been thereby very poorly and weakly represented: but in case you are so certain (as you seem) That Levits were exempted from all power and judgement of the temporal Prince in temporals, what meant you to be so fare overseen, as to allege 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 you produced any one such testimony; yet for so much as the Ceremonial and Judicial 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 legal grounds.  
Hetrod. What man? It seems then you purpose now to infer, 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 suit of Menua, Bishop of Constantinople, granted that Ecclesiastics might be judged in civil causes by their Prelates, 
Nou. constit. 83.  Ipso tamen non impedito; provided always that his imperial prerogative thereby were not any manner of way impeached: In which case, and in case of criminal Delinquents, he leaves Ecclesiastics under the power of the temporal Prince and of his Ministers.  
Hetrod. I think you dream Orthodox, at least I believe you are groslly mistaken: S. Paul avers the contrary, that in the Primitive Church the Bishop had his peculiar Tribunal, and in his own Court gave judgement or sentence upon his ecclesiastical Subjects, I mean his Clergy: 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 prefer 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 dazzle your eyes with a huge cloud of Counsels, but I am very loath to impair your sight, a few shall suffice: The Council of Agatha in Provence thus, 
Conc. Canon 32.  Clericus nè quenquam praesumat, etc. 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 criminal cause, before a secular Judge.  

Conc. 1. Canon 9  The general Council held and celebrated at Chalcedon in Bethinia, before Justinian was hatched, hath decreed in these express words, Si Clericus adversus Clericum, etc. If one Cleric shall have an action against another, the plaintiff shall enter his action and prosecute the suit before his own Ordinary, and not before any secular Judge.  
The third Council at Carthage in Africa, more ancient you know then the former at Agatha, 
Canon 9  about some 130. years before Justitian peeped out of the shell, thus, Item placuit, etc. 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 judicial audience and preceding, he shall forfeit his Ecclesiastical dignity, or other his pastoral charge, if the action be of any criminal nature or quality, though the sentence doth pass for the plaintiff; & in case it be a civil action, he shall then pay cost and damage, yea he shall forfeit whatsoever he hath evicted by sentence of the said Court.  
The Milenitane Council, of like antiquity to that of Carthage, 
Can. 19  thus, Placuit ut quicunque, etc. We decree, that whosoever shall petition the imperial Majesty to take cognizance of his cause, for Oyer & Terminer thereof; in any of his Majesty's imperial Courts, he shall be deprived of his ecclesiastical Dignity.  
Now then, Orthodox upon what ground, what authority, what warrant dare you affirm, 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 ecclesiastics were privileged to have their trials and sentences before their Prelates?  
But in plain truth (at least if you can abide to hear the truth) because justinian was a Prince, who by usurpation of more than competent authority, sought indeed to hear the causes of Ecclesiastics, and thereby intruded himself to cut as it were their spreading Combs; for that reason Menua in all submissive humility petitioned justinian to leave the cognisance, at least of civil causes, unto the Bishop: to which Petition the Emperor was pleased to give both gracious care, and princely grant.  
How true it is, that justinian usurped excessive authority, it is evident by his practice; for he both shuffled and cut the cards, he intruded himself to bridle the Clergy, to tie and hold them short unto the stake by his Laws, as well in spirituals as temporals: who so lists to read the titles De sanctit. Episcop. & de sacro sanct. Ecclesiis, may clearly see the same with half an eye: but more pregnant and positive for the purpose is the Nomocanon of Photius: Howbeit you know Orthodox, it is the doctrine of all Divines, and Canonists, yea of Covaruvias himself too, that by Gods own word the judgement of spiritual causes belongs only to Bishops, and to the highest Bishop, as to the supreme Judge: whereupon both before justinian and after, the sacred Counsels have debarred and restrained the clergy by express and peremptory inhibition from procuring any trials before secular Judges, as in the council of Toledo (besides divers other Counsels) it is more than 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 justinian) to be but a rotten foundation, it is much considerable, that justinian himself in the very same constitution hath decreed, it shall not be lawful for the secular Judge to punish an ecclesiastical person, except first he be deprived by his own Ordinary, of his clerical dignity, and thereby brought under the whip or lash of the common laws. Now if ecclesiastics be not found within the compass and power of the common laws, 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 clerical dignity, and holy Orders? In the same constitution it is professed by the said Emperor, that his laws imperial think 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 ecclesiastics are to be judged by their own superiors, how can the said constitution stand in force, and be observed, which determines the clean contrary?  
And now to draw the Arrow up close to the very point of the head; the inconvenience of this decree made by the Emperor justinian, seemed to the judgement of Frederick the second, to be of so dangerous a strain and consequence, that he repealed the foresaid law of Justinian, with all other the like laws, repugnant unto the liberty of the Church: for it is found in frederick's first constitution thus recorded, San● infideliam quorundam, etc. the pravity of certain miscreant and unjust Princes hath so disborded and overflown 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 laws against Churchmen, and Church-liberty. A little after, Statuimus ut nullus, etc. We decree that none shall presume to sue any ecclesiastical person before a secular Judge, in any criminal or civil cause, contrary to the imperial constitutions and canonical decrees: and in case any suit shall be otherwise commenced or entered, we decree the plaintiff to lose his cause, and to take no benefit of the Judge's order, or sentence, as also the Judge himself to be put out of the commission for Judicature. Likewise the Emperor Basilius long before Frederick, repealed a law made by the Emperor Nicephorus, against ecclesiastics liberty, with asseveration, that infinite calamities, like epidemical diseases, or public ulcers and botches, had run over and infected the whole body of State and common wealth, with poison of the said pestiferous and unwholesome laws: let Balsamon upon the Nomocanon of Photius be consulted and viewed, where he expounds the first Canon of the first and second Counsels celebrated at Constantinople: and thus much touching the authority of your great justinian.  
Orthod. I am not ignorant, Hetrodox, in whose goodly Vivaries or fresh Ponds you have taken so great pains, to fish for this dish of dainty Mullets, as you suppose: but saving his savour, with whose heifers you have thus ploughed up the goodly field of the Emperor justinian's 38. Novel, the said Novel comprehends three distinct parts: the first is, that upon petition of Menua, this noble Emperor sealed a patent, and passed a most gracious privilege for the Clergy, of this fair tenure and tenor, that in matter of pecuniary causes, called after the common stile, civil causes, Churchmen might be tried and judged by their Prelates, Non ex scripto, without some formal drawing of Bills, Books, or pleas, except both parties agreed to have some necessary, essential, and material points of the case, formally drawn, couched and put down in writing; and in case the knot or difficulty of the matter, would not bear and suffer such summary decision, than it should be free and lawful for the complainants to take the benefit of civil Courts, and to commence their suits before the ordinary secular Judges. The Emperors own words lie penned thus, Peti●i sumus, etc. Menua beloved of God, Archbishop of this most flourishing City, and universal patriarch, by humble Petition hath moved our imperial highness, to grant unto the most reverend Clergy this gracious privilege; that if any shall have just and lawful occasion to sue Churchmen in a pecuniary cause, he shall first repair 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 Books, or breviates: And in case the Archbishop shall undertake to proceed in such form, the Cleric shall not be molested nor drawn into any Court of civil Audience, nor driven to intermit the exercises of his holy Function; but rather without damages, the cause itself shall be throughly canvased and sifted Ex non scripto: Howbeit withal the said cause may be cou●hed in written form, 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 means possible, to make a full and final end of the matter, then shall it be lawful to bring the said cause before civil Judges and Magistrates, and (all privileges granted to the right reverend Churchmen preserved) it shall be lawful to implead, to take examinations, to make a final end of the suit and contention in the civil Court: thus fare justinian.  
In which first part of the Emperor justinian's Novel, I may not pass divers points untouched: this for one, That Menua is glad to come on his knees, and to make humble suit for this privilege: then surely his Churchmen had no such exemption before from God himself, or jure divino by God's law: for had the good Patriarch had that string to his Bow, by God's holy Ordinance or constitution, doubtless his humble begging and earnest Petition for this humane privilege, had been by his leave and yes too Hetrodox, no better then direct and voluntary rushing into sin: This for another, that justinian grants not Menua the Court in any absolute strain or term; but only allows him to give judgement or sentence without any clamorous noise, and without any formal instruments in writing; a course clean contrary to modern practice in our Ecclesiastical Courts, where commonly more clamour and noise, more Advocates, Proctors, Notaries, more Offices and Ministers, more chargeable Fees are paid for Transcripts, breviates, Books and such like instruments, then are in Courts of secular justice: This for a third, that justinian puts down the reason whereby he was induced to grant such privilege, 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 Ministerial Functions: This for the fourth and last, justinian grants no absolute, but only conditional privilege.  
The second point observable in the Novel, that in criminal causes of civil nature and kind, merely temporal, without any smack or relish of spirituals, (which Covaruvias expounds in these words, Quae spiritualia non attingunt, such as touch not the hemne of the spiritual garment) Churchmen within the City of Constantinople, shall be tried and judged by competent secular Judges; and through the whole Empire besides, by the Prefects or L. Presidents, in their several Provinces; and that moreover with a certain limitation or stint of time, namely, that within the term and space of two months, the matter shall be drawn to a head, and shall come to a final issue or end, and that sentence being once sped or passed against a Cleric, by the L. Precedent of any Province, the Precedent shall not proceed to execution, before the said Cleric is degraded, and quite divested of his priestly, or sacerdotal dignity by the Bishop, according to the laudable custom and usual manner in such cases. The Emperors own words are thus directly couched in the Novel; Si tamen de criminalibus conveniantur, etc. but if a Churchman be convented or brought Coram nobis, upon some criminal cause of a civil nature, that is to say, such as no way hath dependence, or correspondence with Ecclesiastic Regiment or Church-discipline; in such a case he shall come to trial (within this imperial City) before competent Judges, and in all the Provinces before the most honourable Precedents of the same; provided the suit 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 suit may have the shorter cut, and the more expedite dispatch. And in case the Precedent 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 Laws.  
In which words likewise, divers points are to be observed; viz. That some offences criminal are merely civil, merely politic, no way within compass of spiritual respect or consideration; that crimes and offences of such nature are tryable and punishable by temporal Magistrates; that Churchmen for the said offences may be sentenced and condemned to death by a temporal Judge; that Justinian binds not himself, 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 provincial Precedents, himself as the Sovereign, 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 laws 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 justinian's Novel, in bearing us in hand, that Churchmen for offence and crimes of this nature are first forsooth to be judged, and withal to be degraded by the B●shop, and after to feel the weight of the secular arm: for faith Hetrodox, Et t●nc sub legum fieri ma●●, and then to undergo the deadly stroke of the law; whereas without all ambiguity, the great and learned Emperor speaks in perspicuous terms, and says, 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 Rear; and yet withal, that such course of proceeding shall be only held in the Provinces, and not in the imperial City.  
The third point, or branch of the said Novel, that in case a Clerics offence be of Ecclesiastical nature, namely, such as requires and calls for justice by some ecclesiastical 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 laws imperial do not hold it any abatement or disparagement of their honour to follow: The Emperor's proper words run precisely thus, Si vero Ecclesiasticum si● delictum, etc. But when the offence is merely 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 several Provinces, shall bear no hand, and strike no stroke in the business, neither as head nor foot; for it is not our pleasure or mind at any hand; that civil Magistrates take any cognizance at all of such cases, because they are to be sifted, scanned, and tried by ecclesiastical proceed, and the faults of delinquents in that kind, are corrigible only by Ecclesiastic censures, according to the sacred Canons, which our laws imperial do not disdain to imitate.  
In which branch or context of the Novel, these few heads come in like manner to be observed; that some offences are merely ecclesiastical, and annexed to the clerical order: that when the holy Canons and sacred Scripture make it lawful for Prelates to inflict and award the said penalties, they always intent it of ecclesiastical offences: that such judgements and penalties are to be passed without st●p or impeachment by any corporal voices, and to reflect or to tend only to the reformation of delinquents Per Paternam correctionem, by a fatherly chastisement or correction, (a kind of ecclesiastic censure) and by such like penalties, which are not corporal: Now Sir, for as much as this distinction of delicts, faults, offences, judgements, punishments, and Courts, is not read in written Monuments before justinian's time, upon this ground I have affirmed (and am persuaded that herein I have not played the blind and unskilful Cobbler, 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 implies the civil Court, it is very certain that before justinian granted this gracious privilege to the Patriarch Menua, no man had recourse (in the foresaid cases) unto Prelates as unto public Magistrates, but only unto secular Judges: It is high time now to lay open your palpable errors.  
Hetrod. Well remembered, hold you to your method, and therein use your best skill, to turn my Argent into Subtes, my Whites into Blacks.  
Orthod. My chiefest aim shall be bend unto none other white: Is it not first a gross error to wrest S. Paul's words written to Timothy, with a wrench of wrong and idle supposition? For you suppose that godly Timothy Lorded it in some public Tribunal or solemn seat of judgement, sitting upon offences that were not ecclesiastical and spiritual; whereas you cannot choose but know, that Paul there treats not of any judiciary form, but only of ecclesiastical and paternal correction: his words are evident, Against an Elder receive no accusation, but under the testimony of two or three: Again, Them that sin rebuke openly, that others may fear, where the word rebuke arms not young Timothy with any authority to attach the body, to lay in close prison, to send into banishment, to condemn either to the Galleys or Gallows, but only to give private admonition for private offences, and public reproof for public scandals. The text is expounded by S. Augustine (according to the gloss) after this manner, Aliquando debes corripere, etc. sometimes thou shalt rebuke him that sinneth betwixt yourselves 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 afraid, to run or to chop into the like snare: S. Paul therefore in that place speaks not of any Tribunal, (as you very fain would make us believe) but of ecclesiastical correction, proper to an Evangelist, and to no Judge, according to the same Apostles words; Improve, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine; do the work of an Evangelist, make thy Ministry fully known. Howbeit I do not deny, that men's qualities, degrees, and the enormities of their offences, being weighed in just and equal scales, it is lawful for those, unto whom authority for such purpose is deputed and committed, to practise Ecclesiastical correction, cum omni imperio, with all Majesty and power, that is, without all fear, as the same Apostle speaks: But whosoever shall so bear himself in his lawful authority, hath need to be endowed & furnished (besides the former qualities) with all those abilities, conditions, & compliments of a good & rightworthy Prelate, which are mustered & ranked by the same Apostle; Oportet autem Episcopum esse irreprehensibilem, etc. A Bishop therefore must be unreprovable, etc. For between one that fits upon the seat of justice, as a Judge upon the Bench, and one that hath authority to rebuke, here lies the main odds: The sentence of the Judge is profitable, though the man himself be as bad as Barrabas; but he that reproves or gives verbal correction, seldom or never works any deep impression or good effect in his hearer, if he teach that a man shall not steal, and yet steals himself.  
2. By witnesses you understand, such as are juridically to be sifted by examination, deposition, and such other juridical courses of Court; whereas to give a fatherly admonition, or paternal correction, who doth not know, that a Bishops bare and simple word for such purpose is held sufficient, and will serve the turn; to the end he be not induced to pass against a Priest by way of correction; but when with great reason his conscience is duly certified and informed, that the accusation or presentment hath been materially confirmed, and substantially verified by the testimony of two or three: Thus Ambrose in the gloss to the same purpose, Quoniam vero non facile, etc. And because accusations against Priests are not hand over head, to be admitted with easy credence, the crime or accusation pretended and objected must clearly be proved: or in case the matter be manifest otherwise, that a Priest's deportment or demeanour in his orders, hath been very scandalous, and notoriously unreverend, the Apostle lays his charge upon Timothy, to rebuke the party, before the face of others, that others may fear to run the like scandalous and unreverend courses: which manner of proceeding is very profitable, not only 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 mark and rank, so roundly taken up for his misdemeanours; by which the holy Father S. Ambrose means, offence 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 less at any distinction of Court; but bears a reflecting eye, and giveth aim with a kind of nod, and bending of the head, only to paternal correction.  
3. You argue upon a vain supposition, that even by Paul's own testimony there, it is necessary for Churchmen, (in all temporal causes and offences) to have recourse and refuge, unto the ecclesiastical Judge: that were doubtless 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 clear light of truth: For Canon, by the help of your own spectacles, and none other.  
You maintain, that by the same Canon, Churchmen are barred from the benefit of recourse unto secular Judges, whereas the Council presupposes the contrary; viz. That Clerics may take the benefit of that course, howsoever not before they have put in practise the means to have the matter taken up, and ordered by their Prelate, whom the Council (even by the averrement of your own mouth) terms the competent Judge of their cause, whereas in the text, or body of that Canon, Point des paroles, not one such word.  
6. The Council held at Agatha (upon your supposition, that Clerics for criminal delicts fled for their lawful relief to the secular Tribunals, as plaintiffs or defendants in criminal cases) inhibits Churchmen to run 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 practice I grant is still in use, and to this day goes currant: But what force, what vigour, what sinew is in this modern practice, to prove distinction of Court in the Primitive ages and times? Nay, it rather infers the contrary, that doubtless then there was not any other Court authorized (besides that of the secular and temporal Magistrate) unto which, in as much as Churchmen were to have recourse in criminal cases, for fear of incurring irregularity, the said Council hath taken due care and order for the Bishop's good care and free consent: And this jars not with my doctrine, but jumps with it hand in hand: besides; the said ancient Counsels were called and held always with consent of the secular Prince; and yet all this here spoken, is no demonstrative proof of your pretended distinction.  
7. The Cannon of the third Council held at Carthage speaks not in your language, affords no such matter as you insert and infer, makes no distinction of the judicial Court; It lays inhibition upon Bishops and Churchmen (after the controversy once is on foot, before secular Judges, or christian Arbiters) at no hand to cast off, and relinquish the said Arbiters, but rather to labour for the deciding and knitting up of such controversy, (without seeking to any other competent Judge, not agreed upon by both parties) to rest in their final determination and arbitrement, for the better averting and avoiding of scandal 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 reciprocal or mutual consent made choice of Infidel, or unbelieving Arbiters; a fault, for which the Apostle Paul somewhat roundly and sharply took up the Corinthians in these words, Secularia igitur judicia, etc. If then ye have judgemènts of things pertaining to this life, set up such in the Church as are contemptible, or at lost esteemed, to give judgement; I speak 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 Brothers? These words are not very many, as all men see, and yet do minister divers matters to be considered: As, that Paul here speaks of secular business, and temporal causes, item of such Judges, as by any one might be chosen and appointed of indifferent arbitrators, men without any Presidentsh p, or commission in tribunals or Courts; for he saith, Hes constituite, set ye up such, etc. Item the Apostle speaks not of choosing 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 special regard or estimation: of which Apostolical text chrysostom hath given this excellent exposition: Apostoli talib●● non vacabant, etc. The Apostles themselves never troubled their heads, never busied their brains, they were at no leisure to deal or to take any pains about litigious occurrents between party and party, or about secular judgements, their whole Ministry was employed and spent altogether in travailing through all Nations, and teaching in all places where they went; but men of the more discreet sort and rank (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 gloss, Terrenas causas examinant, etc. I advise that men of discretion in outward matters may fift and bolt out causes of worldly nature; as for men of endowment with spiritual and heavenly gifts, of another element, and more transcendent efficacy and power, they are not by any means to entangle their minds, or to be taken (like wild and untame Dear) in the strong toils of terrene matters, too fare out of their proper element: Item S. Paul (what power and authority soever he was armed withal, and by some it is thought with Papal power) saith not, I set up, or I appoint; but referring such matters to the parties interessed themselves, he saith, see that ye set up; be it your own act and ordinance: Nor speaks he of Priests, or of priestly orders, or of Bishops; but in a general comprehension, he speaks of the faithful, who had no exemption from the Prince's 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 Council therefore to meet with so great a mischief, made that ninth Canon, by you cited before, in this tenor and stile; Item placuit ut quisquis Episcoporum, etc. We moreover appoint and ordain, That whensoever a Bishop, Deacon, or Cleric, charged with any crime, and sued in any civil cause, shall decline, and forsake the Court ecclesiastical, or shall seek to purge and quit himself in any other Court of public judgement, he shall then be deprived (yea though he carry the cause, and win the day by sentence) of his dignity and place, if the judgement be criminal, but in case it be civil, he shall then lose the cause, if he mean to preserve and keep his dignity: For he that hath free liberty to make choice of his Judge, where he lists himself, and best likes, declares himself to be unworthy of the rank and fellowship of Christian brothers, when he carries a sinister, partial, and prejudicated opinion of the Church, not forbearing to crave the help 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 final determination: which words make evident demonstration of divers points; First of all, that you Hetrodox, have slily sought to put out mine eye, with a text or Canon of this council, which you make but a plain Curtall, with a Man● undecently shorn, with a ●●it nose, and cropped ears, 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 Arbiter Judges, of seculars, and of private judgement: Thirdly, That by the said Council it is carefully provided and ordained, that whensoever Churchmen shall give any public offence, or open scandal, than they are to be punished with deprivation and loss● of their : Fourthly and lastly, that in the Canon there is couched no express precept or direct charge, for choosing the said Arbiters; when the parties are once drawn into that course, it order them to steer altogether by that compass, and to stand to the tackle 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 Civil and criminal causes of Churchmen, before Justinians constitution?  
8. You allege the authority of the Milenitane Council, wherein it is commanded (according to the Apostles council, that Bishops are to accommodate civil causes between themselves) that no Bishop shall by Petition demand of the imperial Majesty, a Judge in public judgements; but in case he obtain of the Emperor some ecclesiastical Judge, than he shall not be impeached or contradicted: I will here for the purpose allege the Canon itself; Placuit ut quicunque, etc. It is decreed that whosoever shall Petiton the imperial Majesty to have his cause come to cognisance and trial in public judgements, he shall be deprived of his dignity, but in case he shall solicit the Emperor for Episcopal judgement, that shall be no maim, no loss, 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 Majesty's writs to that purpose: Secondly, he is permitted to petition the Emperor that his cause may be tried and judged by the Bishop, as hath been showed 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 tried, neither in public nor in private judgement, unless the Emperor himself did give way by special permission and most gracious licence: Nay the very same Council ordains, 
Can. 16.  that petition shall be made to the most glorious Emperor to be graciously pleased, that certain Judges by their imperial authority, might be commanded to appoint and assign 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 Churchman's causes were then handled before the imperial Judges.  
9 You blush not also to babble, that Justinian usurped excessive or more than due and lawful authority, to frame, pen, and publish those his Constitutions: But I must here be bold to tell you, Hetrodox, even to your face, the judgement of infinite Counsels, and pontificial Fathers, more especially, and by that name of Adrian 4. (as hereafter shall better appear) carries a great over-weight in the scales or balance of sound judgement, in comparison of this your new and late upstart censure, of a most christian and learned Emperor: They never once dreamt of such a partial verdict as you (like a bold foreman of a corrupt and frontless Jury) have now presumptuously blurted forth: No Sir, no, justinian's Constitutions and those likewise of many other Christian Princes, in the Primitive Church and age, have been ever most cordially caressed with great and special humility, even in ecclesiastical matters, and other occurrents of like nature: and to what purpose? To what end? That sacred Canons confirmed by imperial authority, might go forth with flying colours, to work the deeper impression of due observance, in the minds and hearts of all People: I pass over many examples, and wish men to peruse but one Epistle of Pope Leo, wherein he Petitions the Emperor Martianus, to confirm the Chalcedon Council, and obtains his Petition of the most gracious and noble Emperor: when the pontificial BP. & Church of Rome carried that respect, & humble observance toward Christian Princes, which to their imperial Crowns and Sceptres appertains, in those times the Popes and the Church were held in great veneration, and admiration withal: But so soon 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 eclipse of her ancient lustre? What spots and stains to her Primitive and Native beauty, h●th she not suffered and endured? Let men peruse the life of Boniface 8. of Alexander 3. of Gregory 7. of Julius 2. of Sixtus 4. of Clement 7. of Paul 4. and they shall see without help of spectacle or perspective glasses, that by vilifying of Christian Kings and Princes, the Church may put all her win in her eye (like an unfortunate and unthrifty Gamester) and see never the worse: Thus much I wots well, that justinian was deeply and excellently studied, superlatively learned in the Laws, followed and frequented by men of incomparable knowledge and learning, and the whole world hath pitched his authority at a higher price and rate, than the shallow judgement given out against his more than eminent gifts, by whomsoever without exception, Canonist or Cardinal, Prelate or Pope.  
10. By Manus legum, the hand of the Laws (for so I like to turn it for this turn) you understand the secular Judge; whereas before it hath been showed to be the lawful execution of a sentence.  
11. You affirm the laws imperial think not scorn to second the sacred Canons; and this you pronounce in the general sense & comprehension; whereas the Emperor speaks of causes merely ecclesiastical and spiritual: Besides you contend, that the due practice of justinian's Constitution, and the practice of sacred Canons cannot concur and stand together, wherein also with your leave, yourself stands not in the right: For doubtless the sacred Canons (as we hold) are to be duly observed, howsoever they bear nor sway nor weight of authority, Nisi ex priviligio principum, but by the force and virtue of Princely privilege: 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 clear text of holy Scripture? For to transcend the walls, or to pass 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 justinian, a Prince who reigned when piety with Discipline flourished in the Church like a green Bay Tree: You parallel an Emperor of ordinary capacity, and small knowledge, with an Emperor, the most complete legist in all ages of the world, a low shrub (in such regard) with a tall Oak, or the goodliest Cedar in Libanon: a Frederick with a justinian, a Frederick, 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 Excommunication, Deposition, and deprivation of his imperial Crown and Robes, at least as we Catholics would have the world to believe: Such a Frederick you put in the balance to make weight 'gainst such a justinian; of whom Adrian 4. gives this honourable testimony, 
Ep. ad Fr d. 1.  Filius noster incedat, etc. we would have our Son (so he writes to Frederick 1.) tread in the same steps which justinian, and other Catholic Emperors have taken before: for by their example well imitated, our son Frederick shall heap up all treasures of honour in earth, and eternal felicity with all glorious happiness in heaven. See you not here, Hetrodox, how Pope Adrian himself hath testified, that justinian 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 Cardinal Bellarmine.  
13. Be it granted that Friderick 2. had an humour to derogate or detract from the virtue, vigour, and validity of justinian's constitution, and was graciously pleased to affect and honour Churchmen with all gracious privileges possible; be it likewise granted, that Basilius, or whosoever beside, after justinian's time, hath declared himself no less gracious to the Church in the same kind; tell me with what reason you c●n hence infer, that before justinian's time, there was in the Primitive Church any such distinction of Court, as justinian hath constituted in his Novel.  
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 Grandfather, much more prejudicial to the Church and Churchmen, than was the Law of Nicephorus himself. 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 marvel, that yourself, Hetrodox, a man so much delighted, and so greatly conversant in the spacious field and file of all history, have not as it seems, once vouchsafed to touch the same: the Tract of Nicetus is couched thus at some length: Templum D. Irenae, etc. 
Lib. 7.  after that Emanuel had taken in hand to re-edify the most spacious and beautiful temple of Irenae, a structure built at first by the Emperor Martianus, and after consumed by fire, having raised certain eminent parts thereof, even from the foundation▪ he gave over that goodly work, and so left it unperfect in the ruins and relics of combustion: then he founded and built a Monastery in the mouth of Pontus, at a place called Catescepe, in the name of the Archduke Michael: In this Monastery he planted and settled 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 thorns, and sharp vexations of worldly cares: for seeing right well, that Monks 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 internal tranquillity, neglecting also the worship and service of the Almighty; he therefore assigned or laid out neither Vineyards, nor Lands, nor Demesnes, nor yearly 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 only appointed and apportioned a certain stint of allowance, and certain Pensions to be yearly paid out of his treasury or exchequer, to wit, such poor pittances, as were necessary, and might serve only Ad victum et Cultum, for diet and atrire: It seems this noble Emperor much misliked other Princes his Predecessors in their immoderate desire to found or build Monasteries, & was pleased by his Princely pattern to inform 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 poor Hermits, abstracting and sequestering themselves from the heavy burdens, Legs, and Clogs of terrene affairs: yea so fare was he from commending or affecting their courses, who making profession of Monastic life do swim nevertheless in the sweet waters of worldly wealth, and are more distracted with multitudes and whole worlds of cares, than such as are daily fed with all the delicacies and sweetest morsels of this life; that he revoked (as it were, from dishonourable exile) the sanction of Nicephorus Phocas, that most valiant and single hearted Emperor, formerly abolished; whereby Monasteries were inhibited all augmentation, and suffered likewise some abatement, or paring of their yearly revenues or demesnes: Nor was he any whit meal-mouthd to forbear or spare his own father, Grandfather, or any other of his Royal stock and blood, by whose princely bounty and largesse, the said Monasteries had been endowed with Manors, Farms, and yearly revenues of no mean 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 Monks were to be provided of Habitations, and Cells in Deserts, recluded and abstruse corners, in Dens and Caves of the Earth, or upon the crowns of high hills, and were to shun the glorious light of Constantinople, the imperial City, as the Syren-songs: their common practice walked not in the old and beaten way of their ancient and first institution, but mounted aloft, and flew a fare higher pitch: For being tickled with a pleasing itch of vain glory, they erected Princely Sepulchers, and Tombs of diversified Marbles, engraven or impost, stately Monuments gilded and enamelled, or at least pargered and laid all over with rich rough-cast of Parvis lapis, to the common view and vulgar aspect of all comers: yea, they would be seen after they were dead, lying add rned in their Tombs, with Crowns 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 virtuous endowments) they harboured and shut up as it were in Cages, or like Hawks in their Mews, many such as were without any express marks or representations of religious Monks, except it were a shaved crown, an exchanged habit, a stuff● and strutting paunch, and a side beard: For these causes and reasons, either to underprop monastical sanctimony, then as it were nodding, and lose in all her joints, ready to fall in pieces; or (to speak in more true and avouchable terms) then laid on her back 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 Emperor Emanwel Co●menus, forsaking the course and way of his Ancestors, fairly and nobly addressed himself to follow another tract and better path.  
Now in this large discourse divers things occur and concur worthy of observation, in favour of the point which I here maintain: 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 monastical 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 venomous humour against the Church, but only out of a religious disposition, to work 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 Emperor of an upright, right courageous and right sincere heart. The fourth is, that never any man opened his mouth to complain or to declare himself 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 lawful and free for christian Princes (as it is now practised in act) at pleasure to establish, and re-establish the like laws; and that immunities whether passant or dormant, do grow and flow Ex privilegio principum, from the sweet spring of Princely privileges. I pass over divers 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 work upon texts of no weight or importance, upon privileges cassed and annulled; in like manner, that you disclaim and reject authorities of the most noble and christian Emperors, their most holy Laws and privileges, never yet annulled, neither by custom, nor by any superior power.  
Hetrod. I fear Orthodox, you will break your wind, or at least run yourself out of breath in this argument, if you may be suffered to have your own swinge, I will therefore take down and cool the heat of your discourse, as it were with a sprinkling or two of holy water: Answer but one example, and you shall give me more than mean satisfaction: when certain Processes were preferred and presented on a time to Constantine the Great, against sundry ecclesiastical persons, what was his gracious and Princely response? Vos à nemine, etc. No mortal man hath power to judge you of the Church, but you are to be judged by God alone.  
Orthod. What aim you to infer upon this one instance?  
Hetrod. That Clerics or Churchmen are not subject unto secular Princes.  
Orthod. You shoot both too fare short, and too fare wide of your mark: That Princely response was only a kind of excess, wherein the noble Emperor endeavoured to demonstrate an over-weight of his exceeding benignity and piety towards the Church: the gracious eye of his internal judgement looked another way than you seek to infer: For if that response had been true, and according to his inward persuasion or belief 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 doubtless is a blur to your learning, and a gross Non sequitur to infer.  
Hetrod. Believe me Orthodox, you labour to crown the great Emperor 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 masked and cunning liar: But Sir, to the end you may plainly see in what height and elevation of the Pole, 
Hist Eccl. lib. 10. c. 2.  the words of Constantine deserve to be placed, have patience whiles I turn 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; we 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 suits commenced by men of your own Coat and Order) the time when you shall be judged by God alone; keep your suits to be tried & quarrels to be decided at his Bar; are you not given to us of God, as Gods on earth? Is it not a great and a shameful fault for men to 〈◊〉 and to judge their Gods? Is not he alone to hold the great assizes for their trials, of whom it is written, Deus stetit, etc. God standeth in the Assembly of Gods?  
Where it is to be noted, that as temporal 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 affirm: and upon this foundation the great Emperor very safely grounds his conclusion; that Priests have power to judge Emperors, but Emperors have no power at all to judge Priests: Now if this great Emperor of the world hath acknowledged, that he held Priests as in the rank of Gods, that he could be no judge of Priests, and yet might himself be judged by Priests, how much more ought other inferior Princes and States confess 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 God's name, from whom he receiveth authority and power: Nay rather God himself then sitteth in judgement by the mouth of his lawful Minister for the exercise of judgement: So when a Bishop judgeth some inferior Ecclesiastic, or when the Pope himself judgeth a Bishop, it is God that judgeth by the Ministry, or mediate work of his appointed and approved servant: This was therefore great Constantine's belief and persuasion, 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 mediate 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 means of his Vicar the Priest, who in that regard is called God, to wit, in regard of the secular Prince: In that only sense the Lord said to Moses, I have made thee Pharaohs God, namely to judge, to chastise that cruel King with my rodds, my sore judgements. And for some good proof of Constantine's belief, that power to judge & censure Bishops is in the hand of the Pope, it is to be clearly seen in Constantine's own practice against Caecilianus the Bishop of Carthage, whose cause (being accused & promoted by the Donatists) Constantine himself durst neither sift nor touch, but only ordered that Caecilianus and his cause should be transmitted to Rome, and there should undergo the censure of the holy Father, who then was Meltiades: this was the practice of Constantine, to confound the Donatists, with an intention or mind to crave pardon of the Bishops for thrusting his crooked Sickle into other men's harvest, and intruding himself into a business of that spiritual nature, 
Optat. lib. contra. parmen. Aug. Ep. 48. & 162.  as forced or drawn thereunto by the violent necessity of the said cause, witness Optatus Milenitanus, and S. Augustine in divers of his Epistles.  
Orthod. I never knew nor heard before this day, that excess of love and superlative praise, in any sort or fashion whatsoever to a good end, should merit the distasteful name of a lie: Hath not Cardinal Bellarmine himself expounded the Canon Quicunque of Theodosius in the very same phrase and style? By name, that certes Theodosius framed that Canon in the excess of his piety: But let us pass that circumstance, and come to the main of your last passage: it will not be denied, that as in secular Causes temporal Princes may be called Gods, even so Priests in spiritual 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 alleged) is understood of secular Princes, and not of Priests, as you Hetrodox would insinuate: But seeing that Ruffinus (you say) hath recorded, that Constantine took it in your sense, Valeat quantum valere potest, be it of what force or credit it may or can: most certain it is, that neither Ruffinus, nor Constantine himself with all his greatness, can hold water or weight with expositors of sacred Scripture: howbeit from hence there can be made no firm and solid inference, that Constantine's words (ad Dei judicium, yea are doubtless reserved to God's judgement) are thus to be understood, id est, Prelati, to the Prelate's judgement, because he exerciseth God's judgement: For Constantine there speaks without any terms of ambiguity: wait you for the judgement of God alone, reserve your causes and quarrels to trial 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 spiritual causes, for so much as here he speaketh of Ecclesiastics, not as men but as Gods, by virtue of their spiritual power to bind and lose: Secondly, that he meddles not here with any humane judgement, but expressly with the last judgement of God; Thirdly, that he speaks 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 supreme and Sovereign Judge: This of Constantine therefore is a kind of speech in excess, as before hath been said: And as for your anticipation, (that when the Prelate judgeth, God himself then judgeth by the Prelate, and therefore not man, but God himself 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 seat of justice, it is not man that gives judgement, but God himself; because the Magistrate is Dei Minister, God's Minister to take vengeance on such as do evil: Moreover, for so much as all Prelates, yea, the highest Bishop himself may err, (saith Cardinal 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, than God himself judgeth; because it is impossible for to err, as it is to lie: upon this exposition of Constantine's words, (whether his own, or the words of Ruffinus) uttered by a strain of excess in things not intelligible, you run into divers errors.  
1. First, be it in some sort granted, that Priests are not lawfully to be tried by the temporal Magistrate or secular Prince, in such causes wherein Priests by Constantine are called Judges; yet can it not be inferred without error, that in temporal 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 affirm 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, lest of all was he armed with such authority as in the quality of a Priest: But say that Moses was a Priest (as we Catholics believe and teach) yet he was but Priest unto the Hebrews, 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 only by the finger and power of the true Almighty & eternal God, therefore it was that God said to Moses, I have made thee Pharaohs God.  
3. Lastly, you affirm, Hetrodox, (wherein I wish you to take some sight and knowledge of your error) that Pope Meltiades had lawful power to judge the cause of Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage, because Constantine turned him over to the Consistory and Chair of Meltiades at Rome: I will not deny that civil and criminal causes may come to judgement before Consistorian Judges, but when? Forsooth when Christian Princes are graciously pleased by their Charters, Commissions, Grants, and special Graces or privileges, to lay open such Gaps, and to give such ways: Much less will I deny, that in causes merely ecclesiastical, 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 Episcopal Verges: but I must confidently affirm, and stand to it like a man when all is done or said, that in civil and criminal causes merely temporal, the Prince hath lawful power from God to judge ecclesiastics, when he hath not disarmed himself of his lawful authority, by some former gracious grant: And this I confirm, even by the very same act of Constantine, which yourself have produced and alleged: For Constantine you say transmitted (an act of power and authority) the cause of Caecilianus unto the Pope, and afterward himself sat upon Caecilianus in place of judgement: All Ecclesiastics therefore, no less than 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 lawful Prince; For all power is of God, as the Apostle there subjoins: This was it which moved the Kingly Prophet, and prophetical King David to style Kings and secular Prince's 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 not execute the judgements of men, but of God himself; the very same former text of David, our Saviour Christ speaking of secular Princes and Judges, hath cited in the Gospel, 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 Cardinal 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 God's Law subject unto the secular Prince, but seculars by man's law, and ecclesiastics by no law at all neither of God nor man, than your conclusion had been aptly deduced from your premises: For it hath been proved before, that Princes attain to Sovereignty 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 Milan, Verona, with other like Cities, and if any question should grow concerning the Kingdom of Cyprus, what fair title would the Venetian State allege 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 Milan, Cyprus, etc. by divine authority, when will they prove their pretended title over Clerics by the same authority? I dare pass yet a whole degree further, namely to maintain, that all degrees and sorts of Laics, yea, that Sovereign Princes are by God's 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 God's holy writ and word (the positive law of God) priests are pastors or shepherds to feed, and Laics, though never so great Princes are sheep to be fed; Priests are Fathers, and Laics are sons: Now according to the light of nature (the law natural of God) the sheep are under terms of subjection to the Shepherd, and the Shepherd is bound under no such terms to the sheep; as the son also lives in state of subjection to the Father, whereas the Father owes no duty of that nature to the son: moreover, the comparison made by Gregory Nazianzene between ecclesiastical and secular, is most excellent, and usually taken up of holy Divines: as in man's nature there is reason and flesh, of which two united, the whole frame and composition of man doth consist, so in the Church their ecclesiastical or spiritual power, and secular or temporal power, of which two the mystical 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; Again, as reason directs, rules, commands the flesh, and sometime brings her to a kind of rack, I mean doth chastise the flesh, and puts her to a certain penance of long fasting & watching; whereas the flesh never directs, rules, commands, nor lays any hard laws of punishment upon reason; even so the spiritual power hath a superiority over the secular, by virtue 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 spurns, or proves refractory, or makes any breach into the enclosures of ecclesiastical Regiment; whereas the secular power is not superior to the spiritual, nor can it direct, rule, command, or punish the same De facto in cases of Rebellion and Tyranny, which by Heathen Princes, or by Heretics hath been sometimes put in practice: true it is, that all power is of God, but how? either immediately, or else by means: And as none is exempted from obedience due to God, so none is exempted from obedience due to the Prince, provided always that a man be the said Prince's vassal or Subject, and in cases likewise wherein he owes vassalage or subjection to the said Prince: It is no less true, that Princes (as Princes) are God's Lieutenants, and therefore to be honoured, yea served with due obedience, as God himself, in such causes and matters as lie within their power, Servants be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, even as unto Christ: And whereas you say Cardinal 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 heretical Anabaptists; who teach, that neither secular Princes, nor tribunals, nor judgements, nor other like politic and civil regiments are to be tolerated in the Church of God: But as that Cardinal hath written and witnessed, that secular Princes are Gods in respect of their Subjects; even so he hath justified, that priests are Gods in respect of secular Princes: If you therefore Orthodox, like a good Roman Catholic would have trod in the steps of that Cardinal, 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 sucked such poison from the same flowers, out of which the Bee sucks and gathers honey.  
Orthod. I am not able to reach the bottom of your deep conceptions: would you have your own conclusions to be drawn 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 yourself or Cardinal Bellarmine was to be the Champion that would undertake to cudgel my coat, I mean, so subtly 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, certain, 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 breast or brain; I must only shape and lay in this answer for myself; 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 Cardinal, 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 unwholesome 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 errors? to make men subject unto their lawful Prince by God's law, you hold it needful, 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 follows or comes after title: The French King rules and governs in France, not by law of inheritance, but by virtue of authority received from God: The Venetian Prince, I mean the Republic and body of State (howsoever you have learned of Cardinal Bellarmine, with great artifice and skill to seal up the eyes of your own knowledge in the matter) bears not command and rule over Milan, by such means as they first attained to the dominion thereof, but because being impatronised or made Lords of Milan by humane means, they have it now in command (and ever had from the time of their first occupation & possession) by virtue of the power and right received from God himself: And herein what difference can you find to lie 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 Popedom: and for that purpose he will never study or stand to produce any testimony of Scripture: but ask him, by what authority he gives or grants his indulgences, etc. surely he will answer, because God hath given him power to forgive sins.  
2. To prove that Princes are subject unto priests by the law of God, you cut out and frame a silly sheepish argument from sheep and shepherds, God's law (say you) is the law of nature; by nature's law the sheep is in state of subjection to the Shepherd, by God's law therefore the Laic Prince is in the like state of Subjection to the Priest: I answer, the Prince is no sheep of the Shepherd 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 temporal causes and matters is rather subject unto the Prince: David gave the term 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 sheep done? S. Paul's words are pungent and peremptory; Let every soul be subject unto the higher Powers: If then your argument hath any sinews to evince, that Subjects are bound by God's law to yield obedience unto their Superiors of highest power; then all priests likewise (who are Subjects no less than others) are directly bound by God's law to the due obedience of their temporal Princes penal or Statute Laws, at least in temporal matters.  
3. The father you say is not subject unto the son, if Hetrodox (his own Father yet living) were now elected King or Pope, should not Hetrodox his Father, as a man and a Christian be subject unto Hetrodox his Son, whether King or Pope? Howsoever young Hetrodox the son should bear due respect and reverence to old Hetrodox as to the Father? Again, the Father a Laic may receive absolution of his own son 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 entrapped in the snares of error, they must learn to distinguish between titles and persons: a Prince in spirituals being a son, 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 temporal Prince his power is (Per se, of itself) over the body; and the spiritual priests power is over men's souls; yet your similitude wants weight of truth in some other part, and halts down right: For temporal power (save only as it is exercised by a Christian) is not subordinate to spiritual power, no not in ecclesiastical and spiritual causes; on the contrary, the subjection of priests in temporal causes is plainly subordinate unto the temporal Prince: Arguments thus framed are not worth a rush: temporal power is over men's bodies, and spiritual power is over their souls; as the body than is directed and ruled by the soul, and the soul not by the Body; so he that is armed and authorised with temporal power must be directed and ruled by such as are invested with spiritual power: I say again, such reasons are not worth a rush; for body and soul together do make one whole compound creature, which is man, whereas corporal power, and spiritual 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 less teach your affirmative, as who soever will read Gregory himself, shall readily find: For thus much Gregory writeth in effect, and no more, that as the soul is more noble than the body, so the spiritual power is more noble than the temporal, 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 making use of this doctrine to the hurt of the Church, when I should rather whet and scour my weapons against heretics: And herein you resemble me to the spider, that sucks poison from the same sweet and odoriferous herbs or flowers, out of which the industrious Bee sucks honey: Have you not herein much forgot yourself? He that delivers the truth, neither fights nor speaks against our mother the Church, but against such as harbour settled and secret pretensions in their breasts, to usurp more than appertains to their persons, callings, or degrees: Again, the Church is the Kingdom of heaven; and you speak (in your whole discourse) of none but earthly Kingdoms, 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 casual means, or else by frank donation, or free gift of the faithful, the grandeur of all which earthly Kingdoms and of all other temporal 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 heresy or error; howsoever I am directly of this mind, it is flat heresy to stand upon terms of contradiction against so clear a text of the divine Apostle Paul: And lastly, know this Hetrodox, that man is a spider who weaves a spider's web to catch flies, and poisons the springs or fountains of wholesome doctrine with venom 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 chief pillars of the Church, the most delicious honey of truth) will never take pepper in the nose, to hear himself blamed on this wise: sometimes your sweet honey Hetrodox, turns to bitter wormwood, yea to deadly poison, 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 subjoins 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 laws in any matter, cause, or subject whatsoever, laws obligatory, to bind all degrees and sorts of persons: Quicunque, whosoever he be, etc. in full conformity to the words of God himself speaking thus in his own person: By me Kings reign, and lawgivers or Princes decree justice: From hence have sprung (as from the prime root) many laws in the Code made by justinian and Theodosius, most christian Emperors, concerning Ecclesiastical persons, their lands, goods, etc. All which laws the Apostle commands to be obeyed without resistance, for so much as all that resist, shall purchase and receive to themselves condemnation: they run and tumble into mortal sin, wherein if they shall finally departed out of the body, without repentance in this life, they shall be adjudged and condemned to eternal flames of hell.  
Hetrod. Where did Paul ever write or witness, That secular princes have power to make Laws in all matters and causes? Laws to bind all sorts, conditions, and qualities of people? what? shall Princes make Laws for the manner and form of saying Mass? for binding Laics to say Mass, and to make the vow of chastity? for binding Priests to marry, and instead of a breviary and a Portuis, to wear a Falchion, a Skaine, or a Sword? Shall not all these be bound to show and perform obedience, if Princes have authority to make Laws in all causes and in all matters, yea binding Laws for all persons i● when Laws were enacted by Heathen or unbelieving Princes, that all people, Nations, Tribes and Kindred's should renounce Christ, and offer sacrifice to Idols; were they not bound then under the penalty of mortal sin to obey the said Heathenish Laws and Ordinances? They were doubtless to my understanding, though all Princes than were Infidels, when Paul commanded the said obedience to Princes: And yet Orthodox, according to your new interpretation, from Paul's precept, or Apostolical Canon, it is forsooth to be collected, That secular Princes have authority from God to make Laws in all matters, and laws to bind all persons: It may seem your wits are gone on wool-gathering, that you perceive not how many errors 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 Solomon's 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 wisdom of God, using these words, viz. By me King's reign, and Princes or Lawmakers decree justice, doth manifestly declare and show, That none but just Laws do proceed from the wisdom of God, and that other Laws, many times enacted by Princes, in matters which nothing at all concern their dignities and imperial places, or established against persons not subject unto their secular authority, or otherwise unjust laws, are but like puddle waters, which run from the corrupt fountain of their own brain, & so not flowing from the spring which riseth in God's bosom, neither are the said laws approved of God's divine wisdom. To the other addition which you make, that justinian and Theodosius enacted laws concerning ecclesiastical persons, their goods, lands, Church-government, or discipline, it hath been already answered: that in such their practice they exceeded the terms and limits of their power: and whereas you affirm, the Apostle commands obedience to their laws, you affirm a most large and no less manifest untruth or falsehood: for the Apostle there speaks in general, that he would have Subjects obedient to their superiors, and whereas a little 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 laws that concern the service and worship of God, or the discipline of his Church, but in civil and politic laws alone, and in temporal matters, which laws 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 carried away with mis-credence or false belief and persuasion that Christian laws, or the laws of Christ, are opposite and repugnant unto the rules and reasons of civil 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 Laws in all causes and matters Temporal, but only for the Public and Civil good and benefit; provided always their Laws be just: For it is always presupposed, That obedience is never due nisi justa praecipienti; but when the Prince, or State, or other Superiors command things just and lawful: So that your late Consequences grow from a certain misprision, or wrong conception of my project, purpose, position, and proofs: For when I teach, That a Temporal prince hath power to make Laws in any or in all cases, I mean such Laws 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 Laws, and those of Theodosius, it shall suffice thus to answer in a word: Their Laws are sacred, and have ever been reputed irreprehensible; they were contrived and penned, partly upon temporal grounds and subjects, partly for the more strict observance of spiritual Canons and Orders, partly for public benefit; and yet did never any chief Bishop or High priest so kick and spurn against either of their Laws, 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 unbelieving Princes, I will content myself to make use of Saint Paul's words, for a sufficient and full answer thereunto: You must be subject and obedient, not only 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 clear 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 Heresy, especially when chrysostom hath decided the matter before, by so strong an argument from the less to the greater in this form? If the Apostle enjoineth obedience to Heathen and miscreant Magistrates, how much more ought we to perform and yield all due obedience unto believing and godly princes? Thus chrysostom.  
Hetrod. The Sun is now declined many degrees, and now ready to departed out of our Horizon: Are you Orthodox as near to the period of your first day's labour and task, as the Sun is to the full end of his Journal or Diurnal motion?  
Orthod. I am indeed, as you shall presently perceive. Saint Paul commands all men to pay Tribute unto their lawful Sovereign, because he that dischargeth such duty, makes good payment unto God himself: Give Tribute unto whom you own Tribute; Custom unto whom Custom; f●r they are the Ministers of God: This passage is expounded by the Angelical Doctor, the great Master of Divines, and only Sun of the Catholic School: This great Clerk saith (you know full well) That in case Clerics be free and exempt from payment of Tribute, doubtless they are endowed with such freedom and exemption, not by God's Law (as by divers it is thought and taught) but by special grace and privilege of secular princes, who bear not Gladium, the sword for nought, seeing they are Gods Ministers to take vengeance, etc. See you not here the authority of Secular Princes to punish poena sanguined, with loss of blood, or with corporal death? Now the same authority Ecclesiastical Prelates have not from God; and therefore when they have once degraded a Cleric for some capital crime, or scandalous and notorious offence, whereby they declare the party criminal to be devested of his clerical 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 post him over to the secular power. And to the end it might not be conceived, that Paul's words are not uttered by way of precept, but only of counsel, Behold, to make good his assertion, he strengthens the same words with a very substantial sinew, Ideo necessitate, etc. Wherefore ye must be subject, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience sake. So then we are bound (by Saint Paul's holy doctrine, as it were with a forcible chain 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 lazy Poet? Fail, flag, and faint in the last Act of your first day's Conference? Coin, 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 own words) it is but a sacrilegious trick to chop and change the right words, especially when the genuine sense proclaims itself to every mean capacity. For example, in the first sentence, For they are the Ministers of God to receive tribute; Paul doth not say, That Princes are Gods Ministers to receive tribute, but rather by all means to provide for, and to procure the tranquillity of the whole body: So the words are expounded by chrysostom, 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 God's people. Yea the same Thomas also, whom you so highly magnify, 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 task (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 salary can be given to God? Prince's therefore are not Gods Ministers, Ad tributa, to receive tribute, but rather to bring their subjects unto a stat● of blessedness under a good and happy government. Again, touching Thomas Aquinas, whom you quote for another purpose, namely, to prove, That ecclesiastics have been freed from payment of tribute▪ by the most gracious charters, and special privileges of Princes, it is in good sooth the assertion of Thomas, and conformable to Historical Truth. But you impose and father upon Thomas more than he sets down, to wit, That ecclesiastics are not so endowed and privileged by God's Law, whereas Thomas affirms the clean contrary: For thus he saith, Princes by gracious privileges have exempted Ecclesiastics from tribute, because it stands and agrees well with natural equity; He means, that Princes in so doing, confirm the law of nature, which doubtless 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 sour grape, except it be in the Deserts of certain Heretics, as the Valdenses, Hussites, Marsilius of Milan, or the like, who denied the Church to have any right unto the power of both swords. True it is, the Church never strikes with any material sword, nor doth punish criminal 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 Ecclesiastical meekness; in regard whereof the Church is well contented and apayed to leave all such criminal offenders in the hand of secular justice: Vterque igitur Ecclesia, etc. Both swords therefore, the spiritual and the material, of right belong to the Church; the material to be unsheathed in the Church's defence, the spiritual to be drawn by the Church's arm: the spiritual to be used by the Priest, the material by the Soldier: but yet when the Priest holds up his finger, and the Emperor commands or sends out warrant for the purpose. This doctrine of S. Bernard was afterward made authentical 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 counsel. Very true, he do●h so indeed: but what is Paul's meaning? Doubtless, that Princes are to be obeyed of such, as by lawful 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 follows, that Churchmen 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 civil causes only, and such as impugn neither God himself, nor his Church; whereby the Christian world may clearly and evidently see, how deeply & highly the Venetian Republic Anno 1606. offended the Divine Majesty, not only in committing Ecclesiastics in prison, but also in using force and violence to compel as well them as Laics, to infringe and contemn the holy Father's interdiction, a censure purely spiritual and ecclesiastical.  
Orthod. I was never yet found a falsary, no coiner, no corrupter of holy Scripture: it is yourself that patch up my garments with your own rags, and mar the Text with an Aurelian gloss: 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 tools were hammered.  
Orthod. You mean the Author of the 8. Propositions.  
Hetrod. The very same.  
Orthod. They are none of that Author's words, but are suppositions, or surreptitions foisted into his Text with a false finger of the Printer, or of some other; and yet are they justifiable by the most clear exposition of our great Master, Thomas Aquinas, whose 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 press: for to that Author's purpose it sufficed to say with Paul, Princes are Gods Ministers; the word Ad tributa, neither mars nor mends the Author's meaning or S. Paul's: In reason therefore it may not be conceived, that ad tributa was of any set purpose added or sowed to the piece by the workman's needle; neither need it seem 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 sly 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: Come 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 Anjou, is expressly and totally prohibited for ever; but his Book De Republ. and his Methodus are prohibited with a limitation, by name, until they shall be purged and put forth by the Author himself, with approbation by the Master of the sacred Palace) it is believed that all the said words enclosed here by Parenthesis are crept in through the error of the Printer. Now if so long a thread 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 poor single stitch) was nimbly and slily drawn by the Printers error into that learned Author's Proposition: As for the words, Ira & vindicta, wrath and revenge, or vengeance, they are in effect all one: but because the word vengeance comes nearer to S. Paul's 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 affirm with confidence, that whatsoever is given to his Ministers, is given to himself: of alms here given to the poor, our Saviour Christ will pronounce in the day of judgement, Quod uni ex minimis meis, 
Mat. 25.  whatsoever you have given to any one the least of these my brethren, ye have done to myself: And saith not God himself in the same or like manner of alms 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 do 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 special privileges of Princes, who graciously confer their said privileges upon a certain equity, and yet you affirm Aquinas to hold, that Clerics pay no tribute, not because they are exempted by humane privilege, but by divine law: To what purpose hath Thomas testified they pay no tribute by the privilege 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 citys the 47. Chapter of Genesis, where we read, that King Pharaoh exempted the priest of Egypt from tribute (who without question was not exempted by God's Law, because they were Idolaters) he concludes à pari, that Clerics are now exempted from tribute by the privilege of Princes, and not by the Law of God: justine Matyr is positive in the same article; that payment of tribute is due to the Prince by divine precept, Vestigalia tributa, etc. the customs and tributes imposed by your imperial Majesty in all places, and before all other Subjects, we endeavour to pay, as we are taught and commanded by Christ himself, for being asked whether tribute should be given to Caesar, he made this answer, Give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's: For this reason S. Ambrose Bishop of Milan, writing to the Bishop of Vercelli was moved to make this good and godly profession; Si tributum petit, etc. If our Lord the Emperor be pleased to demand tribute, we will not presume to deny, to withstand, or to refuse his imposition; the Church-lands must bow and stoop (if there be no remedy) to pay down upon the nail; if the imperial Majesty proceed to require the said lands, it lies in his power to make challenge thereunto; let him take them from the Church, if his mind and pleasure be absolutely and resolutely bend so to deal: For my 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 & royal pleasure: what would S. A●bose now say for those Princes, who take nothing away from the Church, when he grants and yields the Prince a power, to take away and make appropriate unto himself at his pleasure, the lands of that Church, whereof himself was Archbishop, or chief Prelate, and grants this obedience is to be yielded unto the Emperor 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 public good and tranquillity, even to the great loss, and many times to the excessive expenses and exorbitant charges of Ecclesiastics, that in the Lateran Council we read these words, Tamet si Clericus à tributo, etc. Albeit Clerics are discharged and exempted from all payment of tribute, yet in cases of necessity, and times urging, pressing and enforcing 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 mean you Hetrodox, to arm the Pope with a material sword, yea, with a naked and drawn sword, was not Peter himself 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 blood, and put many souls to the sword? whereas the Lord made choice 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 material sword, hath no manner of congruity, nor holds any due correspondence with ecclesiastical profession; and again, that such ecclesiastics as challenge to themselves the swaying or wielding of the same sword, re-in state of irregularity; and again, that for this reason the little shepherd, young David, a type of every true Christian, might not go in the complete Armour of Saul on his back, to fight against Goliath 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 little not only the common practice of Christians, approved by your self 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 Pelican in the wilderness; well I may send forth grievous groans against goatish soldiers in Arms; my weapons are bitter tears, a priest hath none other weapons or Arms for defence; I neither can resist, nor ought in any other manner to make resistance; where the word, Nec debeo, nor aught, strikes and pays home, as a word of great force and efficacy.  
4. At last Hetrodox, you raise a strong Bulwark, with a suitable Parapet and main flankers, for the strengthening of your cause, (and yet but imaginary Castles and Forces) out of S. Bernard's text; which methinks, is a great disadvantage and weakening to your mock-building: That holy Father there speaks of the Church in counterpoint strains and terms, I mean, 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 imperial and temporal power with Papal and Spiritual power; Now saith S. Bernard, Vterque, etc. both swords material and spiritual, 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 material sword) pro ecclesiâ, is to be drawn in defence of the Church's privileges, liberties, and rights; Ille vero, the other, that is, the spiritual sword, is to be taken up & shaken ab ecclesiâ, by the Church itself; this by the hand of the priest, and that by the hand of the soldier: So the priest bears not in his hand the material sword, which nevertheless is used ad nutum sacerdotis, when the Priest hath once given a beck, or a sign, & jussum Imperatoris, and when the Emperor hath once given the command. These two distinct words here stand in a kind of opposition, and serve to show, 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 find: So that ad nutum, when the Priest gives a nod, doth not signify or import ad jussum, when the Priest commands. How then? Forsooth it imports, that when the Priest hath once degraded a criminal 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 Bernard's doctrine more authentical) if he teach no more in this article than Saint Bernard himself, 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 hair) to your own judgement, reduced to the terms oblight and sound information: To be short; whereas the LL. Ecclesiastical stand very stiffe, and make a strong head or party for a larger size and greater extent of authority, then in truth may stand proportionable to their degree and calling; in case any such authority f●r the material sword by them to be drawn and put in practice, were essential to their State and rank, or therewith compatible, doubtless they might and would bring the same into common practice, and therefore it belongs not of right unto their spiritual function and profession: This Argument is framed and taken by seculars, and in very deed is full of pith: Frustra est potentia, etc. 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 day's quarrel, I have sufficiently argued for my first Proposition, to prove the doctrine thereof Catholic, sound, ecumenical, and uncontrollable; so that you have not been able to supplant it with all your Engines, nor to blow it up with all your Mines and Fireworks.  
Hetrod. I never thought (I must confess) that any rank heretic, whom like a Roscius or some other famous actor, you have so cunningly personated in this day's conference, was able to act & play his part, or handled his weapons, like a skilful master of defence, half so well: you have indeed (to deal plainly and truly) puzzled my wits a little, and put my reading perhaps to some stagger: If you can play the man, and lay about you as well in the other seven Propositions (for the second whereof in token of challenge I here cast down my glove as the Appellant, calling for your personal appearance to answer the challenge in this place to morrow by sunrising) you may perhaps work more with my present opinions beginning to waver, than you are ware.  
Orthod. I refuse not your challenge, but in sign of acceptation I take up your glove, and will not fail to be in the field at the hour assigned. Interim I wish you good rest for this night, and sharper weapons for the next morning.   

The second day's Conference upon the second Proposition.  
Het. A Good morrow to you Orthodox, worthy Champion Defendant, you come well armed I make no doubt at all pieces.  
Orthod. The same salutation to you Hetrodox, noble Champion Appellant, whose arms I wish to be more pungent in the conflict of this day, than I could find them in our late former skirmish.  
Hetrod. Be pleased then without further delay, and more loss 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 Son of God equal to the Father, is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and yet all the time that he was clothed with our mortal spoils, not only before his bitter death, but likewise after his most blessed and glorious resurrection, he never exercised the least power of a secular and temporal 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 go very hard, but I will here leave you unarmed in the place. For Christ our Saviour was never invested or inthronised in any temporal Kingdom: Pilate makes the question to Christ, Art thou a King? Christ gives the answer, Thou sayest I am a King: But know, O Pilate, howsoever I am a King, yet my Kingdom is not of this world, that is, not a temporal Kingdom. 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 stepped 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 man's cause, 
Tho. Aqui. in ep. ad Roman.  but answered those who required him to give sentence in a certain litigious matter. Who made me a Judge over your persons or your causes? Yea, he directly acknowledged Pilate, Caesar's deputy or Governor, to be his lawful 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 mean garboils: But in sooth, it doth not so much as touch the same; for they treat not of temporal Kingdoms, but of Ecclesiastical affairs; so that your Proposition serveth only to bewray your own bad affection and erroneous conceit.  
I therefore must give you thus much to understand; Very certain it is, that Christ as he was Man mortal, did never exercise any power of a temporal Prince in this world; For his coming into the world (it is his own testimony) was to suffer, to serve, to teach men contempt of worldly wealth and honour, as also by his humility and obedience, to chalk out and make plain the way or path, which leadeth to the celestial Paradise, before the face and eyes of all proud and rebellious or disobedient people. The Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life for the redemption of many. 
Mar. 20.28  The Son of Man hath not whereon to lay his head. Learn of me 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 poor. He humbled himself, and became ebedient to the death, even the death of the cross.  
But your Proposition should carry this one joint or branch more, That Christ even as man (in case he had been so minded) might have assumed to himself the dominion of all temporal causes or matters, and made himself a King or an Emperor, 
Jam. 11. Heb. 1.2.  which of the two he would: The Father hath given all things into his hands and hath made him heir of all things.  
Again, It should not have been put down in your Proposition, that Christ after his Resurrection exercised no power of a temporal Prince, without addition of this clause, that Christ after his Resurrection, even as he is man, hath obtained the government of the whole wood, not as a temporal Prince, but as an Eternal Prince, 
Reve. 1.5. Mat. 28.18.  fare superior to all temporal 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 temporal, b●cause it is eternal, and yet is above all things both temporal and eternal.  
But now again, that Christ acknowledged Pilate for his Judge, as you affirm; I must be bold to tell you Orthodox, It smells somewhat rank of error; For Christ, even as man, was the High priest, with power of excellency, yea he was the head of men and of Angels; so that he had no superior upon the face of the whole earth, neither could he be judged of any other, I mean de jure, by right; 
Philip. 2.8.  (howsoever perhaps the facto, by fact, he might be brought coram nobis, upon his own sufferance and permission:) For it was he that humbled himself, viz. because he would be so humbled by the death of the Cross: 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 God's permission. In the same sense are these other words to be taken, 
Luc.  This is your hour, and the power of darkness: 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 john, of the power that Princes have from God; it likes me well to confess and say, that pilate's power (as the Minister of Cesar) was from God, from whom all lawful power descends. Howbeit (with your favour) that such power in Pilate was extended and stretched over Christ, it grew out of pilate's ignorance, who never knew the superexcellent 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 Governor. As if a Priest in these days, 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 pilate's judgement.  
Orthod. You deny that in the present garboils (at which you wrongfully charge me to aim) there is any reference to the temperoll Kingdom; 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 temporal Kingdoms is thereby drawn into debatement. I let pass your Thesis, and will stand upon the Hypothesis. Say the Pope now sends forth prohibition to any Christian King, or temporal State, that he or they shall not meddle with judging Ecclesiastical persons, running into delicts of nature merely temporal, and no way reflecting upon spiritual matters. Again, that he or they shall not frame particular Prouisoes or Laws, concerning Lands not hitherto acquired or accrued to Ecclesiastical 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 Temporal Princes or States; for he is not Lord Paramount in temporals of their Dominions and Territories. By like then he doth it by his authority of universal Pastor. Now because that authority of Universal Pastor (as we hold) he holds as the Vicar of Christ; it was not impertinent or superfluous for me to show, but necessary to demonstrate, what authority Christ himself exercised in temporal causes. For Christ's authority must be the only rule of the Pope's authority, witness the words of Christ's own mouth, As my Father hath, even so do 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 himself 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 himself was no Pastor in Temporals, but in Spirituals, in like manner the Pope, jure Pontificatus, in his right of Popedom, hath do authority or dominion in temporal matters, and in particular, when the laws temporal, Non impedunt cursum ad vitam aeternam, are no hindrance in the way to life eternal, but establish a civil peace, are directed and levelled to the maintaining and preserving of that State, of that Liberty, of that Dominion, wherein particular profession is made of Christian Religion, and of Piety, as also to the conserving and upholding of publique justice: Now then, if I to bring proof of all this, have laboured in the first place to show what power our Lord Christ himself exercised in temporal matters, then sure I have spoken home to the point, and nothing from the purpose, as you cavil: Now I will have a bout or a course at your errors; not as in a May-game or light skirmish, but with Championlike devoyre.  
1. You confess, that Christ never exercised any temporal power in this world; and it is all that I either have affirmed, or can desire to be confessed. Nevertheless you take upon you to teach, that I looked not before I leapt, because I should have subjoined, that Christ, if it had been his good pleasure, might by his power have exercised the said temporal 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) nevertheless whereas you pretend, that all I have delivered of this point before is to little 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 Pope's authority being founded upon Christ's example, the supreme Pastor, it sufficed to show what actions Christ himself used for the feeding of his little flock, and not meddle 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 work the conversion of the whole world? To sanctify the whole stock and race of mankind in the twinkling of an eye without shedding one drop of his precious blood? Is there any thing impossible with God? 
Luc. 1.37.  But well assured that arguments drawn from possible to fact, are of no force, therefore I would not be so idle before to talk of what Christ was able to do in temporal matters, but what he hath done in very truth.  
2. This again you have supponed, that our Lord Christ as mortal man had lawful dominion in temporal matters: But Moldonate a learned Jesuit of your own Order, in his exposition of these words, My Kingdom 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 temporal dominion of the world three ways, as he was man, 1. By right of inheritance, 2. By right of creation, 3. By authentical 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 man's law, that is by right of election; or jure divino, by God's 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 royal stock of Judah, yet we know that Kingdom (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 lawful heir apparent 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 remains then, that by authority of Scripture he was a temporal King, albeit he never exercised his temporal power: But in holy Scripture not a word of any such temporal Kingdom, but only of his spiritual Kingdom: Thus the great Father S. Augustine, and thus Maldonate, 
Tract. 115 in Joan.  agreeable to the opinion of all 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 consensu res electus, et cum Iudaei vellent eum rapere ut regem facerent, aufugit: So that Christ as mortal man, then having no temporal 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 mortal man: For as God, no doubt (as before hath been said) he was King of Kings & Lord of Lords: As for the eternal 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 temporal Power, and not of eternal; which eternal power for certain Christ our Lord hath not given and left unto his Vicar.  
3. Your third error lies in a misinterpretation of two several texts, this for the one, knowing that his Father hath given all things into his hands; and this for the other, whom he hath made heir of all things: For you understand them both of his temporal power, whereas Maldonate by the authority of S. Augustine, and of all the best Divines affirms they are to be understood (as they ought in very truth) of Christ's spiritual Kingdom, which in the Gospel is called the Kingdom of heaven: 
Joan. 19  For if the said words might be understood of Christ's temporal Kingdom, than Christ himself had not forborn (which God forbidden) to rap or breathe out a lie, when he said, My Kingdom is not of this world, & again, My Kingdom is not from hence: For he had by that means denied what holy Scripture had affirmed he was indeed, that is, a temporal King: But say still, that Christ as man had temporal dominion, yet still it remains good, that he did never put such temporal dominion in practice or execution, which as you have already confessed, so it is sufficient for my purpose.  

Joan. 19.11.  4. That place in S. john, Thou couldst have no power over me, except it had been given thee from above, you say is not understood of the Judge or Lord Governors ordinary power, but of a permissive power: In good time Sir; but were it so as you interpret, surely than Christ had proved himself but a bad Logician to answer the governor clean from the purpose; for Pilate spoke of his judiciary power, 
Joan. 16.  when he said to Christ, Knowest thou not that I have power to lose thee? etc. Secondly, not Pilate alone, but likewise all the jews had the same permissive power, of which permissive power your text before cited is to be understood, this is your hour, and the power of darkness, which for this reason is called the power of darkness, 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 denied, 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 sin, but God gives no such power from above; for if he give it from above, than he himself concurres with sin, and is the author of sin; which doctrine is even as false as God is true, and as truth is no lie: S. Thomas therefore saith, and you Hetrodox confess, the words are understood of the Judge Pilat's 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. Learn we then saith S Augustine, (as first Christ himself 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 we withal, that he commits the greater sin, who for envy delivers up the innocent unto the higher power to be executed, than the Magistrate himself commits, who for fear of some other Power higher than himself, puts the innocent unto death: For God gave Pilate such power, as might be many degrees under Caesar's absolute and supreme power: And here I will touch another of your errors, a twig of the same branch, in attributing that unto Pilat's ignorance, which Augustine with all the rest have ascribed to his fear, of purchasing to himself Caesar's heavy displeasure and indignation: To my purpose I have this also from Saint Bernard, Romani presidiis potestatem Christus super se quoque fat●tur fuisse ordinatam, 
In Ep. ad Archiep. Senoven.  Our Saviour Christ was not ashamed to confess, that over himself the Roman Precedent had lawful 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; jam tunc pro se loqu●batur, quod post per Apostolo● clamavit in Ecclesiis, Non est potestas nisi à Deo: Wherefore set you so light by Secularity? who ever was more secular than Pilate, before whose Tribunal, and at whose Bar the Lord Christ himself 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 own cause; even then and there he had sensible experience of the same thing in his own person and case, which afterward he proclaimed in the Church by the ministry of his Apostle, There is no power but of God.  
5. S. john, chrysostom, and S. Cyril, whom you have alleged, do not deny that Christ speaks of ordinary judiciary power; They only affirm, that whereas Christ might have avoided that judgement, either by hiding himself, (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 drawn, that such power was not of God, but rather the contrary; And this our Divines understand, not of Christ's ordinary, but of his absolute power; quia oportuit Christum pati, 
Luc. 24.46  for ought not Christ (as he speaks himself) to have suffered these things, and enter into his glory?  
6. Again, you bring the same for a reason, which is in the question; The Pope being High priest, cannot be judged forsooth in temporals by any temporal 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 form of reasoning, but a sophism or fallacy 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 temporal Prince, but said, that his power was given from above, and yet by all means was the High priest; therefore the Pope or High priest of Rome ought not in like cases to renounce or disclaim the judgement of the temporal Prince; for Christ's 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 clean contrary to his true meaning and right sense of the same, an exposition altogether unworthy of that Angelical Doctor's doctrine; and here I am bound to fight for my Country, for my Master and Compatriot, whose Catholic Doctrine in all Theological 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 creature 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 powerful himself, exalteth Powers by his power; whereof it follows 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 judiciary power, affirmed in common both of God and the creatures, and speaks not of Permissive power.  
You please yourself in producing the example of a Priest, stepped into a Laic habit, and presented before the secular Judge: This man knowing himself to be a Priest indeed, and not a Laic, as he shows, pretending and standing upon his exemption, would never (as you bear 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 himself not so speaking, but rather the contrary, hath not marked or pointed out any such pretention: 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 criminal 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 graced and privileged with such exemption in very truth, may not say so much, nor show the same to the secular Judge; but rather should confess the contrary, to wit, That doubtless the Judge is authorized and strengthened against him with ordinary power. Now these things Hetrodox not only are false, but also stand next door to things incredible.  
Hetrod. Have you done with my errors, or have you any more good and sound stuff 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 brass: Our Lord Christ commanded tribute to be paid unto the secular Prince, that is, unto Cesar, Give unto Cesar the things that are Caesar's: The truth of this Proposition is opposed by some, who say, that howsoever Christ paid tribute really unto Cesar, both for himself and for Peter; yet withal 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 own authority of a temporal Prince, no way in terms of obligation to be assessed and laid as a Tributary. 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 himself, 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 own most holy Divinity, and said, That as the Son of God he was not bound to pay: But because the rendering of that reason was too deep and too high a mystery, 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 scandal. Where we may see, what special account & reckoning our Saviour Christ made of not scandalising the Ministers of Secular Princes, the Collectors of Tribute or Poll-money, alleging so true and real an exemption, howsoever by the said Toll-gatherers it was not understood.  
Hetrod. Is this your sevenfold- 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 denied of none, That Poll-money or Tribute is due to Princes, & aught 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, etc. But now touching the tribute which Christ paid for himself & Peter, it seems thou hast sipped at least of Marsilius poisoned cup (I mean that Marsilius of Padua's Heresy) who was not ashamed to affirm, That Christ paid the said Tribute, not by condescension, but by compulsion, as thereunto constrained by necessity. His Heresy was condemned by Pope John XXII. For thou hast alleged none other exemption, to prove that Christ was not bound to pay the said tribute, five only because he was native of the soil, and the native people were called the children; and because he had the Divinity, according to which being the Son of God, he was not bound: The first reason is wholly frivolous and vain; for not only those of the soil were not exempted, but in very deed they only were bound to pay the tribute: And this we find in Moses Law, where Lays, 
Exod. 3●  Levies and Tributes were imposed and charged upon the Children of Israel; that every one should pay half a sickle, which makes two drachmas: which Tribute was afterwards taken up and received by the Romans, 
Lib. 7. d● bell. Jud cap. 26.  as josephus 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 temporal 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 grain of pith or force, if thou add not another grain, that Christ himself 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 thyself; 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, than thou makest thyself brother-heretic, or fellow-heretic to Marsilius of Milan, 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 natural 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 himself is not bound to pay, his Family much less is bound to that service or duty, therefore 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. Jerome 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 Christ's own Family, and exempted from all such payments in honour of Christ: I forbear to relate the rest of thy words touching this thy Proposition, because they are points of light stuff, 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 alleged, is to good and special purpose: For had Christ been a temporal 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 temporal King: But I hasten to have your errors by the ears.  
1. First it is an error in point of creance, or common courtesy and civil 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 persuade myself, for lack of good manners, or because you are to seek in the terms of civility, or by way of disparagement, but in some angry humour, and passionate mood: So it comes many times to pass indeed, that men falling to some friendly quarrel or contention in cold blood, begin with you, and after when the blood is up, and the quarrel grown to some heat, they end in thou: true it is, that no man should suffer himself to be overcome with wrath or anger, or any other like disordinate or distempered passion, but should show himself conformable to the Apostles words, 
●hil. 4.  Let your moderation be known to all men: howbeit I need not marvel, that you are pleased to thou a man, whom being none other then a good Catholic, you needs will mark and stamp with an heretic's brand, not in his Fist, but in his Forehead.  
2. Again, Marsilius of Milan professed (some say) that Christ paid tribute, as compelled by necessity: You lay to my charge that I affirm the same; and yet I affirm the clean contrary: namely, that Christ not being bound (as the son of God) to pay tribute; paid the same nevertheless 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 affirm that Christ paid tribute as constrained by necessity, but of his own condescension, that is, lest he should offend.  
3. Again, you are absolute and positive, in putting down the tribute whereof we now speak, 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 josephus, whereas josephus 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 years after the death of Christ, and of Augustus.  
4. Again, Doctor's 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 Firstborn, according to chrysostom; or the tribute imposed▪ upon strangers or foreigners, and not upon those of the City, according to Titelmannus: You resolutely affirm this tribute whereof we now speak, was the tribute of Augustus, but you give us no reason of your assertion; and yet besides you seek to put out mine eye with a false text of josephus, with a reiteration, that Augustus his tribute was the tribute of the Temple: Again, I buckle myself to the true exposition; that Christ was not bound to pay tribute, because he was the son of God, and sons 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 Logic 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 Holiness, as he i● Christ's Vicar, of this will you infer and conclude, the people of Rome ought doubtless to withstand his Holiness, as he is a temporal Prince? The very Peasant of mean & common capacity would be ready to hisse the conclusion out of the Laic Schools, Qui unum negat, alterum non affirmat, he that denies one thing, doth not forthwith affirm another, when the said things are not contrary, but only despaired, as in our present case: but I very well perceive your fetch Hetrodox, it was to fetch in Marsilius of Milan, and you have fetched him in with a witness, for you have pulled him into the Stage by the ears, and out of all due time: sufficient it is for me to allege the reason alleged by Christ himself, (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 nevertheless I do not affirm, that Christ our Lord was bound as man, to pay the said tribute.  
6. Again our Saviour Christ stands upon this reason, to prove his exemption from tribute, because he was the Son of God: But you Hetrodox, do take a stride, nay more than one stride further, and stick not here to affirm that S. Peter also was exempted, because he was of Christ's own family, who was the Son of God; but Christ as all m●n know, there spoke not a word of the family, but only of the Son; & Christ kept no servants, he was only followed by certain Disciples: And howsoever the servants of the King's son should be exempted from tribute, so long as they are employed in his service, yet doubtless 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 Publicans presupposed, they took it for granted, they put it out of all hunger and cold, that S. Peter was liable to tribute for his own Poll, and therefore they only asked Peter (not whether he himself) 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 nail for them both; for himself, that he might give no cause of scandal 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 privilege) ought in duty to pay tribute, because Peter found the Statere or Sickle, wherewith he paid tribute, in a fishes Belly; to notify, that men ought (by way of Subsidy and ●id to their Princes) to pay tribute of those goods, which they have got and received of fishes; that is, by the alms of charitable and faithful Christians.  
7. Again, you are not pleased nor disposed Hetrodox to apprehend the pith and force of my argument: For to prove that Christ never exercised any temporal dominion, it sufficed to affirm, that Christ himself said, Give unto Cesar the things that are Caesar's: But because there are some who frame that argument, not against the words, Give unto Cesar the things that are Caesar's, but against the whole discourse in general; to prove, that Christ was a temporal King, because he said, that he was not bound to pay tribute. I therefore answer, that Christ spoke not so in regard that he was a temporal King, but in regard that he was the Son of God: For this Hetrodox you forsooth would have me reputed an Heretic; such a marvellous desire you and some others do show, 
〈◊〉 Luk. 16.  to have us burnt for this heresy. Ex abundantiâ cordis ●s loquitur, the mouth speaks out of the abundance of the heart. Nauseat anima eorum super cib● isto l●vissimo, 
Num. 21  their soul 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 do seem to desire.  
8. Again, you play false in citing S. Jeroms Text; for you shall find his words clean contrary, and thus in true terms; 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 baseness of our nature, was to fulfil all righteousness. We wretched creatures (mark how he reckons himself in the number, then being a Priest, and according to some Authors a Cardinal) 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 Cross, and paid tribute; shall not we then for his honour pay tribute, but as if we were free born, & the King's natural sons, scape altogether  from all manner of tallage, poundage, customs, tributes, aids, and subsidies? In this place we see S. Jerome not only doth not affirm, that immunities are De jure divino, by God's Law; but he also grievously complains (as jansenius testifies) that Ecclesiastics did not pay the required and imposed tributes for the honour of Christ; as if they were the King's eldest sons, 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 hear, how men impose one thing upon the learned Saints and ancient Fathers, when they teach another, and the clean contrary. jansenius in this place affirms, That Exemption is Privilegium Principum secularium, & non jure divino, the privilege 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, 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 Kingdom the Kings own children are no tributaries, to pay any Subsidies, Rents, or Pensions: How much more than should the sons and children of that King be free, in a terrene or earthly Kingdom, under whose footstool all the Kingdoms 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 Kingdom the sons 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 corporal charges or burdens, 
S. August. & Tho. in 13. ad Rom  but speaks of spiritual liberty and freedom from sin. 3. That from this place Thomas collects we have no liberty, no immunity from God, whereby we are exempted from the dominion of temporal Kings in temporal causes.  
Jansenius brings a better and more literal exposition of S. August. words, for he saith S. August. reasons from the plural number, as Christ himself argues from the plural; nevertheless 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 Kingdom the King's children be free from tribute, much more than in the Kingdom of France ought all the sons of the King be free; and therefore I ought; So saith S. August. that Christ spoke unto Peter, In omni regno liberi sunt regis filii, etc. In every Kingdom the King's children are no tributaries, but free; then much more ought all the sons and children of that King be free in a terrene Kingdom, to whom all the Kingdoms of the earth are in subjection; and that is, I ought much more to be exempted from paying tribute or Poll-money, but lest we should scandalise these Publicans and toll-gatherers, or Collectors, etc. And this doubtless is the true exposition of that place, wherein who can be so blind as not to see your ninth most manifest and palpable error?  
Hetrod. No doubt Orthodox, if some of your heretical 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 day's Proposition.  
Orthod. I confess Hetrodox, that after the way which you call heresy, touching this day's 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 Father's 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 self Hetrodox not excepted, with all your deep Clark-ship) but you shall never find me wilfully to persist, or stick in any error, as heretics do, by the grace of my God, as I said before: It seems by your falling to reproachful terms, that you have no more Petarres to blow up the strong gates of my second Proposition, or other Engines and Pieces 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 General it shall be done, assuring myself of honour and victory in the action.  
Orth. The hour.  
Het. At Sun-rise.  
Orth. Agreed Sir.  
Het. At your service Sir.   

The third day's Conference.  
Orthodox. THe hour is justly kept of both parts; Is your g●t Ordnance placed? Then let us hear it ●ay: Time you know is precious.  
Hetrodox. It shall presently roar 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 do; Here is the true model or platform to less than a hair: 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 Temporal Prince.  
Orthod. I perceive Hetrodox, there is neither Beam, nor Pin and Web in your eye; Indeed it purports no less: and thereupon it infers; That Christ never left any such authority to St. Peter and his successors, whom we Catholics call his Vicar; For the Vicar is never advanced to a higher degree of Dignity and Power, than the chief and principal Commander himself even purchased and possessed before: 
Lib. 1 sent. De auct. Papae.  Sotus and Cardinal Bellarmine looking into this matter thorough clear Crystalline Spectacles, do much wonder to see the boldness 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 temporal causes is the direct Lord of the whole World; a Doctrine for certain full of scandal, 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 appeal herein to Card. Bellar. himself: 
De potest. Papae.  Besides divers others of his most certain conjectures, this one is of strong sinews, and thereby carries the greater force: He sets down the Emperor Adulphus for the next successor to Rodulphus, in the year Mccxcii. and the Emperor Albertus for the next successor to Adulphus in the year, Mccxcix. whereas St. Thomas walked the way of all flesh in the year, Mcclxxiv. Moreover they cite another text of St. 
lib. 2. Senten. Dist. 44.  Thomas, Esse in summo Pontifice apicem utriusque potest●tis, Temporalis & Spiritualis, That our holy Father the Pope is top and top-gallant both of Temporal power and Spiritual power: But let St. Thomas his text be viewed with a clear eye, and it will soon be perceived that he was of a contrary opinion; For after he had taught that in Temporal matters we are bound to obey the Temporal Prince rather than the Spiritual, and in causes merely Spiritual, the Spiritual rather than the Temporal, 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 hear, n t yet my Basilisk or double Canons, but my Demicanons and Culverin play.  
Your third Proposition is like the second; neither bar●ell better herring: It neither sorts nor suits with your principal scope, it serves only to bewray the spiteful humour, and little sincerity in alleging of the Authors by yourself alledg●d.  
Fi●st, It jars with your Scope and purpose; For your whole intention tends to set up a Flag or Banner of Defiance against our Holy Father's sentences of Excommunications and Interdicts, thundered against Christian Princes and States in cases of contumacy, as one that charges the said sentences and censures with invalidity and mere Nullity: To which purpose you might as well affirm, that our Holy Father the Pope is not L. Temporal of the World; as if you should affirm the Fr●nch King cannot condemn and send any man to the Galleys, because the French King is no Bishop. For to the thundering of a sentence Excommunicatorie, or of an Interdict, no Regal or Temporal Authority, but only Papal and Spiritual Power is required; as the Spiritual Power is not required for the sending of a man to Chains and Oars in the Galleys, because the Temporal hath sufficient Autho ity for that Judgement.  
As for your little Sincerity in citing of Authors; let Sotus let Bellarmine be perused with indifferency of Judgement, and and it will soon be found; That neither the one, nor the other doth use any such terms of immodesty as you have laid to their charge; namely to affirm, they wonder at our Canonists, who had such brazen faces, to affirm without any reason, or without any Authority of the New Testament, that Popes are direct Lords of all the World in Temporals; a Doctrine in truth full of scandal, and built on the Sands of the Seashore. That wonder which is come out of your own Forge, will never be found in the writings of Sotus and Bellarmine; much less that either they or we have termed the Doctrine 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 fare the Canonists descent one from another in their opinions: Sotus allegeth for himself johannes Andrea's; and Bellarmine produceth for his opinion the Card. de Turrecremata and Navarras: 
Cap. Novit. de Judicii.  He might likewise have alleged Pope Innocentius the iv and the Gloss in the same place; where the distinction of Directè & indirectè is apertly couched: The difference between these Authors stands in giving or taking Supreme Power from the Pope in Temporal causes; For so much is granted of all Writers except Heretics; but rather it consists in the Manor. For by some Authors it is resolved, that Popes are armed with Supreme power in Temporals, in like manner as all secular Princes are: Other Authors contend, that Papal power properly, and in itself is merely Spiritual; but in ordine ad Spiritualia, in a certain order and refl●x to Spiritual matters, it may distrain and seize with all full and absolute authority upon things Temporal. 
lib. 3. c. 11. 13.  So St. Thomas in that small treatise de Regim. Principum, divinely makes demonstration, at least if that little work was of his penning: For Bellarmine denies not, in any absolute strain, the said little work to be the Artifice of St. Thomas, but only reports that some, not without cause, have drawn the matter into doubt; because in that petit volume there is record of an History that succeeded after St. Thomas death: And Bellarmine himself affirms, it is no false Latin to conjecture, the said history was nimbly conveyed after the death of Thomas, into the Libret by some other: And yet, not building upon so weak an Answer, that the said Book was none of those works which were framed in St. Thomas his shop, he subjoins another more solid and much better soldered answer, namely to clear and explain one sentence of the said Book by other sentences thereof.  
But how can your great and gross ●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 Laws in concurrence or paragon of God's Word, come short in making the weight of ●qua●l Authority; They cite (as you also affirm) St. Thomas, etc. O how great disparagement, nay how great despite is herein uttered against our sacred Canon? was ever the like heard from the mouth of any Catholic? 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 alleged and propounded, as if they were of no weight & authority at all, when they come to be tried by the common standard and beam of God's Word: For you term them absolutely humane Laws, as if they had not been f●amed and indicted 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 styled, Sacred, Holy, and inspired 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 ranked which teacheth positions adverse and contrary to the most Sacred Canons? Lastly, whereas you contend, that sac●ed Canons, in concurrence with God's Laws, come so short of matching them in equal balance of Authority; you plainly show, that Canons in this Argument are contrary to God's Word, and so to be reputed of no reckoning or account: A●d in so doing, what do you else, but reprove not only the first Authors of the Sacred Canons, for such as have contrived and penned Constitutions contarry to God's 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 Latin Proverb had any truth, Tuo te gladio jugulas, the man hath cut his own throat with his own knife, it will surely prove more than true in this occurrence: For you Hetrodox will be found murdered with your own murdering shot, I mean, refuted if not confounded with your own example, which is Cardinal Bellarmine: you affirm, that in case the French King shall adjudge and commit a man to the Galleys, he doth it by his Temporal power, and not by virtue of Spiritual power, whereof he is clean void, like a Fowl when she is bared of all her Feathers: Now I demand; in case the Pope shall serve his Inhibition upon some absolute Prince or State, prohibiting them to make wholesome Laws 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 virtue of any Spiritual power; because the Spiri●●●●l power hath no manner or measure of extension to Temporal Judgements, or Temporal goods; Then sure he shall do i● by virtue of his Temporal power: But by his Holiness good leave, he is not invested with any such Te●porall power; and therefore he ●a not by his B●lls and Inhibitions disannul or cause the foresaid wholesome and godly Laws: And as the King sends to the Galleys because he is King, not because he is Pope; so the Pope, as being Pope, and no Temporal King, of any absolute Prince, or States Territories, cannot put down and repeal many Laws 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 Errors in this Article are palpable.  
1. You interpret my scope and en●d in this Proposition at your pleasure, and say, I speak nothing o the purpose intended: True it is, ●hat my Principal end is to prove, the censures of our holy Father the Pope in a certain hypothesis, to be altogether invalid, and of none eff ct: But for as much as to make some proof thereof, it is first necessary for me to prove, that in such cases the absolute Prince or State commits no sin, seeing the censure thundered against one who doth not sin, is of no force or effect; I have therefore drawn this Proposition, wherein I make demonstration, that where the Pope hath no authority to command, there neither Prince, nor State, nor People are within the terms of obligation to yield obedience, and that not obeying in that case, their conscience is not defiled, not wounded with any sin.  
2. You are of opinion, that my drift is to prove the said censures to be of no force or validity, Ex defectu Authoritatis Spiritualis, by reason of some lameness or weakness in the Spiritual Authority; But you are very 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 quality of mere Nullity, because no absolute Prince or State commit any sin, when they use all good and lawful means possible, to hold fast, and to defend their own right and lawful Jurisdiction, which makes a defect in the Pope, not of Spiritual Authority (as we Catholics maintain) but of Temporal: The Spiritual Authority gives him the power of the Keys to excommunicate; but defect of Temporal Authority makes the censure meerlie void, and no censure, because there is no obligation which enforceth or constraineth obedience to him that hath no Authority over the party, because in their not obeying they commit no sin, and because in committing no sin, they run not into any kind of censure.  
3. You cannot deny, that in re and upon the matter. I hold and maintain and truth in this thi●d Proposition, howsoever you twitch or give some jerk at my drift and citation of Authors; you therefore cannot justly charge me with any corrupt affection of mind herein: That man hath a corrupt and perverse heart, 
Prov. 27.  who rises by night, and in deceit blesses his neighbour with a loud voice; but howsoever Maledicenti similis erit, he shall be like one that curseth: For as Gold is tried in the Furnace, and silver in the fire, so is a man tried 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 flattery of fools: It is better therefore to utter a truth, and to be reproved of men, then to practise flattery, 
Gal. 1.  and to be punished of God; witness the Apostle, si adhuc hominibus placerem, etc. If I should seek to please men, I should not be the servant of Christ.  
4. You count, and call and wonder, immodesty; and so you found the wonder of Sotus with an Epiphonems of my proper Art; For those words, that such Doctrine is full of scandal, and built on a sandi● foundation, are neither the words of Sotus not of Bellarmine, but my own words; and they are flowers of praise, if they be put in the balance with your words uttered of my Doctrine: Howbeit you reprove both me and my doctrine in the Concrete, whereas I propound the doctrine in the Abstract, and in that sense of the Abstract, my doctrine is not denied, but granted: For what scandal 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 poor; the Disciple is not above his Master, to determine on the contrary, that he (I mean our holy Father the Pope) who above all other B shops is most bound to the state of perfection, and to the imitation of Christ's poverty, should be Lord of the whole world in Temporal aff●i●es? Besides, can that Doctrine stand upon any other but a sandy foundation, which is contrary to the very words and example of poor Christ himself?  
5. You deny that Sotus wonders at our Canonists, and yet as you cannot be ignorant) he citys Augustinus Triumphus, 
Dist. 23. qu. art. 1.  with Silvester and Panormitanus, whom he calls Juris-perito●s, great learned Legists or Canonists, and term their opinion of the Pope's power directè in Temporalibus, commentitious, that is, a very fable, an invention, whereof they are the Patrons (as he speaketh) and the great Champions: In particular he much complains 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 Cardinal Bellarmine himself not only citeth Sotus, but in his Manuscript 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 aver, the matter is not of any great consequence; In his Books we see infinite alterations, chopings and change every day. Sotus by him cited hath left it upon Record, and that serves my turn: And howsoever, it imports but little to the principal question, whether he will have it so uttered by the tongue and pen of Sotus, or no; that puts me to no manner of trouble, so long as I find it extant in the writing of Sotus himself; whose Doctrine, whose phrase, nay, whose very 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 subtlety of refined wit, when you show, 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 company 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 knows, that Appellatio & Donominatio fit a majori parte, things have their Appellation and Denomination from the greater part; yea Bellarmine himself 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 contrary opinion is the Canonists; amongst whom, albeit in these last impressions, he citys Navarrus a Canonist, and not a Divine, nevertheless, for the reason before alleged, it is of no import: The opinion of those, who affirm 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 certain Canons or Laws Registered in the Decrees and Decretals; and the contrary opinion is that of the Divines, because it is built upon God's Word in the holy Scriptures.  
7. The Supreme Power Temporal (you say) is by all Authors (except Heretics) granted to the Pope: If that be so, then doubtless Navarrus (take him for one amongst many other) is a notorious Heretic in this formal conclusion; 
In cap. Novit.  Quare dicendum est, Papam nullam habere potestatem, laicam, neque supremam, neque mediam, neque infimam. The Pope therefore stands in no degree at all of Laiorck Temporal power, neither in the highest, nor in the middle, nor in the lowest Region of Temporal power: For my part, I call that opinion Heresy, and so I count it, which in explicit and implicit sense fights against holy Scripture; and such is the opinion of all those, who affirm the Pope to have Supreme Temporal Authority: Our Lord Christ saith, 
Mat. 16.  Tibi dabo claves Regni coelorum, I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and the Pope saith, Regni terrarum, of all Earthly Kingdoms, Christ saith, 
Mat. 20. Mark. 10. Luke 22. joan. 19 joan. 20.  Reges Gentium dominantur eorum, vos autem non sic, the Kings of the Earth bear rule over them, but so shall not ye, and the Pope saith, vos autem sic, and so shall ye; Christ saith, my Kingdom is of this World, and the Pope saith, nay, my Kingdom is of this World; and over the whole World: Christ saith, as my Father hath sent me, so do I send you my Disciples, and the Pope saith, not as the Father hath sent me, so do I send you: There be two Supreme 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 Earthly and Temporal power, the Pope of all Spiritual power; Pope Gelasius in an Epistle to the Emperor 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 Emperor, is chief governed by two Supreme Powers; the Sacred Authority of Popes, and the Temporal Authority of Kings, Innocentius III held this Article for so certain and indubitable, that he made no scruple to affirm, 
Cap. Novit.  Regem in Temporalibus neminem Superiorem recognoscere, that in Temporal causes the Kings of the Earth do acknowledge and take no mortal creature to have any Superiority of Power, or any right, any reason, to crow over their Crowns: How then can there be any truth in the L. Cardinal's affirmative, Pontificem recognoscit, the King doth acknowledge the Pope, for that is to say; the Pope is dignified and endowed with Supreme Temporal power; with which words I must confess that I am plunged in a deep pit of astonishment: For those Authors who grant an indirect Authority to the Pope, break not forth into this unreasonable and exorbitant excess, but use a certain mitigation of the word indirectly, as that it is Spiritual, non per se, sed per accidens, not in itself, but by occasion and accessarilie, to write, in case of necessity, and most of all with consent of the parties interested: But for any to affirm, the holy Father's power to be Supreme and Temporal, fateor scandalum est mihi, to me I must confess it is a scandal or stumbling block and stone of offence, so long as not only the true doctrine, but also the Doctrine of the Lord Cardinal 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 Cardinal to hold the foresaid Book was never of St. Thomas his penning; I have only alleged, that his Lordship hath made so good and so clear demonstration of that point, that never yet any answer durst peep abroad to contradict his Lordship's demonstration; As for your subterfuge, that the said History was perhaps afterward primed or popped into the foresa d Book; that carrie● no show of probability, seeing you produce not any one conjecture, not any one reason to fortify the same: For to what purpose had any man a mind to patch up the said History in so good, so fair a W●b, as the foresaid Book? to what end? how long time since? He that dares take upon him to affirm these things, shall make the credit of all Histories to shrink and shake. The Lord Cardinal Baronius flies to the same Answers, as to his best refuge: When he is put hard to his trumps, and shifts, how to untie the knot of an Argument drawn from Historical Authority; straightway he thinks to take up men's lips, and to dazzle their eyesight with, such and such words are chopped and stolen in since: The fo●esaid Book hath been extant, and read above 300. years, and yet never any man hath taken upon him such temerarious boldness, a sober advice to affirm the same words have been strained or inserted into that Book by any other fingers: Howbeit now you Hetrodox from Cardinal Bellarmine, to aggrandise the Pope's authority and to make it Supreme in Temporals, without any reason or conjecture at all, have borrowed a spirit of boldness to pronounce they are inserted, and as it were post-nated after their true parent's decease.  
9 Howsoever you bring to the words of St. Thomas an Exposition, which o'er proprio you call the soundest; nevertheless that answer doth not make the Book to be a Bird of St. Thomas his brood; nay it is altogether needless; For it sufficed to say, that the Book was not of his writing, or none of his works, to make good proof, that St. Thomas was not adverse or contrary to himself.  
10. You call that an irremissible temereity, not worthy of any pardon, which in case it be temereity, 
Can. quicunque litem. Can. quaecunque contentionem. 11. quaest. l. 5. de Rom. pont. cap. 5.  certain it is one of his most illustrious Lordship's temerities: For the Canons brought upon this Argument are two; These two are alleged by the Lord Cardinal, and yet first he styles them not Sacred, and then he thus takes them down with terms 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 piety, and not out of any debt or duty, the Church was then so highly honoured: The very same for cloth and colour which I speak 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 Gloss in the same place confirms to have been 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 contains, was not granted by Theodosius: Posteriorem Canonem perspicuum est non esse alicujus Principis qui posset leges condere; and touching the latter Canon, it is clear the same was not established by any Prince that had power to make Laws: Now because I having spoken in my own phrase and style, do not give these Canons the high adjunct of Sacred; you therefore Hetrodox far like one distraught 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 Authority.  
11. Again, yourself refutes the Canons, as the Lord Cardinal doth, and you are not afraid to affirm 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 yourself affirming the Canon Quicunque was abrogated per alios, Canon's, by other Canons, do send them forth like a Bird bared of all her Feathers, and leaving the Epithet Sacred, speak no more but Approved.  
13. The Epithet Sacred is no less attributed to the civil then to the Canon Laws; and therefore as it is oftentimes left out, when we name the Civil, so it is oft not remembered when we make mention of the Canons; yea the Canon Quicunque is not cited with you adjunct Sacred, but nakedly called the Canon Quicunque.  
14. The Decrees of Counsels, and of the Church, which (as we teach) cannot err de fide in point of Faith, are verily Sacred, and made with assistance of the Holy Spirit, yet can we not affirm without error in fide, that infinite other Canons concerning particular matters and cases, are compiled without any assistance of the Holy Spirit: 
joan. 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 err; whereof we need to make no doubt, and the Lord Cardinal often grants it in his learned works.  
15. I have produced such Canons as are usually brought by the Defendants of the contrary opinion, as the foresaid Canons and the like; but you affirm and would make me believe, that I speak of all the Canons, and every matter.  
16. You call Concurrence, Contrariety, and thereby make a confusion of both, for Duo jura possunt concurrere, two Laws may well concur, and yet may not be contrary the one to the other, I give you this for example; The Precept for hearing Mass concurres with the Precept of keeping and tending a sick body; I observe not the fi●st for hearing the Mass, that I may the better observe the second in attending upon the sick Patient, according to that commandment of Christ, I will have mercy and not Sacrifice; Is the one of these Precepts contrary to the other? Will a very sot say so? In like manner, there be many 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, than the Canons must make room and give place to Nature's Law, and that may not be called Contrariety but Subordination.  
17 Lastly, You call the Canons (without any difference at all) Rules given by the Holy Spirit, by godly Popes and holy Counsels, and this you stick not Hetrodox to affirm without any distinction of the Canons, as I said: Herein good Sir, make you not all the Canons indifferently of equal Authority to the holy Scripture which is inspired of God, as also to the Determinations of the Church, which cannot err the fide? Nay, do you not give the Canons this honourable Epithet? Have there not been found Errors in many 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 holy 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 holy 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 errors, are but humane Laws: He that dares broach a doctrine contrary to this, I dare pronounce is no friend or Well-willer to the Catholic 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 indifferent hearing.  
Orthod. To weaken the sinews 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 Portugal, because he was the natural Prince Temporal thereof, as the Vicar of Christ; and with Leo III. who frankly (by their saying) made a free deed of gift of the Western Empire to Charles the Great for the same reason; that is, because Leo was Christ's own Vicar: These Authors are very far out of the right path: For Alexander, not as Lord, Patron, and Proprietary of the Indies, but as a compromissary Judge, chosen by the said Kings to assuage & 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 jure 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 Papal Seat, like a Fox unkenneled and bolted out of his Earth, was reinstalled therein by CHARLES the Great: Whereupon Leo wrought and procured the People to proclaim and salute CHARLES, Emperor of the West, as Platina hath related: Which act sometimes the Historians ascribe to the Roman people, who finding the Empire not gloriously governed by the Greeks', elected another Emperor more antiquo: Sometimes they say, that Charles having once seized the state, bought and purchased the title thereunto of Irene and Nicephorus the Greek Emperor: Sometimes that Irene and Nicephorus were well pleased and contented to give way unto such division of the Greek Empire: In brief, be that matter as it may, most certain it is, the Pope who had been chased out of his Papal Seat, and had no possession at all, neither did give, nor could give the possession of the Western Empire unto King Charles, who had already gripped it in his Princely talans, and was now become Lord thereof jure belli; by right of War: Besides it is not yet certain and clear, but in some question, whether Leo absolutely gave Charles the title to the Western Empire, or no: But as well in this case as in some other, which may be alleged against our Proposition, it is to be answered; That for so much as the Pope never had any Authority from Christ in Temporals (as we have already showed, and intent clearly to demonstrate in the next Proposition) If the Pope at any time hath exercised the said Authority; either he used that practice with consent of parties interessed, or else because he is armed with some Temporal power by one of the foresaid four ways, and thereby nevertheless it is not proved, that ever the Pope had any Authority directly in Temporals from Christ our Saviour: Besides, many acts are done by some, whereof in case a man should ask by what right such acts are passed, it would prove no easy task to find out such right.  
Hetrodox, I can hold my tongue, yea hardly my hands no longer: As the Proposition itself makes nothing to the present purpose, no more do the Arguments Pro and Con: you say that Alexander VI divided the Sea between the Kings of Spain and Portugal, and that he determined whatsoever they won by Right of War, 
●b. Quaest. in lib. josua qu. 10.  should be their own. Here if by Right of War you understand a just War, which always presupposeth some injury received by those against whom the War is moved, as luculently St. Augustine declares, than you say very well. But if your meaning be, that war may be moved against the Infidels of the Indies, when they offer no manner of hurt or wrong to Christian●, and only to make a Conquest of their Countries, your judgement is erroneous, and you strive against the stream of the best Divines, as Cardinal Cajetanus, 
Cajet. in Com. in 2. 2. 9 66. art. 8. Sotus 5. de Iust. & jur. q. 3. Art. 5.  Vincentius, etc. For they and many 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 lawful to go and make a Conquest of Provinces, as men go forth to hunt Wild Beasts void of humane reason: And this moved Sotus to affirm, that Pope Alexander VI. did not give the Indies to the Kings of Castille and Portugal, but only granted, that whereas Preachers were to travail into those newfound Lands and Countries, the two Kings might send Soldiers in Arms, to defend as well the Preachers, as also the new Christians: To this I subjoin, that Pope Alexander, as the head of all Christians, seeing the danger of War like to ensue between these two Christian Princes, for free trade and Traffic into the Indies; was pleased to determine, the King of Castille should have the honour of Navigation to the West-Indies, and the King of Portugal to the East: you touch a little after, Orthodox, the Translation of the Empire made by Leo III. and knowing full well the controversy of this matter between Mathias Illyricus a Lutherane Heretic, and Cardinal Bellarmine, it seems good in your eyes (as men always tie themselves and adhere to the worse part whether of things or persons) to follow the steps of the Heretic in his erroneous opinion: And thereupon you presume to affirm, that Charles the great obtained the Empire by gift of the Roman people, or bought a Title thereunto of Irene and Nicephorus Emperors, 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 certain, the Pope gave not the Empire to Charles the Great, and yet you know, Cardinal Bellarmine proves by the Authority of 33. Historians, of ten Emperors of all the Imperial Electors, of seven Popes, and by evident reasons besides, (after he hath well sifted and scanned all the Titles that belong 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 Historical Heresy, or an Heresy in History, and a temereity in Divinity, because it gives a sore Counterbuff 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 Apostolical See translated the Roman Empire from the Greeks' to the Germans in the person of the Magnifical Charles the Great: 
In clement. Rom pontiff.  Pope Clement V and jointly the General Council of Vienna repeats the same: Is not he then temerarious, that dares give two Popes and one Council the lie? Neither can it be true, that Platina hath any record to the contrary: For Platina doth no more but affirm, that by decree and request of the Roman people, the Pope created Charles Emperor of the Germans: 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 Western Empire; that Charles in like manner did win the Garland of the Roman Empire, it cannot be true; because he never made War against the Romans, less true, that ever he purchased any Title of Irene and Nicephorus: These are only the fictions of Mathias Illyricus, without any one yard or foot of good foundation: Much less true, that Charles took the Imperial Dignity by any power in the Roman people to confer the same: For all the ancient Roman Emperors were chosen by the Army, or else by the next precedent Emperor: And therefore Maximus and Balbinus, both elected Emperors by the Senate, were very soon after slain by the Soldiers, who disdained and scorned to accept or acknowledge any Emperors set up by the Senate, 
Herodiact. 8.  or by them advanced to the Imperial Dignity: St. Hierome also is an authentical witness, that Roman Emperors were elected by the Soldiers: 
Ep. 85. ad Eva.  Lastly, whereas you say, that when Charles the Great was invested, than Pope Leo had no possession of the Empire; that's but a poor shift, and no bar at all to the Pope's gift; For the Pope gave not Charles the possession, but the Title only, and the reason by means whereof he became the lawful Prince of those Countries, which the Western Emperors were accustomed to govern, and to have the same Dignity and Prerogative, which the said ancient Emperors had possessed and enjoyed: Which that he might do, it was not needful for the Pope himself to be possessor of the Empire; sufficient it was that he was Pope, and consequently had Apostolical power, by which power (in case it be profitable or necessary for the state of Christendom) he may lawfully dispose of Christian Kingdoms and Empires, as appears by the manifold practice of our former Popes, to have been done in former ages.  
Orthod. I have said once before, and I doubt not but you bear it in remembrance, that jure Pontificatus, by Right of Popedom, the Pope hath no power to exercise Temporal Dominion, because the Vicar can have no greater power than the Principal; and again, because the actions of Christ our Lord must be a Rule to his Vicar of all their actions: Upon the firm ground of those Reasons, I have lately brought in and built (greatly to the purpose if I be not greatly deceived) two Arguments of the Adversaries, drawn à Facto from the Fact, to impugn the true Doctrine in jure, 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 Temporal Dominion; For the one divided the Indies between the Kings of Spain and Portugal, the other translated the Empire into the West, or (to utter my mind better) declared Charles the Great Emperor of the West: These two Arguments I have answered before, with one Reason thus; That jure Pontificatus, by right of their Popedom these acts were not done; Then I rendered a Reason of the said Acts, Non ex propriâ Sententiâ, not as out of mine own Judgement, but according to the writings of Historians; whether this be to the purpose or no, I leave the consideration hereof to yourself, when you shall be in a better temper: In the mean time take notice of your particular Errors.  
1. You fall into a Digression of just War, and the way to be taken, or course to be followed; in converting the Indians to the Faith and knowledge of Christ: Surely this Digression might very well have been spared; or else upon as good ground, and with no less 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 any impediment or hindrance to the others Navigations and acquists: Whether the Kings of Spain and Portugal have made lawful Acquists of those barbarous people and Countries or no, that nothing at all concerns our present discourse; especially because it should be far from us once to harbour a thought of those Catholic and most Christian Kings undertake, but upon great reason and good conscience; we now treat only of Pope Alexander's Division; I have presupposed, that as well the Navigations, as the Acquists were lawful, as purchased jure belli, by Right of War; as in very deed they were, and to cast any doubts in certain cases, it is mere folly; which I trust is lawful and free for me to utter in defence of the Catholic King of Spain, Philip III. my Natural and Liege Lord, who now holds the possession of the said States Iust● titulo, by j●st and lawful 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 only by way of bare Fact; you only affirm that he made the Division as the Head of all Christendom: But every Christian (we hold and say) hath two Heads, the one in spirituals, let him be the Pope, the other in Temporals, and he will be (whosoever says nay) the Natural, the lawful Prince Temporal of this or that State: Now that Division was not made by Alexander VI as a Temporal Prince, Ergo, as a Spiritual: but as a Spiritual Prince, (as hath been already showed and proved) he could not be invested with any such power; and had he then been 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 confess this judgement was to be put and referred to Alexander VI rather then to any other, because he was Christ's Vicar, and Superior Head to the said Kings in Spirituals, and herein his Indirectly, granted by some Divines, is not denied: For that Indirectly doth not import any Authority or absolute Jurisdiction in Temporals, except it be accidentally, by chance, by council, by admonition, by reproof 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 Roman Bishops, (in which Indirectè miscuerunt se negotiis secularibus, they have thrust a hand up to the Elbow in worldly affairs) they always require and stand much upon the parties interested, upon which point doubtless the Principal Authority to exercise Dominion in any Temporal matter doth lean, and not upon jus Pontificatus, not upon any right of Pontifical power.  
3. You affirm, 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 proof at all of your bold Assertion: Besides, to divide and share the Countries of Infidels hath no congruity or correspondence with your supposed Head of the whole Christian Church: For Quid ille de bis aqui foris sunt judicare, what great privilege or warrant hath our Holy Fathers (above Paul himself) 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 tax me for an Heretic in History, because I touch upon a string of Illyricus Harpe: Behold herein your error: First, what Heresy can there be in a profane History, which neither smacks nor smells 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 yond make it good, that I have alleged the Answer ex propriâ sententiâ, as out of mine own Judgement; but only to make proof by Demonstration, that what was done by Leo, was not acted by any Right of Pontificial Authority, seeing the Historians therein are not all of one mind.  
5. 
Tract. de transl. Imperis.  You make supposition with Cardinal Bellarmine to have proved, that Leo his Act was authentically done Jure Pontificatus, by Right of his Pontificial power, and yet you see, the Historians produced by yourself, and by his Lordship, the words of all his Emperors 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 speak or think of all) may well be understood of the Unction or Anointing, of the Coronation, of all other Ceremonies and Sacred Rites performed by Sacred persons at King's Coronations: The Archbishop of Rheims by ancient Privilege sets the Regal Crown 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 Emperors of the East, yet no man ever affirmed, that he made them Emperors: Besides, be it said that Leo concurred with all the Roman people to call and salute Charles by the name of Emperor, 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 any proper Authority of his own, so to do: Concerning which point in the case, it shall be lawful for me I hope, to lay open my mind in all sincerity, very certain it is that Leo was full bend, and had spirit enough withal to shoot the Emperor of Constantinople in the head, and to take from him the Title of Western Emperor, for the greater good and benefit of all Christendom, as the Lord Cardinal pretends that Leo did without jesting, and in great earnest: But ought not Leo first canonically to have given the Emperor admonition, and to have cited the Emperor viis & modis, by all the ordinary ways and means? Was any such Canonical and Legal course ever taken with the Emperor? Secondly, was it not needful for giving the Title to whom he pleased, that Leo himself should first be possessed of the same Title? And verily that was he never; For as Pope, and in right of the Popedom, he was never Patron or Lord of any such Titles; and none of his Predecessors had ever made incursion, or breach into the safe enclosures of so high and civil affairs: Thirdly, was it simply necessary for the better maintenance of Christendom, to give CHARLES the said Title? Nothing less; For to make him a mighty Ruler and worthy Governor of Christendom, sufficient it was for him to be the greatest Monarch, and highest Catholic King in all the West, as he was before: Besides, the Title makes not a King to govern his People and Subjects the better, but his Power, his Prudence, and his Religion: Fourthly, had Leo any power to take away the Title from the right and lawful Emperor, to whom in all right it properly appertained? Fare be it from any man so to judge; For non eripit mortalia qui Regna dat Coelestia, he that gives us Heavenly Kingdoms, takes not away by violence the possessions of mortal men: It remains that Leo when he saw (as all men did) that Charles was already become Lord of the West, jure belli, by the Law of Arms, (because he was obeyed by all, howsoever he had not stood in terms of open War and Hostility with all Nations) when he perceived in particular, that it was determined for a final conclusion Scito Populi Romani by full and effectual Decree of the Roman People; then upon request of the people he crowned and anointed CHARLES Emperor of the Romans: This was Leo induced (saith Platina with other Authors) Sut● Populi Romani & Precibus, by the Roman People's Decree and earnest request: But howsoever this was done by Leo for all these respects, yet I hold that King Charles himself was not in conscience thoroughly settled and secured, nor yet possessed▪ the said Title de jure, by any good Right, until about some twelve years after this Act of Leo, he was called and acknowledged Emperor of the West by Letters patent of Michael Emperor 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 Michael's antecessours, before this time, had given to Charles none other Title but only of King: Now then; If this Reason without any the least strain or breach of Christianity, of Justice, or of Law, may aptly be alleged for this translation of the Empire; what need men to run to mendicate or beg any strange and extravagant Doctrines? Neither need men to marvel, that in the beginning of this Translation, the ways of Justice took not such effect as was convenient: For all beginnings of Empires and Temporal Titles, when they are transferred Invitis Dominis; against the Will and liking of the right Lords and owners, are usually found to be blemished and stained with such defects: For all which nevertheless there be wholesome Remedies, as either by peaceable possession, or by consent of such as are interested therein: But whether afterward, that Resignation or Session of Michael, was any Declaration, that from thenceforth in all after times and ages, the Pope, or the Roman people, or any other, should be invested with power to create the Emperor of the West, I see no Reason to argue upon that main point, in this place or at this instant.  
6. You lay to my charge, that I utter contradictions to the say of Popes, and the Decrees of Counsels, yet you know there is no such matter; I only aver, that Leo did what he then did, not by any Right annexed or inherent in his Pontificial Power, whereas the said Popes and the Council speak de Facto of the fact itself, and perhaps the alio jure human● of some other humane Right, whereof I make no manner of mention.  
7. You made no bones to affirm in your former objections against my first Proposition, that Authority to choose the Prince in case of necessity, resteth in the Subjects or People; and now you deny the Roman people had any power to choose Charles for their Emperor.  
8. You stick not also to approve the Election of the Emperor made by the Army and Roman Militia, which was a violent Election: Augustus was honoured with power of Tribune after Caesar the lawful Prince of the Romans, he was not elected by the Army, but by the People, from whom he obtained the consular Power, though he was afterward confirmed therein by a violent Election of the Army; to which the Roman People, not of Power then to beard or brave the Army, were glad to give fair Aime, and to make way by condescension: As for St. Jerome, by you cited Hetrodox, he speaks only of the Fact, he doth not affirm that way, and none other, was the lawful way of choosing their Emperors: And this, I must now tell you Hetrodox, is most certain, that Vespasian had no humour to be elected, but by the votes and suffrages of the Roman People, with the very same power of Augustus; I appeal to that famous Marble in the Capitol, with title of Lex Regia, etc.  
9 You give approbation to the violent Fact of the Soldiers in Arms, who show Maximus & Balbinus, because they had been elected by the Senate, whereas the Election was fasten by the Laws, and sowed to the people's arm, because the Roman Government was democratical.  
10. Platina with divers other Authors, hath testified, that Charles the Great was only declared Emperor by the Pope with a loud voice, and that Leo crowned him Scito & precibus Populi Romani, by Decree and upon the suit of the Roman People: Now to the same Decree you bring this fine interpretation, that doubtless the people did not decree that Leo should publish, proclaim, and crown him Emperor, but only they should request Leo to do it propriâ authoritate, by his Papal authority: A man that looks not well into this acquaint device and sly trick, may think and say the Roman people passed the same Decree, in a certain conceit or dream, that such power was devolved to them in case of necessity, 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 Popedom could work no such effect, and so you forsake the ordinary ways for approbation of the Fact, seeking the refuge of extraordinary ways 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 confirm, because some Popes (though but a few) have had the spirit and face to work such f●ats, and to play such pranks. The most of those few have indeed given the attempt, but I beseech you Sir, with what success? And albeit some few, but very seldom, have not miss of their mark; this makes no proof, that any Pope either doth it or can do it, as he is Pope: For Arguments drawn from the Fact to the Right, are not worth a blue point, especially when the right is contrary to the Fact: For the Pontificial See, as it is the Pontificial See, not having the exercise of any such Dominion annexed thereunto, neither by the example of Christ our Lord, or of all the Popes for many hundred years, nor by any Text of holy Scripture; whensoever the Pope hath exercised any such Dominion, to render a Reason thereof, it shall not be needful to run or fly to the Popedom, but rather to some humane constitution, or violence, or Title.  
12. Last of all you declare a strange vain of distemper, in telling me, this Doctrine, that no exercise of Temporal Dominion is annexed to the Popedom by God's Word is an error in Theology, and an Heresy in History: You must now be contented if I pay you in the same Coin, that for any to say the contrary, it is an Error in History, and nothing conformable to Theology, as before hath been declared: Have you now any new tire of Ordnance to discharge?  
Hetrodox. Not against your third Proposition, Orthodox. But have at your fourth to morrow morning.  
Orthodox. Agreed Hetrodox.   

The fourth day's Conference, upon the fourth Proposition.  
Hetrodox. WEll met valiant Champion Defendant.  
Orthodox. And you mighty Champion opponent: Are your Pieces for battery ready to discharge?  
Hetrodox. At first sight of your Sconce.  
Orthodox, Here it is in all Dimensions and Delineations: That Authority, which Christ our Lord promised to St. Peter under a Metaphor of Keys, is merely Spiritual; I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, he saith not of any earthly Kingdom: For in what manner the Temporal Kingdom and Monarchy should be governed, the Platform was drawn, and the Foundation was laid from the beginning of the World, by God himself great Monarch of the universe: So that Christ our Saviour never founded the Temporal Monarchy, it remains then, that he was the Founder of the Spiritual: And that's most evident in St. John's Gospel: 
joan. 20.  For after he had said, all power is given unto me both in Heaven and in Earth, 
joan. 20.  at any 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 Holy Ghost, to whomsoever ye shall remit sins, they shall be remitted, and whose sins whosoever ye shall retain, they shall be retained: From whence it is to be gathered, both by the Act of Christ, and by his words, that all the authority of the highest Bishop is merely Spiritual, over sin, and only over the Soul; which power, as hath been said, is a limited power: Qui beato Petro animas ligandi atque solvendi Pontificium tradidisti, who hast given Peter the Dignity and Power of Pontificial estate, to bind and lose innumerable Souls: 
Mat. 18.  Thus the Church you know in her Orisons, yea, the Authority to excommunicate, given to Peter himself, is tied to a condition: If thy Brother shall sinne against thee, and shall not hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a very Ethnic, and as a Publican, where our Saviour gives Authority to Excommunicate, but with a supposition of sin, and of obstinate persisting in sin.  
Hetrodox. Verily Orthodox, you seem to pair the nails of Pontificial 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 lawful Jurisdiction; and that he can do no more, but exhort to the obedient keeping of God's Law, as every ordinary Preacher doth, or Baptism and confess the people, as every common Curate doth: And so it seems you seek to revoke, and to renew the Heresy of the Valdenses or Lionists, of Wickliff, Mansilius of Milan, and john Huss, which blind and pestiferous Heresy is caressed or embraced by all modern Heretics: But I must come to a more narrow sifting of your words.  
First, You say the Pope's power is merely Spiritual: To what end serves your mere? was it not enough to say, it is a Spiritual power? was it not better to say, it is principally Spiritual? Navarrus, whom you so highly commend, 
Cap. Novit. de judiciis.  and exhort all men to read with diligence and great attention, saith v●ry well, that surely the Pope's power is not merely Temporal, but he never saith, it is merely Spiritual, as if the Pope could not in any sort shuffle and cut the Cards of Temporal affairs: Nay, he further terms it a most eminent power, which in itself being Spiritual, and by consequence far Superior to the Temporal, both can and ought also to set the Temporal strait, when it grows crooked, or goes out of the right path: And whereas our Saviour Christ said, I will give thee the Keys, not of any Terrene Kingdom, but of the Celestial Kingdom, or the Church of Christ hath said, he that gives the Celestial Kingdom, takes not away Earthly Kingdoms; or yourself Orthodox hath said, the Temporal Monarchy 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 Camp: For herein you affirm thus much, and no more; The Kingdom of Christ, whereof Peter the Apostle received the keys, is no Temporal Kingdom, which one cannot acquire, but some other must lose, but it is a Kingdom which governs all other Kingdoms without spoiling any man of that Dominion, which by good, just, and lawful right he holds: Otherwise you might say as well, that God himself hath no power over Temporal matters; because God himself the giver of Heavenly Kingdoms, is no robber and spoiler of men's Earthly Inheritances.  
Again, you say, Christ gave his Apostles and Peter a power, but yet restrained, 
joan. 20.  and not without limitation, that is, a power over sins; because he breathed on them all, and said, Receive the Holy Ghost, etc. This, you cannot be ignorant, is the Heresy of those who rob the Pope and the Church of all Jurisdiction; an Heresy condemned by Christ himself in the very same place, a little before the words now cited: For before the words Quorum remiseritis, etc. whose sins ye shall remit, shall be remitted, he saith, Sicut misit me Pater, as the Father hath sent me into the World, so do I send you forth; in which words he gave them absolute power, and without limitation, to govern the Church in his own room: 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 sheep, doubtless he restrained not power to Absolution from sin, but he gave a most ample power to rule and govern the whole Church: For the word Pasce, Feed, is the very same in the Greek language (wherein St. john did write his Gospel) which is used in St. john's 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 Captain unto me that shall rule my people Israel: 
Mat. 16.  So that by the usual phrase of Scripture, to make St. Peter a Shepherd or Feeder, was to make him Ruler, Governor, and Prince of the whole Church: So when Christ said to Peter, whatsoever thou shalt lose or bind, he restrained not the power unto sin, nor unto the persons; for he said not Quemcuuque but Quodcunque not whomsoever but whatsoever thou shalt bind or lose: His meaning was to signify and express an universal power of Binding and Losing; that is, of commanding, of making Laws, of Dispensing, as it should be found needful for the leading and bringing in of the Faithful into the Kingdom of Heaven; with most full and ample authority to enjoin 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 Cardinal Bellarmine hath declared at great length.  
You give me thirdly to understand, that our holy Father the Pope hath power only over Souls; and this you draw from that Prayer of the Church Deus qui Petro animas ligandi, etc. O God who hast given Peter the power of Pontificial Dignity, to bind and to lose the Souls of men: If this Reason hath any force, then secular Princes must have no power, but over the Souls of their Subjects, because Paul saith, Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers: And so, either you make yourself too simple, as one who doth not consider, that in Scripture the soul is taken for the whole man; or else you seek to catch the simple with words of holy Church not right understood: And therefore perhaps the Divine providence (to take away the like deceitful sleights and fly shifts) hath inspired the Reformers of the breviary, to lib and geld the said Prayer of the word Souls, which of old neither was found in the said Prayer, nor ought at all there to be read, because that Prayer was founded and form upon the foresaid words in the Gospel, whatsoever thou Peter shalt bind, and whatsoever thou shalt lose.  
Last of all you contend, that power to excommunicate is conditional, presupposing sin, and obstinacy in sin: This Doctrine is both new and false, you are not able to produce any Author that ever so taught: Sin, I confess, must be presupposed; for Excommunication is a punishment, and the most grievous, the most dreadful of all other; so that, no sin committed, no punishment by Excommunicarion can be inflicted: Disobedience also, otherwise called contumacy, is (I confess again) presupposed a sin, and to Excommunicate, every sin gives not sufficient warrant, but only that sin which is clothed or clogged rather with Contumacy: For Christ saith, Si Ecclesiam non audierit, If he will not hear the Church: The censure therefore of Excommunication cannot be denounced against any man, because he is a Thief, or an Adulterer, except first he be admonished, and then he wilfully denies obedience: But between disobedience and obstinacy there is a great difference; For a man may stand stubborn and obstinate in some sin whereof he hath never been advised, never admonished by the Church: This man, for all his obstinacy, 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 hear the Church, do signify disobedience, and (to speak properly) not obstinacy,  
Orthodox, Fie, Hetrodox, that a man of your deep 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 itself: I speak 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 only define the power of Jurisdiction, and this power I say is merely Spiritual: First, because Christ our Lord never practised any Temporal Jurisdiction; but this jurisdiction which Christ gave to Peter, is part of the same Jurisdiction which was practised by Christ himself: Ergo, it is no manner of way Temporal, but merely Spiritual: The Major (as it is called) hath been proved before at large, the Minor is clear by the words of Christ himself, As the Father hath sent me, so I send you; the consequence therefore or conclusion remains indubitable, 
joan. 20.  that this Jurisdiction is no manner of way Temporal.  
Secondly, This Jurisdiction or Power is not all that Power which Christ himself had, as Head of the Church: For he never (according to all the Doctors) communicated to his Apostles the Power of his Excellency, much less the power of his Spiritual Kingdom, which by Cardinal Bellarmine is called his Power Eternal (yet such as had a beginning though it shall continue and last for ever) with which Power by secret means he governs his Church: For that power he practiseth and exerciseth in Heaven by himself 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 merely Spiritual; 
joan. 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 merely Spiritual.  
Thirdly, The power given to Peter is to Lose and to Bind, that is, to absolve and not absolve sin, the power to absolve or not absolve sins is merely Spiritual; Ergo, the power of Binding and Losing given to Peter is merely Spiritual.  
Fourthly, He that defines a Habit from the end thereof, draws the best Definition; Thus hath Aristotle defined virtue, virtus est quae ●onum faecit habente●, virtue is that which betters her owner and possessor, the end of the Pope's power (according to all) is life eternal; and that end is merely Spiritual; Ergo, he that affirms the Pope's power is merely Spiritual, produceth a right affirmative, because he defines the Pope's power by the right and proper end thereof.  
Lastly, If the power of Jurisdiction which Christ gave unto Peter, had not been merely Spiritual, but Temporal, doubtless he would have taken up material K●yes, and would have said unto Peter and the rest of the Apostles, take ye these keys, whose sins, etc. But Christ having done that Spiritual 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 Temporal power that he then bestowed, but a power merely Spiritual: 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 he spoke, it is aptly gathered, that for certain the said power is merely Spiritual: Now I purpose to draw a Picture of your particular Errors.  
1. You argue from the Genus to the Species in this manner; The Pope's power (as Orthodox affirms) is merely Spiritual; Orthodox therefore hardly believes the Pope to be some simple Priest, or common Curate; just as if I should frame this Reason, Hetrodox affirms that a Lion is a creature, therefore Hetrodox affirms, that a Lion is a little Ant or Pismire, or this Argument, Hetrodox affirms, the power of the most Christian King is Temporal, therefore Hetrodox affirms the most Christian King is the Father of a private Family, with power economical: were it not a very abusive strain, a wrong intolerable, if I should make Hetrodox the Father of so ridiculous Ergoes, worthy to be hissed, knocked, and stamped out of all Theological and Philosophical Schools? If Orthodox pretends and avouches that Papal power is merely Spiritual, he doth not forsooth thereby avouch, that Papal power is restrained to a private Family, and without all Jurisdiction, like the power of every simple and common Curate; but Orthodox grants it is a power over all the Souls that are subject unto the Pope's power.  
2. Again Sir, you are pleased to term it Heresy for any to affirm, that Papal power is merely Spiritual, 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 fair Text, Sicut misit me, etc. As my Father hath sent me, 
joan. 20.  so I send you my Apostles, the power which our Saviour himself, being sent of his Father, exercised in this world, was merely Spiritual; Ergo, the Pope's power being a Branch of the same power which Christ himself exercised, is likewise merely Spiritual: True it is, that his power (as we must hold) extends and spreads itself, Jure Divino by God's Law, over all his own Subjects, which Article being denied by the foresaid Authors whom you have remembered before, they were thereupon condemned; but not because they maintained the Pope's power to be merely Spiritual: For it is one thing to maintain, the Pope hath no Jurisdiction, and another thing to affirm, that his Jurisdiction is merely Spiritual.  
3. You allege Navarrus to this purpose; That Papal power is not merely Temporal, as if he had said, the Pope's power is Temporal, but accessorily Spiritual: Thus much is noted by these words, is not merely Temporal: But know Hetrodox, that Navarrus was never so much overseen, to suffer so gross an Error to drop out of his learned brain, or painful quill; Navarrus affirms the full contrary, take the file of his words as we find it spun and woven by his own fingers.  
Credimus Romanum Pontificem, quatenus solùm est Rom. Pontifex, & Vicarius Christi summus, nudus ab omnibus Privilegiis & donariis humanis, nullam habere Potestatem Laicam, neque Summam, neque Mediam, neque infimam, neque Actu, neque Habitu, habere vero Potestatem Ecclesiasticam, nonè à Christo Serva●ore nostro institutam, qualis nunquam ante illius institutionem in orbe fuit, quaeque est Species Potestatis distinctae à Laica & longè nobilior ea, ut Aurum est Species Metalli distincta à Specie plumbi, & ●â nobilior, quaeque directè solùm amplectitur supernaturalia, 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 observable: As first of all, that where you charge Navarrus to affirm, that Papal power is not merely Temporal, he gives not so much as the least suspicion of the said pretended and imputed affirmation; he rather stands out and holds out for the clean contrary assertion: Then secondly, that what Laic power soever is annexed to the Pope, he hath got it by the Privileges of noble Princes, and by the Donaries (if I may take up Navarrus his own word) of Magnificent Personages, but not as Christ's Vicar: Then thirdly, that as the Vicar of Christ he hath not a hands breadth, not an Inch of Laic power, neither in the highest degree, nor in the middle rank, nor in the lowest region: Then fourthly, that he hath neither the Act nor the Habit of Laic power, whereby he may be so much as enabled to exercise the same, though he should never put it in practice, but keep it up close like a Bee in a Box, or as men say, like a Sword always in the Scabbard: Then fifthly, that his power is Ecclesiastical, the same that was instituted by Christ our Lord, a power never heard of in the world before Christ's institution: Then Sixtly, that his Ecclesiastical power hath nothing at all to do with Laic 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 Led, and Lead is not Gold, even in like manner Papal power is no way Temporal, and Laic power is no way the same with Papal power: Then Seventhly, that Papal power directly stretcheth out his arms to embrace things that are Supernatural; as Grace by name, given by his Holiness thorough the means of holy Sacraments, as Catholics believe; and the same grace is merely a thing Supernatural: Eightly and lastly, that Pontificial power indirectly makes use of things natural, instituted by Christ for a Supernatural end, as water to baptise, oil for that action which we call Extreme, or last unction, 
1 Cor. 19  and silver for Alms, ordaining besides, that he who serves at the Altar should live by the Altar; and that no mouth of any Ox which treads out the corn be at any time muzzeled, according to Christ's institution, for the better obtaining of the Supernatural end: This is the power whereof Navarrus affirms (as you seek to bear me down) that forsooth it is not merely Temporal: Doth Navarrus there speak of Temporal power? Nay, doth Navarrus once dream thereof? For albeit he speaks of the use of natural things, yet he calls them neither Secular, nor Temporal, nor Civil, but only natural; and restrains them to those things which were instituted to a Supernatural end, and not so far forth as they are natural, but as they are Spiritual, that is to say, as they are clothed and apparelled with goodness of the Supernatural end, according to Christ's own institution: How then can that be true, which you charge Navarrus to affirm, that Papal power is Layick and Temporal, howsoever not merely Layick and Temporal? and that as Pope he may intrude himself into the exercising of Temporal Dominion and Jurisdiction? But with you Hetrodox it is no new or strange thing (as oft it hath been known and seen) to cite Authors for some opinion, who teach a clear contrary Doctrine.  
4. You stand for the Pope's Kingdom to be a Kingdom that governs all Kingdoms: 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 foot in any of their powerful A●kes: No, no; the Pope is no Governor of Kingdoms, but Pastor of Christians, it is more than high time to pull up by the roots all such thoughts, purposes, and projects to sway the Sceptre 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 chief 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 governs all Kingdoms, and takes not away from Kings the Kingdoms ruled and governed by his omnipotentarme, so the Pope governs all Kingdoms, 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 pass by the gate thereof, but with a wary foot: What? Is the Pope then omnipotent, omniscient? Vbique per Essentiam, praesentiam, & potentiam? Is his Holiness every where by his Essence, by his presence, by his power, for as much as he immediately governs all Kingdoms, as they are governed by God himself? I know not Hetrodox how it is possible, that so vast, so exorbitant imaginations have taken root in the Intellectual Faculty of any Christian man.  
6. Again, to give but not to grant you thus much; (I mean, to give it for courtesy sake, though not grant it for a verity) that our Popes govern all Temporal and Earthly Kingdoms, as they are governed by God himself, yet all the learned know, that God suffers the second causes to work, and himself is only concurrent with all their operations; with all that are good he concurres Positiuè by position: with all that are evil, Permissiuè, 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 suffer the King so to do, because the Pope is persuaded the King's operations are wicked, and therefore he will take order for the remedy and reformation thereof: For if the Pope should undertake the attempt and enterprise to reform all wicked men, first he should be nothing like unto God, who many times permits wicked men to range in the ways of their own will: Secondly, he should have a holy design to attempt and enterprise the hardest labours of all other; as to tumble the great Turk down from his Imperial Throne, to pull his Regal Crown from his Royal 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 stuff; which because the Pope neither will nor can perform, it is easy for all men to judge, that his Holiness, for all your say, doth not govern all Kingdoms as God himself doth.  
7. Moreover, you feign would make men believe, that as God governs all Kingdoms, not depriving any of their , whether it be Kingdom or Power; so the Pope governs Kingdoms, 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 Cardinal saith) of whom Herod was afraid that he would spoil him of his Kingdom; Hosts Herodes impie, Christum venire quid times? O ungodly enemy, King Herod, what ails thee to be afraid of Christ's coming? Then Secondly, because no man is to busy himself like a Polypragmon with exercise of Temporal 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 lawful power within his own Dominions, what man ever enriched himself without impoverishing of some other?  
8. Again, you make it a crime no lesseheinous than Heresy, for any man to teach the power of Jurisdiction given to the Apostles, is the very same power which Christ himself gave: My reading tells me not a word of any other Text, where our Lord Christ hath given his Apostles the power of Jurisdiction; 
joan. 20.  yea all the Doctors, nay Christ himself doth not furnish me 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 speaks 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 cancel all bonds for sin, and to work all that which Hetrodox and Cardinal Bellarmine hath produced and alleged conatrry to the foresaid second Proposition, and in like sort I send you now, O my Apostles, to do and perform the said works; In which words our Saviour Christ made not his Apostles entercommoners with himself in his whole Spiritual Power ● No, no such matter, for he communicated not unto them the power (say we) to absolve without Sacraments, nor power to institute Sacraments, etc. nor the power of his own Spiritual and Heavenly Kingdom, 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 sins ye shall remit, etc. There our Saviour Christ likewise limits the word Sicut, As: That is to say, I give you Spiritual Jurisdiction over Souls, and over sins, O my dear and faithful 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 Losing, of locking up in Prison with Keys, and of delivering from Prison by the same Keys: This runs currant, and so shall run so long as the hourglass of old Father Time hath a drop of water, or a crumb of sand to let fall; That for certain the servitude or bondage from which we are delivered by Christ, is the slavery of sin; 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 Metaphorical Speech, is expounded in these plain and proper terms, whose sins ye shall forgive, 
joan. 20.  etc. For to lock and to deliver with Keys, to bind and to let lose, to forgive and to retain sins, are phrases of Speech importing and signifying one thing, partly according to proper, and partly according to Metaphorical Construction.  
9 You maintain that Pontificial power is unlimited; but I cannot see your Assertion backed with any Reason or Authority, neither can I find with what Legs it walks, or upon what stumps it stands▪ For the Lord God alone is clothed and armed with unlimited power; The Principal himself is invested with unlimited power, but so is not his Vicar or Vicegerent: And besides, to speak out of the teeth (be you never so loath to hear it) I cannot see how it is not repugnant unto Christian Faith, to affirm, the whole power that Christ had hims●l●e as Head of the Church, and that now he retaineth in Heaven, he hath communicated to the Pope; which doubtless whosoever affirms (if yourself be the affirmant) he affirms, who affirms the Pope's Power is without limitation. 
joan. 20.   
10. Again, You have heard me only 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 Pope's Power to this or that kind of Subjects, but have only spoken in general, and have yielded to the Pope all that Spiritual Jurisdiction: By like, Hetrodox, you think that you talk and confer with a man of Wood, with a stock, that hath not so much as the least spark of Discourse, or of Religion upon the Subject now in conference: But you shall find yourself deceived, and that you have to deal with an Antagonist neither stock-like, nor block-like.  
12. Without any occasion you pass over the River to the Pastures; I mean to the word Pasce, Feed; and here you say, that in the original Greek it signifies, Peter, govern and rule my Lambs: Now Sir, I do not deny, that Christ is the Spiritual King and Pastor of the Church, or that as Temporal Kings in Scripture are called Pastors, Feeders, and Shepherds in Temporals, even so Christ himself the Pastor is likewise King in Spirituals: Nor do I deny the Pope to be Christ's Vicar, and viceroy with a limited Power in Spirituals, a power every way most eminent, as extending over Christian souls: But from this can you Hetrodox well collect and gather, that our Holy Father the Pope is a Temporal King? much less a Spiritual King, as Christ is himself; and least of all, that he hath any Temporal Power by right of hi● Pontificial Dignity and Authority: St. John takes up the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice, and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but once: He thereby expounds that one word with two words, which without all doubt signify Pasce, Feed: Nay, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies to feed, and by a Metaphor to rule and govern, as in the aforesaid Text, as in this Text of St. John's Revelation: All this makes much against you Hetrodox, and nothing at all to favour your cause: Will you now give me 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, etc. 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 souls, are bound to feed their People triplici Pastu, with a threefold Diet; namely with the Food of God's heavenly word, with Food of good Example in life, and with Temporal Aid, so far as their means are not wanting: But alas, this threefold Feeding is now adays changed by unconscionable shepherds into a threefold polling and pelting of their Flocks, by pilling and pinching their Subjects with intolerable burdens of exactions, without any due regard at all to the said threefold Feedi●g: Thus chrysostom. 
Hom. 87.   
Perpende verba, Pasce agnos meos, etc. weigh these words of Christ well, Feed my Lambs; that is, Feed my faithful Flock not thine; use them not as thy proper Possession, but as mine; I therefore asked, if thou lovest me O Peter, because I have a purpose to recommend my little Flock to thy Feeding, and to be kept of thee as mine own Goods and Cattles, that love which thou bearest myself in profession, I would have thee show and practise towards my tender Lambs, Fat not, pamper not up thyself, like those unfaithful Shepherds, of whom the holy Prophet cried, 
Ezech. 34.  Vae Paestoaibus, woe to the Shepherds of Israel, that have fed their own bellies; That man that feeds himself, who gapes after his own gain, who hunts after his own glory, who removes every stone for his own commodity, never s●eking for the benefit of the Faithful over whom he bears rule, never aiming at God's glory in exercising the state and office of a Ruler: 
Tract. 132. in Ioann●m.  Thus far St. Augustine, Qui hoc animo pascunt ones, etc. Such as feed the Flock with a mind to make the sheep their own, and none of Christ's, doubtless bear no love at all to Christ himself; St. Augustine again:  

Ibid.  Sicut oves meas Pasce, non sicut tuas, Feed the Flock as my sheep, and not as thine own Cattle, in them seek my Glory, my gain, and neither thine own gain, or thine own glory.  
This Peter himself 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 God's heritage, but that ye may be examples to the Flock.  
These be the exercises of the true Shepherd, and thus the words, Feed my Lambs, are to be understood; and not, that the Pope's Feeding should be a Temporal reigning over all Temporal Kings: The holy Fathers, you see Hetrodox, teach the contrary; namely, that he ought carefelly to shun and avoid all filthy Lucre, Acquists, Glory, Dominion, etc.  
13. Again, by Quodcunque solveris, whatsoever thou Peter shalt lose, you understand every thing; And by this means the Pope shall have power to untie all kno●s, to set open all prisons, to transfer all Kingdoms, to deliver all the slaves in Turkey at his pleasure, nay, to solve all difficulties in all matters whatsoever: What man doth not perceive the falsity of this Doctrine? Our Lord Christ c●me to deliver Souls from sin, and as the only Redeemer; So teach all Divines: The Pope by like shall work the same effects; he shall cooperate in this great work of Redemption, he shall bind and lose the sins of 〈◊〉; you have no reason Hetrodox to cast such colours on your false opinions, whereby to make the Pope Lord and Patron of every thing with a Quodcunque whatsoever; For ●●ere is no such matter as you conceive in your dreams.  
14. Again, the word Soul, 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 drawn from one place to another; For St. Paul speaks of Temporal Dominion: The word Omnis anima, every Soul in understood of power over men's bodies, and in Temporality; But because our Lord Christ gave Spiritual Power to Peter, the word Animas, Souls, which is used in the Prayer of the Church, doth signify the Spirit or Soul 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 own Spirit is the Author of Dissension, strife, or Discord: But well I wots, Peace is one of the Gifts or Fruits of the Holy Spirit: The makers of the foresaid Prayer aimed at the Exposition of these words, Quodcunque ligvaeris, whatsoever thou shalt bind, by the word Animas, and by that other Text, Quorum remiseritis peccata, whose sins ye remit, as a just exposition of the word Animas, because all sins (to speak properly) are bred and hatched up in the Soul, not in the Body: And this they did to a special end and purpose; namely to drive certain Opinastres from their Tenent or hold, That Popes are Domini in Temporalibus & Spiritualibus, the absolute Lords over men's goods, their Bodies and Souls, with a power to bind and lose all things; as it seems, yourself 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 between the Pope and other Princes about Meu●● & Tuum, about Mine & Thine, whereas on the other side, those who last sponged the breviary by taking away the word Animas, have ministered new Tinder and Match to kindle the Coals of great contention, discord, and litigious quarrels: Besides, it is not unknown to the World, that in the Books of the Counsels, of the Canons, and of other Doctors, yea down so low as to the very Breviaries, and Missals, many matters recorded and registered in favour of Layick Princes, have been blotted and still are scraped out of the ancient Rolls; and all to make experiment, if, after long travail and sore labour, that huge mountain 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: Confer the Books printed in 30. and 50. with Books printed in these days, as well the Books of Counsels, as of others, and the notable evidence of a goodly vintage will manifestly appear, 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 final Ruin.  
16. Again, In the text of the ancient Breviaries, you tell us the word Animas was never extant: These eyes of mine have seen Manuscript Breviaries of more than 200. year's antiquity, with some Breviaries printed, of more than 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 Obstinacy: This I hold for a certain Position, the man that disobeyeth a Law, cannot incur the censure of Excommunication; This likewise for no less indubitable, the man obstinate in sin cannot be excommunicated, when he hath not been admonished of his fault or offence before: But I never so much as dreamt to affirm the one or the other of these Positions: I have hitherto only affirmed, that for the enwrapping of any man within the most sore bands of Excommunication, two things are of necessity to be presupposed; the one, that he hath fallen into some sin, the other, that being admonished thereof divers and sundry times, he hath not repent; And what else is that but obstinacy in sin? For if any man shall commit some sin, and afterward being thereof admonished shall truly repent, he ought not at any hand to be Excommunicated, but for his persisting, after he hath been duly admonished, he may and must bear the most heavy Censure of Excommunication; So that obstinate persisting in sin is the last cause of Excommunication; of which obstinacy it is a manifest sign, that being admonished, he hath not been reform and become a new man: So that all Disobedience is not a material cause of Excommunication, nor yet all obstinacy, but only that obstinacy which presupposes Admonition: Of this I speak, of the same speak all the Doctors; and therefore this Doctrine is neither new nor false: But now Hetrodox, t oh insist over long upon matters most clear and manifest, it is but a manifest folly; let us for this time part good friends after so sharp a fray, and prepare for the next encounter to morrow morning.  
Hetrodox. It pleaseth me right well.   

The fifth day's Conference, upon the fifth Proposition.  

Orthodox.  YOu are later arrived this morning, worthy Hetrodox, then at any of our former meetings.  
Hetrodox. Not in any weakness of Spirit, want of courage, or disposition of mind to avoid this day's combat, but as constrained by extraordinary impediment, and unexpected restraint: For in good and sober sadness my fingers have itched ever since peep or break of day, to have your fifth Proposition by the ears.  
Orthodox. In good time▪ you shall have not only 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 skilful master at the sh●rpe.  
Hetrodox. Well Sir, let us leave complemental prefacing, and fall roundly to the matter: Your fifth Proposition goes upon these same legs, if I well remember the terms: 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 God's Law exempted from the secular Prince's power; nevertheless the contrary opinion, that such exemption is grounded upon man's Law, is the sounder, the more agreeable and consonant unto Divine Scripture, unto the writings of the holy Fathers, and to the file and thread of Histories.  
Orthodox, I have no reason to except against your memory; you have hit the nail on the head, my fift Proposition runs in the very same strains and form of terms: What exception have you to make against it in whole or in part?  
Hetrodox. If you did bear the least spark 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 Immunity from the Secular arm only by man's Law: 
Sess. ult. cap. 30.  In the General Council of Trent it is clearly declared, That Immunity of the Church, and of all Ecclesiastical Persons, was instituted by God's Ordinance, and by Ecclesiastical 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 Council of C●l●y'● declared the same in these words; Ecclesiastical Immunity pleads upon terms of great Antiquity, and got good footing in the Church Jure divino pariter & humano, as well by God's Law as man's Law.  

Sess. 9  In the Lateran Council, under Leo X. it is determined, that Laics have no power over Ecclesiastical persons, neither by God's Law, nor by man's Law, which words are directly and properly contrary to your Assertion, that Layick Princes by man's Law have power over Ecclesiastical persons: Must not you Orthodox be some new Goliath, who in the height of your ten●erity dare set your face and foot against so many Squadrons of the Lords Army, that is, against so many Universal Counsels.  

Cap quamque de Consibus.  Before the said Counsels, Pope Boniface left in good Record, as a matter notorious, and of none denied, that Churchmen, and church-good 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 any Secular Power, but only by Popes, according as Almighty God himself had appointed and ordained: And the very same that John left written of the persons, Pope Simmachus long before, together with all the III. Council held at Rome in his presence hath witnessed of their goods.  
That which I tell you Orthodox, hath not any stitch of inconformity with sacred Scripture; The Patriarch Joseph exercising the Office of Vicar General to King Pharaoh, 
Gen. 47.  exempted the Priests and freed them from the burdens, which the rest of the people were enjoined and enforced to bear: 
1 Es●r. 7.  Artaxerxes King of Persia exempted likewise all the Priests of the Hebrews, because the light of Nature, which immediately shineth and cometh from God, plainly declares it is a thing most convenient: Pope Alexander III. upon this ground uttered this worthy Sentence in the Later an Council; 
Cap Non minu s de Immun. Eccl.  It can be no seemly thing to make the Church of God less free in the Reign and Government of Christian Princes, than she was in pharoh's time: Let us now see and examine the reasons which you bring for proof of your first Proposition: For you pretend and allege, That Exemption of Ecclesiastical Persons and their Possessions, is only established and granted by man's 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, than the contrary opinion.  
Orthodox. You demand the reasons of my Doctrine in very good time H●trodox; For in truth we are now come to the golden Key that opens the Closet and Cabinet of my Catholic Doctrine: Howbeit Sir, before I shall allege proofs of his Doctrine, First it will be needful to declare by certain Propositions, in what points your opinion d●ff●●s from theirs, who are commonly cited under the name of Heretics; which to be plain, i● likewise my opinion.  
1. There is a great difference between these two terms, 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 Realm of England: But in case an Englishman dwelling in England shall not obey the King of England and his Laws, 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 England's most Royal and gracious Privilege: So that, whereas I affirm, that Ecclesiastic Exemption and Immunity is not in force de Jure divino by God's Law, my meaning is not in Ecclesiastical and Spiritual causes, cases, or delicts; For in cases of that nature and kind, we cannot say, that Clerics are excempt from the power of their lawful and natural Prince, but we only 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 terms 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 merely Temporal and Political matters? This hath begot and bred the Error in some writers, and your Error Hetrodox in particular; In that whereas I contend, that Clerics are not exempt from the power of their Natural Prince by God's Law, you in all haste infer thereupon; Ergo, Princes have power to make Laws for saying Mass, 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 Temporal Power: Ergo, in Spiritual Delicts and causes they are subject: Such equivocating Arguments of double sense and construction, which are and ever have been the precipitating of many simple spirits into erroneous conceits, aught by all means in so grave and weighty a subject, both carefully and curiously to be avoided: When I therefore speak of Exception, Exemption, and Immunity from Secular power, I must of necessity be conceived and taken to mean, in such Causes, in such Goods, and in such Delicts, wherein without all privilege both Divine and Humane, of God, or man, a man should of necessity be subject unto the Secular Prince.  
2. There be four opinions laid to the charge of Heretics, and rejected in this Argument, as condemned and cursed with Bell, Book and Candle: The Fathers of the first opinion are Marsilius of Milan, and Jandunus; These are charged and challenged by some to teach, that Christ paid Tribute Necessitate coactus as one enforced by necessity: The next is calvin's opinion; He dreams that Clerics are subject unto the Temporal Prince Ex debito, in all Causes, except only such as are merely Ecclesiastical: The third opinion calls Peter Martyr, father; He makes no bones to profess, that it rests not in the hands, it lies not in the power of Princes to grant any such Privilege of Exemption unto Clerics, and in case they shall grant any such Privilege, they shall run into the snares of sin, because every such Grant is repugnant and contrary to God's Law: The fourth is the opinion of Brentius, and Philip Melancthon, they contend, that Clerics are subject unto the Secular Prince even in causes merely Ecclesiastical: 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 Malignity that one hath charged my Doctrine to be sprinkled or dipped in Brentianated, Calviniated, and Marsilianated holy water: For I neither affirm with Marsilius of Milan (if nevertheless Marsilius was culpable of any such condemned opinion) that our Lord Christ paid tribute as enforced by necessity; but only to shun the rock of giving scandal: Neither do I teach with Calvin, that in all Causes and Criminal Delicts, Clerics are subject and aught so to be; but in such only, wherein they have not been exempted, which Exemption stands not in force by God's Law, but by Prince's Privilege: Neither do I contend with Peter Martyr, that Princes can grant no such Exemption; but rather the contrary, that such Exemption may be granted: Neither do I lastly maintain with Brentius, that Clerics are subject in Spiritual Causes: For I distinguish the two Powers, the Temporal and the Spiritual; And when I speak of Subjection or Exemption of Clerics, I speak only in Temporal matters, over which the said power extends and stretches out her mighty arm, and not in mere Ecclesiastical matters and Spiritual, save only by Accident.  
3. My opinion is this, that Clerics are not exempted from the power of Secular Princes by God's Law, but only by Princely Privilege, either expressed, or at least in  grant; I mean, after Canons lawfully published & received, as also after many laudable and approved Customs for such purpose: Now that my Doctrine herein is Catholic, it is confessed by Cardinal Bellarmine himself, in the place last cited: For in his last Edition he holds, that Exemption is by God's Law; forgetting by like, what he had taught (like a Doctor out of his Chair) in his other Books, to the contrary; of the same subject: As where he writes of Medina and Conarrwias', two Catholic Authors, and both of them resolute in my true opinion for this point: For he takes them down 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 Conarrwias, & Joannes Medina (qui liberiùs aliis locuti sunt) in medium protulerunt; objiciunt enim primò, nullam extare legem divinam, quâ Clerici eximuntur à Jurisdictione Principum laicarum, etc. It shall not here be amiss, to frame some brief answer unto the Arguments produced by Conarrwias' and Medina, who have suffered their tongues to walk & range more freely than other writers: For they first allege, that Exemption of Clerics from the Jurisdiction of Laic Princes, is not warranted by any one tittle of God's Law, etc. The L. Cardinal answers their Arguments, as Arguments of Catholic Doctors; and otherwise, by his leave, he suffers the knots of their Arguments to hold untied, and without any Doctor-like resolution: And i● is no marvel, that our side is not overshadowed with any great cloud or heap of authentical witnesses; because likewise the Authors, who stand for the contrary opinion, are very thin sown; Besides, this doubt is but new crept into the Schools; and again, if any man writ with a free and full pen upon that subject, he is put unto his Recantation, like the Lord Cardinal, or that which is written to purpose, is canceled and razed, or else he is charged with sore threaten: Sotus indeed had freely delivered his mind of this matter; but in the end, subjoyning a certa●●● cas●le without any foundation, which marred 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 judgements, 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 embark my pe● in the fair 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 Souls, and in the lawful defence of my most Catholic and lawful Prince his quarrel. 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 freest course, both in writing and speaking my mind to the full, though I be reproved and hated by such as yourself Hetrodox, who ●●ve deeply interessed and engaged themselves in the main, yet I shall never by God's grace repent me of my pains, as if in so doing I had committed any evil; that of the Comical Poet will ever stand good and true; Obsequium amicos, veritas odium p●ri●, Obsequious Flattery finds many friends, but plaindealing Truth may go shake her Ears.  
4. My opinion is the better founded, the more true, and the more infallible; because it is confessed by Cardinal Bellarmine, that no Scripture, no Council, no Canon, and none of the holy Fathers hold the contrary, as in the Defence following it shall well appear; and as before hath been showed 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 affirm and maintain, that Exemption of Clerics is grounded upon God's Law, do not understand Gods written Law, and less the Law of Nature; neither by necessary consequence, but only by a certain probability: As thus King Pharaoh exempted all the Idolatrous Priests of Egypt from all Tribute, and Artaxerxes freed the Priests of Israel from the like burdens; It may therefore seem 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 confess, is drawn from holy Scripture, which is God's Law: But it strongly makes against our Adversaries in their Tenent, because it concludes, that Secular Princes, and not God himself, 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 God's Law, Priests were permitted to marry; Ergo, it is by God's Law, that Priests are now married in the Evangelicall Law: And that de Jure Divino by God's Law, is understood by the forenamed Authors, according to this my Exposition. I appeal to the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine himself in the place before alleged.  
5. The new opinion of the Lord Cardinal, 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 not where commanded in holy Scripture; much less upon the law of nature, or the law moral, which Divines likewise call the Law of God, as the Docalogue, or ten Commandments, etc. wherein the Lord Cardinal Medina, Conarrwias', and myself do all agree.  
2. By God's Law again, he understands a certain Decency and Conformity with the examples of K. Pharaoh 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 Benignity; whereupon he confesseth in a manner, that doubtless it appertaineth unto Princes to grant such Immunity or Exemption; but yet Princes are not bound to show 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 God's Law, is as much to say, as by the Law of Nations; A new device, and never heard of before; And that his Lordship proves thus: The Law of Nations is derived from God's Law natural; 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 shows not in what matters, whether in their Tributes, or in other Causes; nor proves the universal, nor is able to prove the same, that all Nations have exempted their Priests; for that is false, nor allegeth for his opinion any one Doctor, that by God's Law, signifies by the Law of Nations; nor finally shows, 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 lose gimmals, is ready to nod, to totter, and to ruin of it own accord; yet shall it not be amiss to touch in brief divers things concerning the same.  
1. There is great difference between God's 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 Nature's Law, and of God's Law, as in like manner the Law Civil is; nevertheless 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 Custom of Nations to seek, and to exercise Revenge; and yet Revenge hath no ground, no warrant from God's Law; nay it is directly prohibited by our Lord Jesus Christ himself: Audistis quia dictum, etc. 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 Privilege in some particular case, as in the exempting of Priests from Tributes; nevertheless 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 be concluded, that all the Firstborn in the world were exempt, at least from Tribute? The Lord Cardinal's Argument proves not a hair's breadth more; which to me seems an answer little beseeming a man of his Lordship's incomparable learning.  
4. If his Lordship's 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 turns not upon that hinge: No, the main question consists in this point; Whether Ecclesiastics are exempt in all Temporal matters and causes, without special and gracious privilege 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 world's end; as that of just Dominion and Servitude; That of Marriage for the perpetual preservation of mankind; That which all Nations indifferently have observed, and still observe to this day, Turks, Pagans, Christians, Jews, etc. 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 deeply charged all Christians to practise Humility and Subjection; whereas also St. Paul on his part hath absolutely commanded every Soul 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 repeal and disannul that Custom of Nations, concerning the revenge of Enemies, with a new Law?  
Hetrodox. If you have now sufficiently forelaid all your grounds for this present matter; it is time that you apply yourself to your best Defence, and to trace out my particular Errors.  
Orthodox. Well remembered; you shall see me 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 man's Law, without growing or descending to any particular; whether the said man's Law be the Law of Nations, or the Civil, or the Canon Law: Howbeit my opinion is the same that Medina holds, and other Authors alleged for this purpose; That Exemption goes by Privilege of Princes: Now to your Errors in your late and last opposition, which I find to be Eight.  
1. The sacred Council of Trent (you say) hath determined, that immunity of Clerics is by Divine Law: 
Sess. 25. cap. 20.  But in the said Council and Session which yourself have cited, I can read no such Determination: The Council there treats only in general of Ecclesiastic Immunity and Liberty; adding this Adjunct or Epithet, Divinâ ordinatione constitutam, appointed by God's Ordinance; It doth not say, whosoever shall affirm that such Immunity in Temporals is not by God's Law, let him be Anathema, let him be accursed: Nor doth it determine, it is by God's Law; but speaks in a generality, including that Immunity or Exemption which is in Ecclesiastical and Spiritual causes: And how those words, Appointed by God's Ordinance are to be taken or understood, I appeal to the Gloss; unto which the Doctors are always referred, whensoever Exemption in Temporals is avouched to be appointed by God's Ordinance, or by the Law of God: For the Gloss itself saith, Est de Jure Divino, id est, deducitur ab exemplo, etc. It is by God's Law; What is that? It is drawn from the example of the Patriarch Joseph and Artaxerxes the Persian King: Where the Gloss doth not mean, it is from God's 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 God's 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 once granted the same by the said Examples, for the Tributes in particular (whereof we now entreat, and of none other Subject) should revoke, repeal, and nullify the said Grant of Exemption, Extra casum necessitatis, except in cases of necessity: I only maintain there is no precept, neither in Scripture, nor in the Divine Law of Nature; T●●t either the persons of Cleries, or their Good● & Possessions as  can be exempted, except only the Prince be pleased out of his Royal Grace and Prerogative to seal such privilege of Exemption: Then Sir, with your favour, the Council having determined no more than is by the foresaid Canon cited, must have and carry this construction; That first of all the Council grounds no Determination: Secondly, That it provides for Exemption in Spiritual Causes: Thirdly, that in case it speaks of Exemption in Temporal, it speaks only per quandam decentiam, probabilitatem, & similitudinem, by way of Decency, Probability, and Similitude, as the Gloss and other Doctors avouch, whom I neither dare nor purpose to contradict: For I speak of God's Law, not by way of Similitude, but in propriety of terms: This, Hetrodox, is the reason, wherefore neither Medina, nor jansenius, nor Conarrwias', and others (who printed their works and writings after the Council of Trent) never said they held any opinion against the Council, and yet are directly of my opinion: 
Sess 25.  Moreover, the said Session was dispatched in Posthaste and Precipice (if I may take up the Diaries own word) when the French Prelates were departed from the Council, and the Spanish for their part had put in Protestation, that matters were precipitated, and huddled, and shuffled and cut by the nimble fingers of cunning Gamesters: The Acts of the said Council are not in these days to be cited with like integrity to those of the ancient Counsels; which foul Defect, by the godly-wise and learned, is justly attributed to the disgrace and disaster of our times: And for this reason I am persuaded, the holy Fathers in that Council assembled subjoined the foresaid words; That in case any difficulty should grow and arise in future times about the Determinations of that Council, the Pope might have full power to procure and work sufficient redress and remedy thereof; either by convocating the learned of those Provinces, where such difficile and intricate questions did spring and grow; or otherwise by calling a General Council, or else might by some other means provide for the Quiet and Peace of the Christian Commonwealth: So that first I say, those words of the Council are cited amiss both by the Lord Cardinal and yourself; For the Council saith not, Ecclesiae & personarum Ecclesiaesticarum Immunitas in Temporalibus est instituta ordinatione divinâ, That Immunity of the Church and of Ecclesiastical Persons in their Temporals is appointed by God's Ordinance: but only saith, Princes ought not permit inferior Magistrates to infringe and violate the Immunity of the Church, or of ecclesiastics, howsoever it be appointed by God's Ordinance; whether merely Ecclesiastic, or Temporal (as the Gloss runs) granted by Princes, according to those Examples Registered in holy Scripture: But all this while the Council doth not deny, that such Immunity is granted by Princes, in Temporals, howsoever after the Examples of King Pharaoh and King Artaxerxes; Then I say again, 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 Council is to be expounded, as it is expounded by the Gloss; 
Rom. 13.  for otherwise the Council had maintained an Error, which we Catholics are bound at no hand to admit or acknowledge.  
2. The Council of Coleyne which you allege, was not General, but Provincial; It Decrees nothing by Determination, it delivers no more than the Gloss, but speaks less in the teeth, and more clear than the Council of Trent: For it doth not say, that such Immunity is commanded by the Law of God and man, but only rather introduced or brought in by God's Law after a sort; namely because Princes have been moved and incited by the Examples of Pharaoh and Artaxerxes in holy Scripture (which is God's Law) to grant Privileges unto Ecclesiastics, or unto some others, for not paying of Tribute, not because it is commanded in any Text of Scripture, but as taking that good Example in holy Scripture, of their own accord.  
3. The Lateran Council, which you also produce, is not accounted General, (as the Lord Cardinal himself hath not sticked to acknowledge in divers places,) and so it wants weight of Authority: Besides, that which the said Council affirms, is not held for indubitable; And if the Council mean, that Princes have no power over Clerics in matters merely Spiritual and Ecclesiastical, upon the matter per s● in itself they hold a truth: But if they mean, that Clerics are exempted in Criminal causes and Temporal matters (which Privilege Clerics enjoy not by God's Law as hath been proved) then the Council is not in any wise to be followed: Besides, the Council cannot understand it otherwise then according to the Gloss; and that is denied of none.  
4. You are pleased to cast upon me the reproachful name of Goliath, 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 holy Fathers; neither do I aver any thing (as hath been declared) against any one of the Sacred ecumenical Counsels,  

lib. 1. de Cler. cap. 28.  5. The Canon of Bonifacius is understood according to the Gloss, and so much is testified by the Lord Cardinal.  
6. Pope john VIII. and Pope Symmachus are to be understood in Causes merely Ecclesiastical, 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 certain 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 own two Examples do rather weaken and pull down then build up and fortify your Tower, in two respects: First, you allege that Pharaoh and Artaxerxes granted their Priests free Charter of Exemption; I can ask no more, for I affirm the very same, and no more; viz. that granting Privileges of Exemption belongs to the Prerogative of Princes: Then again you say, that Princes have learned this lesson immediately from the light of Nature; whereas elsewhere the Lord Cardinal tells us, that Exemption is not immediately taught by 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 Princes to g●ant by Privilege; And whereas Clerics are exempted in particular (as it is avouched by St. Thomas) by the Privilege of Princes Propter naturalem quandam aequitatem, in respect of a certain natural Equity; his words are to be taken in a sound sense: And how? That such Privilege is founded upon the rule of Reason, which is called natural Equity, upon which rule of Reason or natural Equity, all the grounds and rules of the Law Civil are established; but hereby St. Thomas doth not conclude, they are established by God's Law natural, but are civiil, revokeable, etc.  
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 been declared in my first Proposition, that under the old Law Priests were subject unto their natural Prince; 
1. Reg. 2.  and besides that Solomon deprived Abiathar, and exauthorised him from the high Priesthood of the Jews; In the Primitive Church until the Reign of the Emperor justinian, there is not read or found in the whole body of the Law any Privilege 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 Ecclesiastical? And whereas you have affirmed, that Moses was a Political or Civil 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 executed a power against Abiathar, as the Minister of God's Divine-Will, who had made known before that he would bring the posterity of Heli to a final end, for so the Scripture hath subjoined, ut impleretur sermo Domini quem locutus est super domum Heli, that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled which God had spoken touching the house of Heli in Siloh; Besides, the Acts or Deeds of Princes go not for Laws.  
But now Sir, that before justinian there was no privilege of Exemption in the Church; that is I would have you know is apparently untrue; For the Emperor Constantine who reigned more than 200. years before justinian, and was the first Emperor that clearly made profession of Christianity, presently declared Ecclesiastics to be free from the common burdens of the Commonwealth; as we read in Constantine's own Epistle to Avilinus, 
E●l. Histor. l. 1. cap. 7. Cod. Theod●s. cap. 31. Quaest. Pract.  recorded by Eusebius: But besides this Privilege of Constantine, there be many other Privileges of Emperors, more ancient by odds than justinianus, as your own Darling and Minion Conarrwias' by you cited makes report.  
Orthodox. I last alleged certain Examples, which I now perceive have put your learning to some plunge: For hitherto your Discourse hath been only from Exemption of Tributes; and such Exemption you say is taught in Scripture by the example of Pharaoh and Artaxerxes; But whereas you dare to make good proof and clear Demonstration, How Clerics are exempted in Criminal Causes, from which they are not exempted, no not by justinian himself in the Novel, I find you puzzled, perplexed, and (as we say) in more than a peck of troubles; as appears by these your particular Errors:  
1. You tell me, you have proved in the first Proposition, that Moses was high Priest: Surely this I have not denied; But I have affirmed, that howsoever Moses did withdraw, and retire himself from the exercise of the high Priesthood, and settled Aaron in that high Office, nevertheless he still judged the Levites: And this argues he did it as a political 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 clearly see, that Solomon proceeded against Abiathar, Viâ ordinariâ by the ordinary way, and not by any particular Revelation, and yet as the Minister of God's 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 evil.  
3. You expound these words after your own fancy and to serve your own turn (ut impleretur Sermo Domini, that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled,) as if the Lord had bound Solomon by especial charge and particular precept so to thrust Abiathar out of his pastoral charge: But you must not be suffered to dazzle mine eyes with any such slubbered Exposition: For the wisdom of God reacheth from one end to another, 
Wisd. 8.1.  and comely doth she order all things; that is to say, by ordinary ways and means, quando de extraordinariâ Revelatione non constat, when there is no full assurance and certainty of extraordinary Revelation; to allege Examples and Anthorities after this manner, is to fly unto those answers whereof the Poet saith, Nisi Deo dignus vindice nodus inciderit, Except some difficulty shall grow and arise, which requires not man's wit, but God's Wisdom to unriddle.  
4. The Acts of Princes, you say, are no Laws: No more be the Acts of Popes, especially of such Popes as have come too short of Solomon's Wisdom, when he judged Abiathar, which doubtless was before Solomon fell into his Apostasy or Defection: But besides, it smells very strongly of Error for any man to affirm (as you seem to do) that Solomon who was endowed with a Spirit, not of Angelical, but of Divine Wisdom, 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, do treat of Exemption from the Court, and of all Ecclesiastics; you turn it into the general: I do not deny, that Constantine, and some other Emperors before justinian; have granted previledges of Exemption unto Ecclesiastics, because it appertains unto Princes to grant such privileges, But I speak of Exemption from Courts and public Judgements, with a Distinction of the said Courts by a Law In corpore juris, in the body of the Law, as hath been showed in the first Proposition, which was never acted by any Emperor before justinian: And for this point, having read the Code not in a sleight or superficial course, I trust I may affirm without ostentation, that I cannot be deceived in so clear 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 Judgement Sc●●e; I appeal unto Caesar: And to p●ss● 〈…〉 Example●; In the li●e of the most Christ●an Emperor Otho I. We read, that Otho, Authoritate propr●â, by his own Au ho●i●y deposed Pope John XII. because he was notoriously wi●●●d.  

In Summa sua. lib. 2. cap. 96.  Hetrodox. This Argument iv●●n●ed and framed by certain Heretics of old, i● we l ●aken off by the Card. de Turre cremata; namely that S●. Paul w● constrained to appeal unto Caes●r, and to agnize 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 known: And therefore if St. Paul then had answered, that he knew no other Judge but Christ's Vicar, he had moved the Jews b● whom he was accused, 
Act. 28.19.  and the Gentiles by whom he was judged, to break forth into some loud laughter, Paul himself saith, coactus sum, I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar.  
As touching the History of Pope John, and the Emperor Otho, I observe a double falsity and error in your brief relation: First of all, those two words, Authoritate propriâ, by his own Authority, are most false both for the Fact and also for the Right: In point of the Fact how? Because Otho well knowing, that himself being Laic had no power at all to judge an Ecclesiastical person, he referred the matter to the Council then assembled in Rome, to determine what was therein to be done; Sancta Synodus quid decernat, edicat, let order be set by the Sacred Counsels Decree; Thus Otho to the Council, so that Otho deposed not Pope john by his own Authority, but by the Counsels Authority and Decree.  
Likewise for point of Right; because you find not in any Catholic Author, that Popes can be deposed by Emperors, but on the contrary, that Emperors may lawfully be deposed by Popes, as Otho iv by Innocentius III. and Frederick II. by Innocentius IU. 
In Summa. l. 4. p. 3. c. 37.  Henry IV. by Gregory VII. So that in this your opinion you err and wander without any guide or companion, but certain ancient and modern Heretics, and in particular, Marsilius of Milan for one, as it is testified by the Cardinal de Turre Cremata.  
N●y more, the Pope cannot be judged by the Council, except in case of Heresy, upon which point and Article all Catholics are agreed: And herein lies your second falsity; For Pope john XII. was not found culpable of Heresy; but only of scandalous and inordinate life, in which case he could not be judged: Besides, that Council by which Pope john was deposed, was no lawful Council, but a Conventicle, Schismatical, and without a Head, whereupon it was abrogated and cassed not long after, who so desires to know the truth of this History, may read the X. Tome of Cardinal Baronius, or else (to make a shorter cut) the Addition of Onuphrius.  
Orthodox. This argument hath been propounded by many Catholics, and howsoever it is likewise taken up by Heretics, they make use thereof to another end than Catholics use the same: But without all question or doubt, the Turre Cremata, nor Bellarmine himself doth untie the knot, and therefore in brief I must uncase your particular Errors 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 Appeal; wherein the party Appealing complaines of the inferior Judge, ad redimendam vexationem, for a redress of his grievances or wrongs, yet behold, you contend (I cannot choose but marvel at your boldness) that St. Paul's Appeal was not the jure: Tell me now, good Sir, did St. Paul appeal contra Jus against Right? If so, than you must needs think and believe, that St. Paul sinned in the act of his Appeal? But howsoever concerning other men it may be spoken de Facto of the Fact, and not the jure of the Right; yet so to reprove the holy Apostle St. Paul of sin of nothing (as you seem to do) I see not how you can avoid a great blot, at least of blame,  
2. The word Coactus, Constrained, you take in other sense, than 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 inferior Judge had not done him right and justice, therefore ad redimendam vexationem, for the repairing of his wrong and loss thereby received, he was constrained to make his Appeal unto the Superior Judge; (as Appellants use commonly to speak:) whereas you tell us that St. Paul said, I was constrained to appeal, 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, lest he should make both Jews and Gentiles to laugh: Well far you Sir for this merry conceit 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 God's 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 lawful for one to do ill, or to forbear speaking the truth? and in particular for that chosen vessel, that holy Apostle; who saith, we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews even a stumbling block, and unto the Grecians foolishness: And what, 
1. Cor. 1.23.  I beseech you Hetrodox makes men laugh more than foolishness: But St. Paul abstained from preaching never the more, because his preaching was by the Gentiles accounted foolishness; No, he took and reputed that imputation for a special Reputation, ascribing the same to the greatness, to the wonderful virtue and power of his preaching Ministry: To tell you the plain truth; I can by no means, and at no hand brook or endure to hear, that for the firming or founding of an opinion, which is delivered without all probability, and without any show and shadow of Precept in holy Scripture, any man should talk his pleasure of holy Paul and sacred Scripture, in so free a strain or vein of liberty.  
4. To know the History of Pope john and Otho, you refer us forsooth to Card. Baronius, and Onuphrius in his Addition to Platina, of the Lord Cardinal Baronius what shall I say? He is an Historian, and living still to this day; His works are suspected in the matter of immunities; yea, as one that hath not a tongue to speak, 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 turn; and as for those words which make against his own purpose, he still seeks to blind the world and to make the Reader believe, they are supposititious and thrust into the web of that History by foul and forcible intrusion; And even thus he deals in this History, denying the Authority of Intiprandus approved in the Church by the space of Dcc. years, 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 dream of and believed, as also for as much as a Book entitled Errores Card. Baronii, The Errors of Cardinal Baronius, is in good forwardness to be speedily printed (in which Book are particularly laid open more than 20. Errors by him committed in denying this most ancient History of Pope John) it is not worth while or whistling to speak of his Authority.  
As for the Addition of Onuphrius; first I say, he is very modern, and in a manner new, than 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 pass for a lawful Election.  
5. You pretend the Emperor Otho could not the jure depose Pope John for his Criminal Delicts; and that Popes have de jure deposed Emperors: Hitherto the contrary hath been proved, and ever the jure: Namely that in Temporal matters the Pope hath not Ius auferendi Regna jure Pontificatus, that his Holiness hath neither dram nor drop of right to take away Kingdoms in right of his pontificality; and that by God's Law none is exempt from the Secular Power in Criminal Delicts: But you draw a reason from contrary 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 do, the lawful Deposing of Pope john, I say lawful, because by virtue of john's deposition, Leo was elected and taken for lawful Pope; say Ciacconius what he list or can to the contrary, of whom if I shall pronounce that in the ancient Poet, Quicquid delirant Reges, plectuntur Achivi, when Kings do 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 john deposed himself, and that hath no truth, or else that he was deposed by the Council, and that is denied by Cardinal Bellarmine, or yourself, or both; or else (to make the reason go upon three legs) that he was deposed by the most Religious Emperor Otho, after the Example of Solomon, by whom the seditious high Priest Abiathar was deposed and condemned, and that is the point which I maintain: And in case this was lawfully practised by Otho, (as by the lawful succession of Leo after john it appears it was done) than it must needs follow, that what was done by Otho, he did the same Authoritate propriâ by his own Authority; Pope john by his own enorm Delicts having driven and forced the good Emperor to do that Act, which none would ordinarily have the boldness to do, in respect of the Reverence due to that holy See: And howsoever Oho wrought herein by counsel and advice of the whole Council, whereupon he said Sancta Synodus edicat, the holy Synod shall set down 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 Errors: What say you to this Example? If Exemption stands by God's Law, what meant Pope Adrian I. to take such care and order, that Charles the Great should have the whole Authority to make Election of the Roman 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 me to marvel much at your strange acuteness in this Argument: I beseech you Sir, what hath Exemption of Ecclesiastics to do with nomination of persons to the Pontificial See? Are not Ecclesiastics in France exempted in these days, because the King now nominates men to Churches, to Benefices, to Ecclesiastical promotions when they become void? And wheresoever Ius Patronatus is in force, is Exemption there lost, because there the Patroness have the right of Nomination, when they are for the most part Laics? For a time then the Emperor Charles, by the Pope's Privilege had power to nominate some to the Papal See, when it became void; The Emperor for all that did not give the Pope any Authority, and less could he take it from the Pope; For, as hath been said, God himself giveth Papal Power to the Person once nominated or Canonically elected, by which Power the Person so nominated, by Gods own Law and Ordinance becomes the Superior, the H●ad, and the Pastor of all Christians, whether Princes or private persons.  
Of the Privilege granted by Pope Leo to the Emperor Otho, I might pronounce the very same sentence, if the said Privilege had not been 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 than truth.  
But our most Illustrious, and no less learned Cardinal Baronius gives forth clear and manifest evidences, 
Tom. 9 Annal. pag. 323.  that Gratianus was deceived, and that such Privilege to choose the highest Bishop, was never granted unto any Emperor; 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 Cardinal Baronius it hath been spoken plain enough before, that in the case of Immunities his Authority lacks weight; I have likewise heard it avouched, that as until this time he hath given himself an ample privilege and liberty to correct Fathers, Canons, and Histori●ns; in like manner he pretends to correct and amend the Counsels, to his own humour and to his own end: But in case he shall assume and usurp any such licence (which God forbidden) for certain he shall never mend the Text of St. Paul, St. chrysostom, St. Thomas, and others: Why then should we give any credit, liking, or ear to the Novelties of the Lord Cardinal Baronius, but rather give some answer to your Errors?  
1. Nomination to the Popedom (you say) is even as Nomination to Benefices; That Sir, with your good l●ave, is false, to use your own terms: For the Popedom is not a Benefice, but a Supreme Spiritual Dignity, instituted and ordained (as Catholics belie e) by our blessed Saviour; and in case it be a Benefice; then the Right of Nomination thereunto belongs to the Emperor, and none other.  
2. If Exemption of Ecclesiastical persons be de jure divino, surely not Ecclesiastical person can come under submission to Secular Princes, and least of all he that is of so high Dignity; For none can draw them into that state of Subjection without great sin; Ergo, Exemption is not by God's Law: Of this Argument Cardinal Baronius hath taken some sight and knowledge, which puts him on with all his force, might, and main, to deny the foresaid Canons: Thus the Argument holds firm and true, both for Antecedent, and for Consequent, neither aught so ancient Canons to be denied: You likewise deny that Leo was true and lawful Pope, when the lawful Election of that Leo hath been approved by another Leo, namely IX. and by the rest of the Popes to these present days and times.  
And shall I now go further with you Hetrodox; The Doctrine for which I now stand, is not only the Doctrine of St. Paul, 
Sotus. lib. 4. Sent. dist. 25. Conar. cap. 31. pract. Quaest.  but likewise maintained by St. John chrysostom, by Thomas Aquinas, by Sotus that most excellent and famous Divine, by Conarrwias', who citeth for his purpose Innocentius III Alciatus, Ferrarese, Medina, with some others: And these two Doctors, by name Sotus, and Conarrwias', 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 Council.  
Hetrodox. Hold a while Orthodox, St. Paul and St. chrysostom do not meddle with Exemption of Ecclesiastics; but only teach, that all men are bound to obey their lawful Superiors, as before I have proved.  
St. Thomas denies not Exemption to be grounded upon God's Law, howsoever he affirms it stands upon the strong Pillars of man's 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 only testified, but also justified.  
As for Sotus: Albeit he denies Exemption to be warrantable strictly by God's Law, yet he affirms it is agreeable to natural Reason, yea he subjoines, that no Prince, nor all Princes together, can derogate from the said Exemption: So that directly and clearly the Doctrine of Sotus is contrary to the present and modern practice of the Venetian State, which dareth so many ways violate the said immunity, as if it rested in their power to make such Derogation when they please: Besides, that Sotus did write since the Council 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 Council ended; and so he could not see that last Decree, wherein is declared, that immunity of Churches and Ecclesiastical persons was brought in by God's Ordinance: For if he had seen the said Decree, doubtless h● durst never have opened his mouth, nor set his pen on work by way of contradiction to the said Decree?  
Conarrwias' hath ever showed himself (as hath been touched before) more than partial in defence of Regal Jurisdiction: And nevertheless even he himself 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 Supreme) can pull the least hair from the Crown of this immunity: By this i● appears, that Conarrwias' himself condemns the Actions or do of the Venetian Lords; so that in advertising us how much these two Authors, Conarrwias' and Sotus are to be regarded and esteemed, you know not Orthodox what you speak and affirm.  
Lastly, whereas you draw in Conarrwias' alleging for his opinion Innocentius III. that point must not be passed over in silence: For here two Errors come to be discovered and reproved: Of the one yourself Hetrodox is culpable: Of the other Conarrwias: You are first out of the right way, because Conarrwias' never cited Innocentius III. for his Patron in this cause, knowing full well that Innocentius goes against him in the quarrel, and stands against him in the gap: Then secondly, Conarrwias' is in the wrong path, or in a wrong box, because he allegeth for his opinion Innocentius IU. whereas Innocentius iv affirms in the very same place, 
In come. cap. 2. de majorit. & obed.  that Exemption granted by the high Bishop with consent of the Emperor is not full, and therefore it is to be confessed, that Ecclesiastics are exempted from the power of Secular Princes by God himself: It was not possible for Innocentius iv to affirm in clearer terms that Exemption of Ecclesiastics is grounded upon God's Law, and yet Conarrwias' hath face enough to affirm, 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 God's Law: Have you any more to say?  
Orthodox. No Sir, not for proof of the Proposition, I will therefore now address myself to handy strokes and blows with your Errors.  
1. St. Paul, and St. chrysostom, you say, do speak in general; 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 God's Law: But I have clearly showed, that St. Thomas holds it is by the privilege of Prince's, and founded upon Principles or grounds of Reason, upon which all humane Privileges and Laws are grounded, as also that St. Thomas was not the Author of the Book De Regimine Principum.  
3. Sotus and Conarrunias affirm (you say) that all Princes joined together are not able to derogate one hairs breadth 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 terms of condition, that is, Ordinarily: For Sotus affirms in particular, that ad vi● vi repellendam for the repulsing of force by force, in certain cases the Privilege of Exemption, may be disabled, removed, and taken away: Thus Conarrwias' and Medina likewise are to be understood, according to the opinion of all the Doctors in the matter of Privileges; 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 Privileges granted by his Pontificial Chair.  
4. You reprove the State of Venice for violating the Privileges of Church immunity: you wrong that most illustrious and flourishing State; For they have always judged their Ecclesiastics (time out of mind) in heinous and atrocious delicts and offences; And in so doing they have observed the contents of justinian's Novel, in points to them seeming good and convenient, not because they are tied 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 justinian's great wisdom, learning, and judgement, seemed good to be observed and maintained in his Dominions.  
Touching the Laws made by the Lords of Venice, about Church-mens goods, it hath been answered, that all such Laws are de Temporalibus quae nondum pervenerunt in Dominium Ecclesiasticorum, they are concerning things Temporal 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 Ecclesiastical persons.  
As for other immunities, which the said Lords of Venice have granted to the ecclesiastics of their Dominion, either by Privileges, or by Canons received and approved, or by custom continued, the said Lords maintain them all as pure & chaste Virgins in violated and untouched; yea, according to the sacred Council, they are protectors of the said Immunities, neither will they at any time after any privilege, except it be add vim vi repellendam for the driving out of one nail 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 public.  
5. Innocentius iv holds that the Emperor's consent is to be sought for in the matter of immunities; and for that purpose Innocentius is alleged by Conarrunias.  
6. You charge me with error in citing Innocentius III. for Innocentius iv Sir, it was the Printers error not mine: And in the Answer is not read Third, by letters ●f Alphabet (as the Lord Cardinal Bellarmin● hath caused to b● printed of purpose to make the Error more inexcusable) but by numbers, in this manner, III.  
7. Sotus (you say with a nice distinction) did not write after the Council, but in the mid time of the Council; my meaning is, that Sotus was personally present in the Council, and his Book was printed after the Council, so did Conarrwias', Medina, and others writ after the time of the Council, and yet were never prohibited by any Authority, as writing any thing contrary to the Council, which makes me to collect and conclude, that in affirming the said Council hath determined Exemption to be grounded on God's Law, you are clean out of the truth; For had the Council made any full Determination to your said purpose, without all question the foresaid Authors had been prohibited by Authority.  
But I must now tell you plainly Hetrodox, they show very good and great Cards for their game, I mean, their Demonstrations are not fectlesse, but full of efficacy: For besides the affirmative authority of St. Paul, of St. chrysostom, and of St. Thomas, besides the common use and custom of the Primitive Church, they produce likewise two negative Arguments most effectual: The first, If Clerics themselves, and the Goods of Ecclesiastics be exempted by God's Law, where is that Law recorded and read? In what Gospel? in what Apostolical Epistle? in what Book of the New Testament, or of the old? The Second, That no Secular Prince Christian carrying a watchful eye to the tranquillity and honourable government of the State, doth stand upon this point, but only permits Ecclesiastics to enjoy such Exemption as to himself seems best, and such as he dislikes, he will not suffer them to reap 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 Privilege of Princes, and the Custom dissembled by the said Princes, or the Canon received, which Canon cannot be above God's Law, so that if Secular Princes have lawful power over their Subjects by God's 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 Laws are in terms or in point of concurrence, the rest ought ever to stoop and give place unto the greater.  
Hetrodox. The Affirmative Arguments have been answered before; what need you make so many repetitions of one and the same matter? Now to your first negative Argument; This point hath been discussed at large by many Catholic Authors, both Divines and Canonists; The grounds of their opinion are to be sought in their writings; and myself have briefly before pointed to certain passages, as well of the old Testament, as of the New; and this for one, Ergo liberi sunt filii, therefore the Children are free; 
Gen. 47. 1▪ Esdr. 7. Mat. 17.  where by Children are meant Ecclesiastics, it St. Ierome's and St. Augustine's Expositions be not rejected of Divines.  
Again, you are not ignorant Orthodox, that by God's Law is understood not only the holy Scripture, but also the light of Nature, or (to speak in other terms) Reason and Nature's Law: 
lib 1. de libert. Christ. cap. 9  Thus john 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 himself; 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 easy to be known, 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 Hebrews 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 brevity sake here pretermitted.  
To the second Negative Argument I return this Answer: We find it not in Sotus nor yet in Conarrwias'; It is doubtless a Fiction of your own brain, and besides it is no Argument, no Reason, but a mere Cavil and Calumniation invented against all Princes, as if all Princes were Machiavials Disciples, and granted or took away Exemption from Clerics, as they find it profitable or unprofitable to Reason of State; But we know that in the Church of God there be many Religious and pious Princes, who fear 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 than 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 God's Law? As much in effect for form of Argument, great skulls, whole troops of Christians give themselves to robbing by the highway side, or to luxurious uncleanness in dark corners, or to bear false witness in open Courts; Ergo, these Precepts of the Di●alogue, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit Adultery, thou shalt not bear false witness, are not by Gods Law. It should have been proved that such Princes as permit not Exemption otherwise then to their own liking, do well, or do not ill; and then the Consequent would not have come in amiss; Ergo, Exemption is not by God's 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 man's Law, as whether it be Canon Law, or Privilege of Princes, or Custom, is idle and altogether in vain; for besides that Exemption of Ecclesiastics is by God's Law, it is every way by man's Law; because there be many Canons, many Civil Laws, and a must long continued Custom, which make all for this Exemption; This neither will nor can be denied of any, but such as are of no reading at all.  
Finally, that conclusion which you make of Secular Prince's power over Ecclesiastics, that it can be neither taken away nor diminished by any Canon, because the Canon is by Man's Law, and the power of Princes by God's Law, is a false Conclusion, drawn from a false Principle, and repugnant unto all Catholic Doctors, as well Divines as Canonists: False, because it is contrary to many Decrees of Counsels, Popes, the Laws Imperial, and the light of Nature: Drawn from a false Principle, because the power of Princes over Laics is not grounded upon God's Word: Against all Catholic Doctors, as well Divines as Canonists, because both Sotus and Conarrwias', counted the chief Pillars of those who maintain that Exemption is not warrantable to Ecclesiastics by God's Law, have not stuck to testify by their learned pens, that Popes have plenary power to exempt Ecclesiastics, that all Princes are bound to uphold and maintain the Pope's Exemption, as also that no Prince, (no not all Princes together) hath one dram of power to annihilate or disannul, or in the least measure to diminish the said Papal Exemption.  
Thus much is affirmed and witnessed by Sotus and Conarrwias', in the very same passeges by yourself Orthodox produced and alleged: It hereupon follows, that you have now broached a new, an erroneous, a scandalous, a schismatical and a seditious Doctrine: If this notwithstanding, you shall affirm it is no new Doctrine, you shall be sure to find none other Authors, Fautors, and followers of this Doctrine, but Heretics, and in particular Martyr a Lutheran upon the 13. chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans.  
Orthodox. I have made no long Repetition, but only 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 jure 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 marvel, for I suppose you have spoken this (to please yourself 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 do less than fall into such a Novelty?  
2. You affirm, the Doctrine of repealing and revoking Privileges in case of necessity is not approved by the foresaid Authors: By your leave Hetrodox it is not only by them approved, but likewise by all that handle the matter of Privileges, 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) than it is in Venice, where the Lords aim at none other mark, but public Tranquilities, Religion, Justice, and in case of necessity to repress force by force and strong hand; All which things and actions are permitted by God himself, by Catholic Authors, and by the Law of Nature, which, in case all the writers in the world should bind their pens to the Peace, and condemn them to perpetual silence, would 〈◊〉 unto us a Law. 
Rom. 2.14.   
3. Y●●●eject and reprove the Division into the Law of Nature, Canonical, Privilege of Princes, and Custom; 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 of God; 
Rom. 13. ●● Sap. 6.1.2.3.  and that other o● Solomon: Here therefore O ye Kings, etc. for the r●le is given you of God, and power by the most High: All this notwithstanding you do not blush to affis me, ●ha● 〈◊〉 have proved, the powe● of Princes over their Laic Subjects is not by God's Law, but by Man's Law, and much less their power over Clerics; It is not possible to speak of Exemption in such broad terms, and not speak against Scripture inspired by the Holy Ghost.  
5. You say, the Power of Princes may be taken away and diminished 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 immunity, but I never yet read in any Divine, that Popes have Power to force Princes, when the Canons treat of matters neither Spiritual 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 man's harvest? If you will flourish with both Swords, you shall bear neither of both.  
6. True it is, that Popes have power to make Canons concerning Exemption, and other matters; Howbeit not Canons can challenge or carry any force where they are not lawfully published and received: For all Canons are Laws of men according to all the Doctors, which to bring in and impose obligation, do necessarily require the twofold condition, of lawful publication, and general acception: Therefore the sacred Council 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 Conarrwias' 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 God's Law, makes any Canon's prejudicial to L●ick Jurisdiction, it is necessary (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 mere Nullity: This Doctrine is held for most certain by Conarrwias', by Sotus, by Navarrus, by Medina, 
Navar. cap. Novit.  and all those who treat 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 Conarrwias'; but here is to be understood this word Ordinarily, and because they have given their consent for the admitting and receiving the said Canons, it is not fitting for every light cause and trifling occurrent, to deprive them of Privilege: Howbeit none denies, that in case of necessity the Privilege may suffer derogation and admit diminution; yea Popes themselves daily use to derogate from their own Privileges.  
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 vein of reproachful terms I forbear to follow your Example; and will only conclude, that my Author's Doctrine is true in the Superlative, Catholic, grounded on holy Scripture, and Fathers of the Primitive Church, whereas your Doctrine. Hetrodox, and your Master's Cardinal Bellarmine, merits those Epithets, which the Judicious no doubt will mark and brand it withal, if ever this my Defence may be so happy to come in their sight.  
Hetrodox. By this full conclusion it seems Orthodox, that you have done with all your Propositions in Thesis.  
Orthodox. You guess right Hetrodox; But have you any humour to hear 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 wrapped with a kind of wonder to think 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 we will make no more days, and spend no longer time in Conference.   

The sixth day's Conference upon the sixth Proposition.  
Orthodox. I Am glad to see you Hetrodox thus risen with the Lark: 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 wind. 
Prop. 6.   
Orthodox. Then hear the sixth Proposition: The Venetian Prince is the lawful and natural Signior of the Venetian S●●e; He never knew any Superior in Temporals, but God himself; He makes Laws touching the Goods and Possessions of Ecclesiastics within his Dominions: He punisheth Ecclesias●●●ll persons in grievous and atrocious cases; He disposeth of 〈◊〉 before they are passed over by mean conveyance unto Ecclesiastical persons; And this he doth by that Authority which ●●●●mediately receiveth from God, and whereof he hath never been deprived, either from Privilege granted or by Canon received: He hath continued in possession of this Authority, by cust●●e continued (I say not for many years, but for many Ages, or hundreds of years,) And in doing all these things he doth nothing amiss, he runneth no course of sin.  
The reason; He that doth nothing against any Law, doubtless doth no sin, much less he that keeps the Law: And more, He that holds and maintains his own Dominions, sinneth me, neither should he be forced to follow their opinion, who ●o●d Exemption to be derived from God's Law: For every Christian is free and at his own choice, to follow that opinion which likes him best, always provided, that his opinion be Catholic, yea, to follow one Doctors opinion grounded upon sound reasons, though it be against a full tide and current stream of Doctors, 
〈◊〉 pralud.  is no sin; which point is right well proved by Navarrus: It can therefore be no sin to follow the Doctrine of St. Paul, and of so many famous Doctors of great marks alleged in the first and fifth Proposition; And to speak truth, I cannot excuse those who hold the opinion, that Ecclesiastical Exemption is authorised by Almighty God: For to my understanding, they seem sometimes to speak as not well founded, sometimes as ill advised, sometimes as men running a race of too great hazard, 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 Errors together, you so point out in your discourse the Prince of Venice, as if he were some absolute Monarch; For you make him the natural Signior and Lord of the Venetian State: Now Sir if that be so, than the Republic of Venice ●●th lost her liberty, and cannot in Right be called a Republic, ●●●●use it hath a Lord, and a natural Signior or Lord: A Lord ●●one that can dispose of his own at his own pleasure; He can give, sell, lay to gage or pawn, and make it over when, how, and to whom he lift or thinks good: And a natural Signior or ●●rd is one, that hath Dominion by Herison, by Succession of blood, by Birthright, not by Election or Donation: But whether it be convenient for the Duke of Venice to be the Natural Signior of the Venetian State, I refer myself upon the matter to the judgement of every man, or of any one, that knows the state and affairs of that noble and illustrious Republic.  
You say moreover, the Prince of Venice knows no Superior in Temporals, but God alone: Do not you hereby make him a Lord no less absolute, then Supreme and Sovereign Kings, to whom the Commonwealth hath passed over all her power? But if the Republic be a true Republic, and free indeed as it pretends, doubtless it hath not passed over and transferred all her power to the Prince, but hath only communicated and conferred upon him such part of her power, as to herself seemeth good: She can augment or make little enough, or take it away altogether; She can make the Prince shorter by the head, whensoever he shall attempt to practise or make himself 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 the Duke ought to know for his Superior, not God alone, but likewise his Republic, or the Grand Counsel: But pass we from these Errors; For if they do not pinch the Venetians, they need the less to pinch strangers; Let us then come to the point and knot of the controversy.  
Both your Author and yourself Orthodox affirm, the Duke of Venice hath not sinned in making Laws prejudicial 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 been censured with Excommunication: That he hath not sinned, you prove by three reasons: First, because the Duke hath power immediately from God over the Persons and Goods of Ecclesiastics; Secondly, because the Pope was never despoiled of the said power, neither by Privileges 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 own affirmation in your last Speech, and by evident experience: For you affirm in your last passage, that the Duke of Veni●e hath power to punish Ecclesiastics in grievous and atrocious Delicts or crimes; your own 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 God's Law, than he should have it in all cases, both grievous and light, both atrocious and not atrocious: Likewise you affirm, the Duke hath power to dispose of all Goods, not yet made over and transferred to Ecclesiastics: What can you mean by this Limitation, but only that he 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 any other, as the Pope's power is not limitable, because his power is immediately from God: Besides, I demand whether the Republic hath power to diminish and increase the Duke's Authority, and whether it can depose him from his Magistracy, when he bears not himself therein according to the Venetian Laws? Out of all question the Republic hath power so to do: The Duke than hath not his power immediately from God, but from his Republic, and so the Duke's 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 himself of his power by ●no●ledges of his own grant unto Ecclesiastical 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 took his beginning, when Ecclesiastical persons were before exempted from 〈◊〉 power: It may be further alleged, that when a Laic changes his coat and turns Ecclesiastic, than the Prince is despoiled of the power that he had before over the same person: But how 〈◊〉 spoiled? Forsooth by Divine privilege granted to Ecclesiarch, and also by many Canons received thorough all Christen●●●● in such manner and form, 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 reserved 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 Council of Constance was inclined 〈◊〉 p●derate the sharp censures of Excommunications, and to 〈◊〉 order that it might be lawful to have conversation with Excommunicate persons; nevertheless he excepted all such as 〈◊〉 declared Excommunicate by process of Quorum nomina, withal those who notoriously do 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 drawn 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  might not be given to the Church, for none other cause and reason, but only because it had never been observed to that present year, as by themselves it is confessed: Besides, against Justice, no possession or Custom 〈◊〉 stand in force; It is therefore a notorious falsity to say the Duke of Venice hath not sinned in making the ●●id Laws and in 〈◊〉 up Ecclesiastical persons; But wh●●soever sees or hears th●● day the most grievous and horrible acts of Excess done by the Venetian Duke in committing Priests and those of Religious Orders to prison, in compelling and forcing Ecclesiastics (contrary to their conscience) to violate and break the Apostolical Interdict, in filling Monasteries with Soldiers, and last of all, in raising of public persecution against Churches and Religions, (as in fo●●●er ages Valens an Arrian Emperor, and after his ●●●s Hi●uricus King of the Vandals an other Arrian hath done) ●ow can that man profess the Duke doth not sin, if he be not ●●●ether blinded with passion, and given up, as the Apostle 〈◊〉, unto a reprobate mind? I pass over your words which 〈◊〉, that he sins not who doth nothing against the Law, 〈◊〉 that keeps the Law, nor he that follows the Doctrine of St. Paul; These points are too well known, and fit for ●●●low and light-witted children, then for solid and 〈◊〉 vines.  
But your last Censure, that such as 〈◊〉 in Ecclesiastical Exemption to be fixed upon the Pole of God's Law and 〈◊〉, seem to you not well founded, or ill advised, or over 〈◊〉, or gross flatterers, is not a censure given against men 〈◊〉 Blasphemy pronounced against the Holy Spirit; For the 〈◊〉 which we maintain is the express sentence of the La●●●● and Tridentine Counsels, both general; So that if we acknowledge, according to the truth, that the sacred Counsels, most of all the General Counsels, are assembled in the name of the Holy Ghost; and if we be able to say with that first Council h●ld at. Jerusalem, Visum est Spiritui Sanct● & nobis; it hath seemed good into the Holy Ghost, and unto us, than it follows, that you make th● holy Ghost sometimes not well founded, sometimes ill advised, sometimes too venturous; and sometimes too full of flattery.  
Orthodox. These two positions have been sufficiently made good before, the one, that the power of Temporal Princes comes immediately from God, howsoever the m●●ne of attaining unto the said power is by the means of men, and that Almighty God hath not exempted any one Subject from the just Laws and commandments of the said power, the other, that the Pope's power, albeit Spiritual, cannot curb or bar Temporal power from the exercise of their just Dominion over their own Subjects; From these Principles proved point by point, in my last passage there is drawn this necessary consequence; That when the Pope by his Spiritual power inhibits the Prince of Venice to exercise his Temporal power over his own Subjects, than 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 bow full bend, but going to the matter in a straight 〈◊〉 by the string of the bow; 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 necessary for me to 〈◊〉 off this aspersion of Calumny & reproach, and to let you see 〈◊〉 a Crystal Glass, the Errors couching in your own oppo●●●ns, Errors without all doubt so much further from excuse, as they are so audacious and shameless to reprove other men's 〈◊〉 and sound Doctrine for Error.  
1. The most illustrious Republic is the natural Prince of his own 〈◊〉, in all my Author's Propositions he never speaks word of the Duke; He names the Duke not so much as once, but still speaks of the Signory, 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 only Head of the Republic, and she only the Prince: So manifest is this your first Error, that all ●●n take fight and knowledge thereof: This one Error mars your Market, for it ●●ps the force and authority of all your other oppositions concerning this matter in your head.  
2. You seem to have so base a conceit of me and my Author, that you presuppose we cannot distinguish the Prince when he 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 Author's work was revised, were so close muffled, as they could not descry so manifest an Error; you seem so desirous to find Thorns amongst flowers, that I do not marvel you see sometimes one thing for another, and call virtue herself by the name of Error.  
3. Whereas in my Authors answer no mention is made at any time of the Duke, but of the Republic, of the Signory; and whereas the Author treats not but of her Dominion and power, it was your part Hetrodox to understand, the word Prince is General, signifying as well Emperors, and Kings, as Republics, or Commonwealths, and that in this place it did not signify the Duke, but the Republic: Besides, the Author's words admit none other sense: For the Prince of Venice (as this Author speaks in plain and express terms) never knew any Superior in Temporals but God alone; will any man understand this to be spoken of the Duke, who so long as he was Procurator of St. Mark, acknowledged the Duke for his Superior, and now being Duke doth acknowledge his Republic for his Superior.  
4. Whereas again 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 Dignity appertaining, you not only make use of the word Duke for your turn, but besides (albeit against all reason) you draw the D●●es person into your Discourse, and so doth Cardinal Bellarmine: This hath moved some of our contemplative Spirits to argue, and not without good ground, that his Lordship rashed not into his Error by chance, but of set purpose, partly that he might have the fit 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 he might breed and stir up in the minds of the whole Republic some sinister conceit, either of Potency affected: or of Religion corrupted: This the Lord Cardinal ●pp●●ently shows in his Discourse, who hath none other time or scope, but only to sow Discord, Evil will, and Sedition.  
5. You lay to our charge that we affirm, the Duke hath made Laws of the State, we have delivered neither by word, nor writing any such wicked assertion; It is the Prince of Venice, that is, the Republic, which makes Laws; we never made any mention of the Duke.  
6. You say moreover, that in the State of Venice divers Laws have been passed prejudicial to the Church; Bring but one Text or Scripture, produce but one definitive sentence of the Church, tanquam de Fide, to prove the Laws enacted by the Venetian Republic, that Ecclesiastics may not be committed to Ward for Secular Delicts, or the Pope in right of Pontificial Dignity may thrust his hand into matters and affairs of such nature, and then you shall have us ready to confess, the said Laws are contrary to the Law of God: But for so much as the Prince is invested with Temporal 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 Temporal 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 prejudicial to the Church, whiles he walks within the Circle of his own Confines, and goes not out of his own Bounds: It might rather be conceived and alleged, that his Holiness ranging and roving fare from the Terrier of Spiritual power, may perturb the peace and quiet of Temporal Princes: Nay more; It would be requisite for his Holiness oftentimes to bear 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 barred from all the Degrees of Lordship, and commanded to walk in the state and calling of Servants; What Peter himself 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 several enclosures of other men? if you presume to be Lord both of Spirituals and Temporals, thou shalt be saluted neither Lord Spiritual nor Temporal: And when men discourse to his Holiness of this immunity, it were also requisite for them to look unto the Root whereon it grows; whether it be grounded on the Scripture, on the Fathers, on the Privilege of Princes, or on use and Custom, and to remember the Customs and privileges of Countries, are much different: And finally, seeing the proper end of the Venetian Lords is excellent good, not only not contrary to life eternal, but rather conformable thereunto, for the better maintaining of a Christian and Catholic Republic in her entire strength and power, as also for the better execution of Justice, and for the better bridling of Clerics, when they know the Laws have provided for the mature and severe punishment of their Civil Delicts, to approve the Actions and Laws of the said Venetian Lords with silence: For even the very same Authors, who give the Pope Authority to intrude himself sometimes indirectly in Temporals, do give him the said Authority in case of extreme necessity, and when the people are stopped in the right course to life eternal; Now, for so much as the Actions and Laws of the Venetian Lords are not only no hindrance to their Subjects in the course to eternal life, but rather make the way more facile, and bring the same as it were to a shorter cut, what necessity can his Holiness have, whereby he should be moved to restrain those public Laws, which are out of his own Element, and not under the Lee of his Jurisdiction?  
7. It is your manner, and a sly trick of your cunning to make show, 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 general: but from that power the lawful exercise whereof the Prince never lost, neither by Privilege granted, nor by Canon received, nor by long Custom; which is a Law to prove, that his Acts done conformeable to his power are good and lawful: 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 Temporal matters, but his power is exercised in some, and not in other; because he hath exempted some from his power by Privilege, and not some other: Now this doth imply or signify, that his power is not granted from God with a certain limitation, as you contend, but rather that he himself limits his own power by his Privileges granted; For the Temporal Prince's power in Temporals, no arm of flesh can limit, provided it be not a Tyrannical power, (neither hath it any Superior but God alone) much less when it is exercised ad optimum finem to the best end.  
8. You make us to affirm, the Duke hath power to punish, power to dispose, power to make Laws, we neither take up the word Duke, nor the word power for this matter, we only speak of the Prince, that is, of the Republic, that he, the Prince, or she, the Republic, doth punish, doth dispose, doth make Laws, there is great difference, you know, between Act & Power, between power to enact Laws and enacting of Laws.  
9 You harp much upon this one string, that we speak 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 Subject's i● derived from men, and the Pope's Authority from God, 
Rom. 13. Sap.  this Error hath been dashed out of countenance before by the express text of St. Paul, and other Scripture.  
11. You affirm, 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 allege but one privilege of Frederick II. not worth whistling, but a new upstart instance in a manner of two days old, and such as with Ecclesiastics doth not deserve to bear any sway: For after the said Privilege he was excommunicated and deposed from the Empire by Gregory 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 thread of the most holy Emperor justinian, whose Novel was decried, like false and adulterous Coin, and never spoiled Ecclesiastics of any Exemption which they formerly enjoyed, but rather endowed them with other new Privileges.  
12. You affirm again, that vi characteris, by virtue of the Character due to the order of Priests, the Prince is deprived of his Authority over his own Subjects; Touching which point I answer thus much, and say no more; If the Character of Baptism hath no virtue, 
Quaest 15. de Restitu Cap Novit de judiciu. Notab. 6.  no force or power to free any man from Subjection to his lawful and natural Prince, much less the Character of clerical 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 Counsels 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 Counsels, 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 Kingdoms, Countries, and States, they stand yet in their full force, and that (except in case of extreme necessity, to speak in the terms of Sotus and Conarrwias') by any ordinary means, or for any ordinary cause, they are not sufferable of Derogation, or thereunto liable, as hath been defined in matter of Privileges; 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 Laws of their own making in these present days and times.  
14. You produce the Canon Si quis suadente, etc. If any thorough the Devil's instigation shall offer violence, and lay violent hands on a Cleric, and here you presuppose (without either grant or thanks for your pains) the Venetian Lords by Satanical persuasion have with violent hands attempted and assaulted the persons of Clerics: But you must be answered with a godly resolution to your Diabolical presupposition. The said Lords have not done any such Execution by the suggestion of Satan, but by the persuasion of God, and of honourable Justice; As for your famous Canon, that speaks of private wrongs and offences: Otherwise the Ecclesiastical Judges themselves in like manner should be fetched within the power and penalty thereof: So that in the Venetian Territory the Canon is duly observed; For in case a private person by the Devil's instigation shall cast violent hands on a Cleric, and thereby tumble into the strong Net or Toil 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 Laws that she causeth to pass 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 annex; The Law named upon this matter was first made in Anno. 1333. and not in Anno 1536. as you have alleged: Secondly, the Prince hath Authority to enact Laws, to renew Laws, or to dilate Laws, but not because Laws are sometimes not observed; For the same authority whereby a Law was made at first, giveth the Prince sufficient power to renew, to dilate, etc. 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 Heresy the State be not infected: And therefore, both because the Republic stands upon a sure ground of certain knowledge, that the Pope's present Censures are in the condition of mere 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 Soldiers, as you object; That's but an old wife's tale, whosoever is the Reporter, much more a mere 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 Heresy 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 own.  
18. Moreover, you have matched the Republic with Arrian Princes; Even so do the Cardinals Bellarmine and Baronius▪ I cannot forbear to tell them and you once for all, you think to scare us like little Children with I wots not what Bugs, I mean, with Epithets of Heretics & Schismatics: The World knows what Heresy, what Schism is well enough; And might we once be so happy, to have a general Council called of the whole Church which cannot err, it should soon manifestly appear who is an Heretic, who is a Schismatic; In the mean time, the Republic is neither the one nor the other; and that for this time shall suffice.  
19 Again, you confess the Lateran Council is not general, and the Tridentine treats not of that Exemption which is maintained by the Authors of the contrary opinion, and neither the one Council nor the other hath come in this case to any Definitive Sentence de Fide, with what face then have you affirmed, the said Council are of equal Authority to that Canon, whereof it is written, visum est, it hath seemed good unto the Holy Ghost and unto us, etc.  
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 God's Law; But only to such as affirm it is by God's Law as commanded in holy Scripture, Expressis verbis, by perspicuous terms, or by God's Law Natural or in any other manner: To all such doubtless any former Epithets will be found agreeable.  
The first of our three Races is now run, let us rest for some few minutes, if you please, that we may gather the more breadth, for the better performing of the other two courses.   

The sixth day's Conference upon the seventh Proposition.  
Orthodox. SO long as the Signory of Venice is not culpable, and commits no sin, howsoever the State stands now and lies under the Censure of Excommunication by the high Bishop, or Pope Paulus V in the Breve of Censures published by his Holiness; howsoever the sacred Temples and holy places lie now under the Interdict; nevertheless 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 tied to a condition, with a Si peccaverit, etc. if thy Brother sin against thee, etc. So that where no sin, 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 man's wit so blasted, to think that howsoever the Signory hath not offended, (as hath been proved) nor doth offend in holding their own Right, nevertheless they offend in showing their disobedience to the Pope, and persisting in their opinion; For Constancy in a good opinion is not Obstinacy, and he that hath not offended should not be termed obstinate or disobedient; For as he that keeps the Law doth a most holy and meritorious work, so he that is not obedient in matters which cannot be commanded or enjoined him to perform, commits not any sin or offence at all.  
Hetrodox. In this Proposition you are bold to affirm two things; That our holy Father's 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 falsity; For in the Title De Sententia Excommunicationis in 6. there be only three Canons by which the judiciary 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 he 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 fly unto this excuse; For the sentence of our Lord the Pope was given in Scriptis, and with all the three Admonitions of eight days for the first Term, eight for the second, and eight for the third: No Appeal interposed, nor could be interposed, where the Pope is the Supreme Judge; So that with all exactness the judiciary Order commanded by the Canons De Sententia Excommunicationis in 6. hath been duly 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 seems, and thinking it sufficient by like to beguile the ignorant, you pass it only in general terms.  
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 Signory of Venice hath not offended, the Lords of that State could not be subject unto Excommunication: This hath been answered before, where I have showed how the Signory hath most grievously offended.  
First, In making unjust Laws against the Church, and in committing Ecclesiastical persons to prison; then again, in being disobedient unto the high Bishop, and refusing to be reform by his Holiness in their evil ways: But were it a matter of doubt, whether the Signory hath sinned or no; it is most certain that doubt is to be put out of doubt and resolved, not by the judgement of the Signory, but of our holy Father the Pope, the Supreme Judge in Christ's room and place; If the Pope then be the Judge over sin (which point you have confessed in the fourth Proposition) than the Pope, and none but he, hath power to discern, 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 Priest's office to judge, whether one was infected with Leprosy, 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 Spiritual Leprosy of great Malignity and Contagion; whereupon 〈◊〉 Holiness, by sentence of Excommunication, hath separated the Duke from the company and fellowship of the Faithful: How can the Duke be defended or excused in this case? It is true, that constancy in a good opinion is not (as you have well said) to be counted and termed obstinacy; provided the question remain and long in a doubtful balance: 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) than the opinion of all such as maintain the cause of the Venetian Signory, is no longer an opinion, but an Error; and then constancy therein is obstinacy.  
Orthodox. Your oppositions to this our seventh Proposition have been effectually reproved before, as touching matter of Right: It only remains to give your Errors 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 Holiness denounced sentence against the Lords of Venice, he Canonically gave them Admonition (you say) three several times. I would feign know how that can be, when his first monitory was no monitory, but only a declaratory and a Definitive Sentence, without any monitory at all going before; Again in the third monitory the cause of Emphytheaticals (as they are termed in Rome) not once mentioned in the first and second monitory, is interserted: This one point (were there none other) draws the sentence into Nullity; Besides, when Monitories are no Monitories, but sentences (like those of his Holiness, for want of Juridical citation they have that inexcusable Defect, which makes every cause void, every Sentence no Sentence: But of this matter I forbear to speak 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 finger's ends; When the Pope doth any thing against the Canons, that is, the Pope is Supra Canon's, 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 himself, the alteration of whose Ordinance is too far out of the Pope's reach.  
2. The ●●●●●ce of our holy Father the Pope (you say) is not a void 〈◊〉 ●●nce, of nullified by God's Law, and that you have sufficiently proved the Venetian Lords have most grievously sinned; I do not deny, that you have in Affirmation charged the noble Lords with I wot 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 again and again: Will you have my Reason? It is indemonstrable that such as go not against any Law do fall into sin; That such as tooth and nail do stand for defence of their ancient Rights and Possessions do fall into sin; That such as obey God rather than men fall into sin; That such as resist violence do fall into sin: Such are the lawful and laudable Actions of the Venetian Lords, and therefore they do not fall into sin, as to effectual purpose hath been declared before: Whereas your oppositions against this Doctrine have not one mite of probability (no not in appearance) much less of certainty or Demonstration, as you pretend.  
3. I have confessed the Pope's power extends unto Spiritual matters, and is over sin, you hereupon do infer, 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 smells of Durandus his Chimney and smoke, an opinion of all men reproved; but your opinion is much worse; For Durandus doth not profess, that in every sin we should stand to the Pope's judgement, whether it be sin or no, for that is not necessary; He only affirms the Pope hath power to judge all Christian People, ratione peccati, for sin, at his pleasure, and to draw all matters into his Court; Whereas you Hetrodox pass a whole degree further: For if the Pope shall judge an action of virtue to be sin, though I be never so certain it is no sin, you forsooth will have the Pope's judgement shall make it sin: This persuasion contains intolerable Errors.  
1. The first whereof is, That in judiciis Facti in judgements of the Fact, our holy Father's judgement is infallible: False; for in cases of the Fact he may err, 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 err, 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 doubtful case, whether a thing be sin or no, recourse may be had to the Pope's Judgement, 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 certain it is a sin to steal such a rich Jewel, or such a piece of Plate: again, I know for certain, it is a virtue to defend my Life, my Land, my Leases, and to serve God; Shall I give credit and faith to the Pope, ●he should affirm the contrary to that whereof I am so certain, and no way doubtful? Those Authors who grant all Authority to the Pope, and judgement between Leprosy and Leprosy, that is, whether it be Leprosy or no Leprosy, do grant it only in doubtful, b●● not in certain cases; For in matters clear, 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 speak the word, and to say, the Venetian Lords do grievously offend and transgress the Laws of God, of the Pope, of the Church, etc. 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 clear from all wicked intention, he shall be clear and free from Hell-fire for ever; because according to St. Augustine, Peccatum est dictum, factum, concupitum contra legem, sin must be something spoken, or acted, or coveted against the Law of God; If one therefore hath a good intention, he goeth not against God's Law: Howsoever the Pope shall say he sins, yet he sins not; which according to all 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 clear conscience f●●e from any sinister and evil intention, this knowledge is their sufficient warrant, without running to the Pope for his judgement, in such a cause especially, wherein his Holiness makes himself both Judge and Party.  
4. The Supreme Judge (you say) hath judged the Duke of Venice to be covered all over with Leprosy 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 man's Leprosy: He only said, thou art an unclean Leper, and therefore I will not suffer thee to enter into the Temple; Now this judgement belongs to all Physicians, and indeed to all other men, when the Leprosy is manifestly seen, and when every man knows the party to be smitten with Leprosy: Besides, if it be doubtful, whether a man be leprous or no, men may run to the Priest, or go 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 clear and smooth skin, what needs he run or send his Urine to the Physician for the matter, except his Phantasticon be like unto the immaginative apprehension of one, who being Infra limites sanitatis (as Physicians use to speak) as whole as a Fish, when his Physician told him he had an Ague, in his Fantasy so deeply made impressions of the Physician's words, that he was in a trice surprised really of an Ague, and thereof soon died: To be short; If Christ Jesus the Supreme Judge indeed who cannot err, 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 sinful, doubtless the Lords would stand to his Judgement, because it is Divine and infallible Wisdom: But for as much as his Vicar may err, and hath actually erred in judiciis Facti, in certain and evident matters, who doubts there is no standing to his judgement? No man ever affirmed, the Pope's judgement concerning sin, whether a thing is or is not sin, should be interposed in certain matters; but only profess, that in matters doubtful men should stand to the judgement of their Superior: And who that Superior may be according to the diversity of occurrences, I refer myself to the judgement of the Doctors.  
5. The question in controversy between the Lords of Ve●●●● and the Pope, you say, is dubitable; It is not dubitable to the Lords for matter of Fact, but certain: And albeit some Doctors should hold the contrary, that nevertheless doth not make the question doubtful 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 certain, at least probable and not doubtful; For every authority or apparent Reason doth not make an opinion doubtful, 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 doubtful opinion, it shall be needless to run unto the judgement of any other Superior: One pause more Hetrodox for a short rest, and so to the third Race.   

The sixth day's Conference upon the Eight Proposition.  
Orthodox. HOwsoever it goes for a true Rule or Principle of St. Gregory the Pope, Sententia Pastoris justa siuè injusta timenda, the Sentence of the Ecclesiastical 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 between the unjust sentence of an Ecclesiastical 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 virtue, but vain and void, as hath been declared before, because they are like a man● writing in the Water or in the Air, 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 alleged) 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 means of an Ecclesiastical Judge) is of no force to work any effect, either in the secret Court of Conscience, or in the open Court of Judicature, but only to bind the person Excommunicated to the observation of the said Excommunicatorie sentence, until the people be wall persuaded, or at least should be persuaded, touching the nullity thereof, and that for the avoiding of public scandal, yet for certain this Doctrine of Navarrus ●●●es very strongly for our present Cause: And wherefore? Forsooth because the Reason of the Nullity hath been made manifest unto all the Venetian people: And suppose it is yet not manifest unto some, they ought doubtless 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 solemn Edicts and public Proclamations; So that in this case there is no public scandal to be feared. I go further, and say more, that some Religions by Order can by no means be excused, who erring perhaps by their little knowledge, or perhaps out of some other sinister affection, have chosen to leave the City rather than to persevere in ministering the holy Sacraments, and celebrating the Divine Service, as for the good of Religion and of the Commonwealth, by their Prince his Ordinance they were enjoined; wherein they have offered scandal unto all, because Ipsi sibi fuerunt Lex, they have been a Law unto themselves, and have not followed the example of the Cathedral 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 strain and fit of godly zeal, I say with our Saviour Christ, it had been better that a Millstone had been hanged about their necks, (I forbear to say the rest, and they cast into the bottom of the Sea) then to have given so great a scandal unto any of these little ones: Besides, to defend the liberty of their natural 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 Ecclesiastical sentences are grounded upon the Law positive, which ought always to give place unto the other, and most of all, when 〈◊〉 have a Constat of the Nullity; Some therefore deceive themselves, who take this controversy to be de Fide; for it is only a Moribus: And if any thing be expressly set down in holy Scripture, which makes this Controversy to stand in matter of Faith, it is the opinion of the Signory, which they have grounded on the express Doctrine of St. Paul.  
Let me here freely deliver my mind, most learned Hetrodox; I could wish, and would exhort all the Clergy of the Venetian S●●● (if they were now present) not only to celebrate Divine Service, and to communicate or administer the Sacraments, but likewise to perform all other Ecclesiastical Duties, which, before the publication of these late Censures, they have been accustomed to practise in their Church, both for that I am in good hope they are all fixed already upon that Resolution, and likewise to avoid scandal; not only 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, there all such as shall not hear Mass (at least upon Holy days) during the time of this Interdict, shall commit sin, because they refute so to do without any lawful cause and reason, the sentence being void, and the Mass being celebrated in all the rest of the Churches: I would not have men to fear where no fear is, nor cause to fear; nor to give any cause, why those, who always have been faithful 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 have fought against me; but I would wish them rather to fight and strive, how they may best obey that Apostolical Precept, let every soul 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 constancy, for I rest well assured, they are almost ready to lay down their life for their Prince: The Lords of Venice have ordained on pain of death, That all the Religions in the City shall keep their Churches open, and shall celebrate Divine Service, as they have done before: Have the Lords made this Decree out of any fear, lest such of the Religions to whom they stand well-affected, who both know and follow the true Doctrine (as in a manner they do all) would now do otherwise than they have done, or would not go on to celebrate and exercise all the Offices of their Ministry? No sure; wherefore then was that grievous penalty ordained? Forsooth only that none of the said Offices might be intermitted in that City which ever hath stood Catholic, and now professeth to continue Catholic more than ever: Whereupon she will not suffer any change at all to be seen in the exercises of Piety, or ●●e intermission of the said exercises to be unto any an occasion of their Precipitation; For which mischief the Prince for the Church's behalf and for her benefit, by God's Law is bound to provide a Remedy by all means 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 God's Law, but by the Privilege of their Princes, who have power to retract, diminish, dilate, and amplify the said Privileges 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 public benefit or advantage of the Dominions under their Subjection; For the same power the Pope exerciseth in the privileges of Indulgences, and other matters depending upon his Spiritual Authority, which by him sometimes are annulled, sometimes diminished, and sometimes augmented.  
Hetrodox. From false Principles you infer a false conclusion; That for so much as the sentence of our holy Father is of no validity, therefore it ought not in any wise to be feared, and that by consequence the Priests of Venice and thorough the whole Venetian Dominion, are bound in conscience to celebrate all Divine offices, as if they had not been interdicted at all.  
First you affirm, That according to the Doctrine of Navarrus, the Sentence of the Pope, when it is Nulla, is to be feared and observed, until the people shall be thoroughly persuaded of the Nullity, to the end there may breed and grow no scandal; Then you subjoin, the Venetian people are fully and wholly persuaded of the Nullity of the Pope's Excommunication, by the Duke's Edict, as much to say, when the Judge affirms 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 go current for just and in force, if the Malefactor's word and credit may be taken?  
Next you affirm, That certain Religious persons are inexcusable, for choosing to departed out of the City, rather than to celebrate Divine Offices; and that very many thereby have been scandalised: Alas good Sir, the said Religious have no need of your excuse, and if any other have been scandalised by their obedience to the holy Father, the words of our Saviour to the Pharisees will serve well to remove and take away the scandal, Sinite illo●, they are blind leaders of the blind, 
Mat. 15.  let them alone.  
Then you affirm, it is enjoined by God's Law to defend the liberty of their Prince; whereas Ecclesiastical Sentences are enjoined by man's 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 marvel your Argument runs in this divine form: To defend the Prince's 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 Pope's Excommunication and Interdict, and to defend the Liberty of the Venetian Duke: But hear you Sir my answer; If it be by God's Law to defend the Liberty of an Earthly Prince, much more it is by God's Law to defend the liberty of the Church, the Spouse of the Heavenly Prince.  
I say moreover; The liberty which the Duke of Venice pretends now a days, is a liberty to clap up such in prison as are none of his Subjects, and to make Laws against Justice and Piety, and therefore it is according to God's Law, not to defend, but rather to impugn such a Liberty: And I yet subjoin, that Ecclesiastical Sentences (as touching Power) are by God's Law established, 
Mat. 10.  and founded on the Gospel.  
And again you affirm, That some are deceived in thinking this present controversy to be de Fide, when it is only de Moribus, and that if any thing be expressed in Scripture which makes this business to be de Fide, it is the Republics opinion, expressly taught by St. Paul: I answer; The Principal controversy is not the Fide; Nevertheless, 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 Wisdom, no doubt, you tell us the opinion of the Signory is expressly taught by St. Paul, your wisdom doth not mark, That such things as are expressly taught by St. Paul, cannot be called opinions; For than it should follow, that some doubt might be made of St. Paul's Doctrine, because opinions are ever doubtful and uncertain; The truth is Hetrodox, the opinion of the Signory is not found in St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews: Obey them that have the oversight of you, 
Hebr. 13.17.  and submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account for your Souls: Now against this Doctrine, which goes not in the Church for an opinion, but for a most certain Article of Catholic Faith, your Lords of Venice deceived by such as yourself, no DD. but Seducers, are precipitated in these days, and carried headlong as it were down the stream.  
Moreover, you affirm that Priests ought not in any wise to make a rent or separation from their Head the Prince; What can a Protestant Heretic of England say more? Who ever heard, that a Secular Prince is the Head of Priests, and consequently Head of the Church, but since Henry VIII. turned Rebel to the Pope, and caused himself to be styled 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 only of Manners.  
Besides, you highly extol the Ecclesiastics of Venice, in being most ready to lay down 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 quarrel of a Prince, by whom they are compelled to commit Sacrilege, and to disobey the Vicar of Christ; The Saints, till now, have been commended in the liturgy, 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 Eternal rewards: From henceforth by like, the Hymn 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 Triumphant Champions, who have contemned God, to keep and observe the Precepts of Princes; at least if we shall believe these new Doctors.  
Again, The Lords of Venice (you affirm) have commanded the Religions upon pain of death to keep their Churches upon, and to celebrate all Divine Offices, that vain fear might not cause nor bring them to be intermitted in that City, most Catholic in all former Ages, and now professing to continue Catholic more than 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 than Sacrifice, and to hearken is better than the Sacrifice of Rams; for Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and transgression is wickedness and Idolatry: If you shall reply, that Samuel there speaks of obedience to God; hear what our Lord saith in the Gospel: He that heareth you heareth me, 
Luke 10.  and he 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 Christ's own Vicar, can not be pleasing unto Christ himself, they cannot appease and pacify, 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.  
Again, you puts us in mind to peruse the Doctrine of Navarrus, and are bold to affirm, That Navarrus makes for your side in all that before hath been 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 God's Law, but by Privilege of Secular Princes, in whom there is full power to retract, diminish, dilate, and amplify the said privileges 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 works are extant in print, and read of all men, I refer myself to the Readers judgement: But Sir, that Secular Princes by any power of their own, may retract or diminish the Privileges of Exemption granted to Ecclesiastical persons; that's a Doctrine so false and so new, that by Conarrwias' himself, an Author of all other least favourable to Ecclesiastical Exemption, it is in Specie reproved and condemned; Thus have I fully satisfied, if I be not greatly deceived, all your Objections in your own conceit, worthy to be highly prized, and had in great Estimation, if not Admiration.  
Now comes my turn to advise, to exhort, and to beseech (as with my best heart I do) the most noble Republic, and her most excellent Prince, deeply to weigh and consider in their most grave and incomparable wisdom 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 constrain or command Ecclesiastics not to keep and observe the Interdict? When he pronounceth Clerics and Monks are exempted from the power of Secular Princes, 
Cap. Novit. de judiciu. notab. 6. nu. 30.  by God's Law, as touching Criminal & Spiritual Causes, with others of the like nature, annexed to clerical 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 Monks in prison, or presumes in a Criminal cause to judge either of both, sinneth against God's Law, he sinneth likewise against God's Law, when he commands Clerics or Monks to say Mass or Divine Service, because these things are Spiritual: and lastly he sinneth against God's Law, if he attempt to annul, or to diminish Exemption granted to Clerics or Monks by Almighty God: Thus the Lords of Venice may see, how falsely they have been instructed by some of their own 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 reins of liberty to put in print certain Librets or small Pamphlets of like matter and stuff, but all farced and stuffed with Novelties and lies; Again I exhort and beseech all Ecclesiastics to think that none can bear more ardent, sincere, and indulgent affection to the Child, than the natural Parents, Father, and Mother, that howsoever they have (as Paul speaketh) many Paedagogues, Teachers, or Schoolmasters, yet but one Father: Their Mother is the holy Roman Church, their Father is the High Priest or chief Bishop, by whom (in Christ's place) they have had their Nursing and Education, until they are now grown great, and capable of the Inheritance of the Celestial Paradise; They are therefore to presuppose this Mother, and this Father wish and work for their building up in Faith, in Truth, in all wholesome Doctrine, much more than these Paedagogues, who teach them Rules and Lessons backwards, by that order commonly called Arsie-varsie; Last of all, I exhort and beseech, not only the said Lords, but all Ecclesiastics in the Venetian Government and Territorie, well to consider and think upon God's Judgements, which many times he brings the highest and stoutest Princes to feel even in this life.  
Pope Gregory VII. for the sins of King Boneslaus interdicted the whole Kingdom of Polonia, excommunicated the King, and deprived him of the Regal Title; The King persisted indurate and impenitent; God punished the King; first by making him underprised or despised by his own 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 Kingdom, with great dissensions and seditions in the rest; This Medicine also took no effect; God sent a third scourge, made the King run as it were out of his wits, wander thorough Woods and wild Forests of Chase with his pack, or kernel of hounds at his heels, fall down suddenly dead, and suddenly to be devoured by his own dogs: Such was the horrible end of this King for despising the Excommunication and Interdict of Christ's Vicar, though the King never had the heart, never presumed to command the Interdict should not be observed by his people or Subjects: The Emperor 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 died, without any time to be absolved of his sins, and from the said Censures; The same God is now that was then, and of the same Omnipotency which then he had: So that if Almighty God hath so severely and rigorously punished those, who forced not others to despise the Discipline and Censures of the Church, but only have themselves in their own persons despised the power and Authority of the Keys; What marvel, if in these times present he shall punish those, who not only themselves despise the said Censures, but likewise by threatening of death, compel and enforce their Subjects to despise the same; Let us therefore be obedient to the voice of the Holy Ghost in the Psalms: 
Psal. Ps. Ps.  To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, and elsewhere, Touch not mine Anointed; and yet elsewhere, Be wise now therefore ye Kings, be l●●●ed ye Judges of the Earth; lay fast hold on Instruction, lest he be angry, and ye perish in the way.  
Orthodox. There speaks, not an Angel, 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 drawn out of false Principles, which you have battered with your Pieces down to the ground: No such matter Sir, they stand as firm and steadfast as ever they did; There is no necessity to make repetition of my former Defence, and therefore I will hasten to make Demonstration of your Errors.  
1. You confound two several Actions of great Disparity, the Action of a Superior Judge; who in the Tribunal Seat of Justice, doth judge the Sentence of another Judge, inferior and subject unto himself, to be void and of none effect; and the action of a private person, who thinks and holds the same sentence of the same Judge to be of no validity, because he judges it such by certain evidence and assurance concerning the Nullity thereof: The first Juridical Action cannot be exercised, but by one to whom the foresaid Authority and Superiority doth properly belong: the other Action may be exercised by any one of mean and common judgement: Now Sir, the Prince of Venice doth judge, esteem and hold the Censures of his Holiness to be forceless and fectlesse, not as Judges Superior to the Pope in Causes of that Nature, but as those to whom it is lawful and permitted by the clear and manifest evidence of the Fact itself, to hold and esteem them for no better: This being lawful for all private persons, must needs be much more lawful in Princes for the conservation of Liberty, Peace, and Religion in their several States.  
2. Whether a Sentence be unjust and in state of mere Nullity 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 only affirm, That he should be credited, who discovers and manifests the truth of his Assertions by certain and evident reasons; And in so doing he doth not sin or offend, because he doth not any thing unlawful or unpermitted: Neither can any power whatsoever control or curb his judgement, and restrain his free opinion, from affirming a thing to be certain, whensoever by the certainty and evidence of strong reasons he is induced to affirm 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, nevertheless they may in public declare their grief and sorrow for such injustice, and yet shall remain quit from any 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 lawful for them, not only to hold and affirm the said Censure to be invalid and unjust by the clear evidence of the Fact, but also to refrain 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 scandal to the Church, or State, or other private persons: you shall not now hear anything of mine own invention, Head, or Brain, but only wha● with mine Ears I have heard the scandalized people not mutter and mumble between the teeth, but manifest in bread terms of Speech; The people say that some few Religions in the City should not prefer and prise their own judgement above or before the Cathedral 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 condemn others, no less learned and Religious than they presumed or persuaded themselves to be: Secondly, that little handful of Religious forsook the City, as men ambitiously gasping after Chapters and Bishoprics, to gain and purchase grace at his Holiness hands, and not as men thinking and in truth persuaded the cause to be just on the Pope's part: Thirdly, that whereas the Religious had been always before defended, protected, and succoured in all their necessities by the Prince, they did ill to declare themselves wanting in Loyalty and Fidelity to the Prince in a Temporal cause, and wherein the Prince himself 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 Heretics, (partly Ethmics, partly Excommunicate) to reduce and bring them unto the lap of the Church, and now, behold they departed from the Faithful, unjustly excommunicated and interdicted: Fiftly, that if all the Religious had followed the example of those few in abandoning their Pastoral charges, the Venetian Dominion should have been left for a Country of Paganism, 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 sheep and Lambs of Christ: Last of all, the occasion of this great scandal was augmented by some temerarious, and over-confident Bravodoes' in speech, cast out by the said Religious, that his Holiness the Pope is the Monarch of Christendom, and aught in all things, whether Temporal or Spiritual, to be obeyed by whomsoever: These are scandals (to speak truth) inexcusable; which in case they do not spring from the blindness 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 Natural Prince, and concurrence in his Defence is by God's Law, and the holy Father's sentence by man's Law; and nevertheless without any reason, you deny the consequence, that Subjects have done well and taken the right course in obeying their Prince, rather than the Sentence of the Pope: The instance which you induce is of no more force or weight than your first Answer: For thus you infer; If it be according to God's Law for Subjects to defend the Liberty of their Natural Prince on Earth, much more it is according to God's Law to defend the liberty of the Church, the Spouse of the Prince in Heaven: It is a true Inference I confess, but nothing pertinent or proper to the present case, because the Lords of Venice never pretended to rob the Church of any Right or Liberty whatsoever: For the Lords leaving all things in their entire strength, do enact most just Laws and ordinary judgements, touching Delicts and Goods which are subject unto their power; This they have always done time out of mind, and yet never any of this present Pope's predecessors hath taken stomach against our Lords for such their Acts, but rather by connivance or  silence hath yielded gracious consent to their just operations: So that in Venice there being none that goeth about or seeks to deprive the Church of any Liberty, how can the Ecclesiastics there have any occasion to defend the said Liberty?  
5. You again confound the word Duke, and the word Prince; The Duke doth not any thing of himself in the Venetian State, the Prince, that is, the Republic sets down all Orders, the Prince makes all the Laws: To what purpose then should you seek to draw the person of the Duke into any odious hatred by putting the Duke to be the Author of those Acts, which are to be attributed unto the whole Republic, as unto the true Father and Mother of the said Acts.  
6. You affirm, the Prince of Venice commits to prison such as have ho rank amongst his own Subjects; The contrary hath been already proved, that Clerics in grievous Delicts, which touch not so much as the hem of Spirituals, are not exempted, so that by consequence they are in the rank of Subjects, as also it hath been showed before, that the liberty left by Christ our Lord unto the Church, is the liberty of the Spirit, and from the bondage or slavery of sin.  
7. The Laws now in question, made by the Lords of Venice, you say are against Justice and Piety: For this Opposition I will turn you over, and refer 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 Ecclesiastical Sentences, as touching power, are by God's Law; This will not be denied or gainsaid, so long as they marshal themselves within their own bounds and territories; but when they fall to range out of their own Religion or Limits, and to lash those who justly stand upon the practice of their own Temporal and lawful power; then they are not only by God's Law in respect of their power, but directly opposite unto the Law of God, and flat against all reason.  
9 You grant and confess the present Controversy stands not in point of Faith, but in matter of Manners; Then you subjoin that, which neither yourself nor any other hath not proved, nor shall ever by God's grace be able to prove, that in the Books written by such as hold and maintain the opinion of the Republic, there are to be found sundry Errors in Faith: An Error in Faith is, when one affirms a point of Doctrine, contrary either to sacred Scripture, or to the definitive judgement of the Church, which cannot err tanquam de Fide; This no man living shall be able to prove, hath at any time been taught by such as have defended, or now do maintain the cause of the Republic: When matters are debated of so great importance, it is not lawful to hang a Priest in generals; If the Disputant seek or think men should give him Faith and Credit, without all hesitation, he must come to the particulars; In the mean time, so long as the parties offended are reproved by others, and no just cause at all showed of the said Reproof, they have reason to believe the said Reproof will result and turn 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, etc. Let every Soul be subject unto the higher Powers; but the Conclusion is a certain opinion grounded upon all that hath been said before: I have not said, the Principle taught by St. Paul is an opinion, but have only said, that opinion is most certain, which is grounded upon a Principle of Faith, taught by the Divine Apostle; And so the sharp subtlety, or subtle sharpness of this your opposition vanisheth like smoke in the vast Region of the Air.  
11. St. Paul's text, Obey them that have the overfight of you, and submit yourselves, for they watch for your Souls, as they that must give account for your Souls; you understand to enjoin obedience unto Spiritual overseers in all things or matters whatsoever; whereas the Apostle (by whom this lesson had been taught before concerning Temporal Princes, Let every Soul be subject unto the higher Powers) to the end he might not go cross or speak in terms of contradiction, that former Principle is understood by all writers on that place to the Hebrews, to treat of Spiritual power, and over Souls: This appears by the account which the said Prelates must render unto God, namely an account for the Souls of the people, not for their Goods or other Temporal matters.  
12. I never speak 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 than many Titles and Ties: Let men read over the 23. Homily of St. chrysostom upon the Epistle to the Romans: But Protestants tell another tale, and sing in another Key; Namely, that a Prince Temporal is likewise Head in Spirituals, but I for my part dare not go so fare: The end of any operation (which makes the operation good and laudable) is over the principal, not secondary and consequent, according to the common Doctrine of Divines: For Example; Our Lord Christ desired to die, and voluntarily exposed himself to death, even the death of the Cross; This death could not follow, if Judas, Pilate, the Scribes and Pharisees had not sinned; This notwithstanding, no man must or dare affirm, their sin was the end of Christ's death or suffering, and that his work of immense love did merit any blame at all, for and in respect of their wicked and sinful action: For to determine the goodness and justice of an Operation, then reckoning must not be drawn from the secondary, but only from the primary and Principal end: In like manner say I, the Subjects end is to perform obedience unto his Temporal Prince in those things which may justly and lawfully be commanded by the Prince; The Subject cannot perform such duties enjoined by his Prince, without renouncing his obedience to the Pope's invalide and void Sentences: In this case it must not be said, the Subjects Action is to despise the Pope, or to contemn his Papal Authority; For the Subject's end is to obey him, whom he is bound to obey, and by whom he is lawfully commanded; his end is not in any wise to despise the Holy Father, and his Censures, which nevertheless upon a necessary consequence he doth not observe, as one preferring the Superior and primary 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 Natural and lawful Prince, are holy Martyrs, but only that in so doing, they do not ill, but rather well; neither can it be said of such good and faithful Subjects, These are the noble and triumphant Champions, who have contemned God to keep the commands of Princes, but rather, These are the victorious and triumphant Conquerors, who to keep God's commandments have obeyed their Princes.  
14. You confound the name of God with the name of Man; Samuel speaks of God's name, 
Hebr. 5.  who cannot err; I speak of man's 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 own power, than they are to be heard, then to be obeyed; St. Paul himself otherwise had strayed from the right way when he 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 embraced the Doctrine of John XXII. had not done amiss; and yet his Doctrine was manifest and notorious Heresy; For he affirmed the Souls of the blessed Saints did not see the face of God so soon as they departed out of the Body, but were to expect and stay for the sight of God until the last Judgement: John XXII. held this Heretical opinion, as Pope Adrian VI and Gerson have directly delivered: Lastly, to what purpose do the Summists affirm, That invalide and void sentences ought not to be observed, if the Pope's voice, 
Gers. serm. de Assump.  or the voice of inferior Prelates can justly challenge to be observed in all things? yea, our blessed Saviour would have the Doctrine of men to be well tried like Gold, and well sifted like Meal; 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 own humane fancies of new Doctrine doth admonish Timothy his Disciple, that he should not be like unto those Teachers; All Teachers therefore are not to be heard, and in all matters, but only 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 Privileges a false and new Doctrine: It is nothing so; you know that Popes every day do the like, by their Spiritual power: What shall then let a Temporal Prince to do the same by his Temporal power? Conarrwias and Sotus are to be understood with the word Ordinarily, and out of the case of necessity; For in case of necessity, for Example, To rebutte and repel force; (for so speaketh Sotus) or in other cases of necessity (and so speak all those who treat of Privileges) my Doctrine and Assertion is uncontrollable 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 and a Christian; but a Christian remaineth subject unto the Lay-Prince; Ergo, much more a Christian, entered once into clerical 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 man's Law. Thus Navarrus, from the number which you Hetrodox have cited, until the Reader comes to the Corollary.  
17. It is very true, That when Subjects are prohibited to keep a valide and effectual Interdict, it is a sin; 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, we 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 keep and observe any interdict, except it hath been denounced.  
Secunda, Neque 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 keep an interdict, which in itself 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 Cathedral Church.  
Tertia, Interdictum est nullum regulariter in eisdem Casibus in quibus est nulla excommunicatio; An interdict is regularly none in itself, 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 contains an intolerable error; 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, etc. Invalide or no Excommunication works none effect, neither in the inward, nor in the outward Court, save that it binds the excommunicate person to the observation thereof, until the people may be really persuaded of the nullity thereof, for the avoiding of scandal.  
6. Sexta, Idem dicendum de suspensione, & interdicto nullo, quod dictum est de Excommunicatione nullâ, The same is to be pronounced of invalid suspensions and interdicts, that hath been asserted and averred of invalide Excommunications.  
Now the Venetian Prince having commanded an Action of virtue; namely, the non-observing of a non-interdict quod vergebat in periculum Divini cultus & Religionis, which tended to the manifest hazard and danger of God's Worship and Religion: Surely, they have not sinned, but have observed the Doctrine of Navarrus to a hair.  
18. None of us deny the Pope, or chief Bishop, to be the Vicar of our Father in Heaven for Spiritual Causes: but we say moreover, The Prince is the Father of the People in Temporal Causes; and withal, That as the Son hath reason to disobey the Father, who seeks 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 Prince's Father in Spirituals) when the Bishop pretends to deprive him of his Temporal Goods and Jurisdiction.  
19 The Lord Cardinal 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 Cardinal 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 less a child to be taught his primer; 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 wisdom, they always aim at Justice and Piety, they have no need of any to teach them lessons in Temporal Affairs, or in the Government of their States and Subjects; they are over all Christendom not only reputed, but also renowned for most wise and prudent Senators: What is written by some Authors on their behalf, 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 Pedagogue with the name of Doctor; whereas by Cicero in his Dialogue de Amicitiâ, they are distinguished: For, the name of Pedagogue 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 Doctor's Chair. I know not one Pedagogue that hath set pen to paper in the defence of the Republics cause; but many famous and eminent Doctors, with whole Colleges, have taken the pains 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 fowl 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 days, as King Boneslaus died, or should have been so unhappily poisoned, as Bavarus was (not dying of any sudden death as you pretend.) I wonder how the most Christian Kings, Philip the Fair, and Lewis XII. could escape the like miserable deaths and unfortunate ends: nay, how their whole Kingdom did not perish in like manner: Now, that not falling out in the same unfortunate manner, it is a manifest sign; 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 Temporal Princes: what can you say for john XII. He excommunicated the Bishops, by whom his cause had been discussed, by Commission from Otho 1. Emperor: The Bishops did not obey, they declared the Nullity of his Excommunicatory Sentence. Have you read at any time, that any one of that Council 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 wand'ring (no less than Boneslaus) for some space of time, thorough the wild woods, with wild and savage Beasts. The other Example is of Pope Boniface VIII. He excommunicated the French King; Philip the Fair, and interdicted his whole Kingdom: the King scorned the Pope's Bull, or Breve of Excommunication; The Pope thereat ●o stamped and stormed, so far took pepper in the nose for a medicine, that it burned up and consumed his Entrails (as may be supposed) his Bowels, and his very Heart; so that he died at last a miserable death: of whom Platina thus; Moritur hoc modo, etc. Thus died Boniface; He, whose care and study was to tame and trample upon Emperors, Kings, Princes, Nations, and People with terrors, rather than 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 we 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 faithful followers ruled, and choose 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 have 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 six day's Conference, concerning the Doctrine of eight Propositions, five in Thesis, three in Hypothesis; the same Doctrine is manifestly declared to be found, Catholic, and tr●e, conformable to divine and holy Scripture, to general Counsels, to sacred Canons, to imperial Constitutions, to the example of holy Popes, of most prudent Kings and Emperors, to the Doctrine of the holy Fathers, I and of those Catholic Doctors, who have written and printed since the sacred Council of Trent, by name Navarrus, Medina, Covarruvias, Victoria, Sotus, & Cornelius, Jansenius.  
That all those three Propositions, which make up the main of the controversy, are most certain and true, Catholic and most firmly founded, as extracted from the sweet Fountain of holy Scripture, from the goodly great Rivers of General Counsels; of sacred Canons, of Imperial Constitutions, of unreprovable Histories, of worthy Saints, and of Catholic Doctors. The three Propositions be these.  
1. The chief Bishop, Nudus a Donariis & Privilegiis Principum, & jure Pontificatus, as Navarrus writeth, and St. Barnard; that is to say, stripped and left naked of Princes, Donations, and privileges, and only measured by the right Pole of his Pontifical Priesthood, or high Priestly Dignity, nullam habet laicam Potestatem, can claim or challenge no kind of Laic-power, neither in the highest degree, nor in the middleward, nor in the lowest rank, neque actu, neque habitu, neither for Fact, nor Habit.  
2. In temporal matters, and in other Delicts Temporal, quae Spiritualia non attinent, having nothing to do with Spirituals (for that phrase is used by Covarruvias) 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 privileges of Princes themselves, or by Pontificial Canon, which the said Princes have received and admitted, or else by custom long approved.  
3. That a void and invalide Sentence, when there is a clear Constat of the Nullity, ought neither to be observed, nor so much as feared; So that of all the former Doctrine in this whole Defence, that may be averred of the Venetian Republic, which the Holy Ghost hath spoken of the white Dove in the Canticles, Et macula non est in te, and thou art without spot; most of all in those her two wings, I mean in the defence of her Catholic Religion, and of her liberty; which two Prerogatives proper to herself, 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 repair to lodging and rest; Glad would I be to understand Haet. 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 belief, wherein I came the first day to this Campe-fight, or single Combat: Howbeit, common civility commands to render due thanks 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 happiness to Orthodox, or joannes Marsilius Neapolitanus, the worthy Champion of Venice, and yet with a Salvando la querela, with a saving this learned quarrel, conference, or contention.   
FJNJS.